Brewer did not explain it that way:
"As a former Secretary of State (sic), I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to artibrary or politically-motivated decisions," Brewer wrote in her veto message to House Speaker Kirk Adams.
"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President (sic) of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their "early baptismal or circumcision certificates" among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State. This is a bridge too far," Brewer wrote."
Brewer does not want any standards or if there are any standards under AZ law, she does not want a higher standard to vet presidential candidates. A bridge too far Jan??
No, no, no. I cannot say “no” emphatically enough.
The only part of this bill that mattered was the part that allowed legal residents or members of AZ’s House or Senate to challenge an eligibility decision in court. That is the very thing that would allow the transaction logs to be subpoenaed so that forgeries could be detected, and that would allow NBC to be defined in the courts.
This bill would do everything we need it to do. And it would make sure that a SOS could NOT make a decision based purely on politics. Brewer’s comment is the very reason why she should have SIGNED the bill.
Then who, law or not, is going to verify with a copy of the Long Form Birth Certificate, . who is going to 'check' this before a presidential candidate gets on the ballot? I ask who? Please, will someone at the state level check and see this is done, or do we just 'trust' that the DNC will do it for us? . . If not the SOS, whom?