Skip to comments.Arizona Ballot Access Law vs Brewer's Excuse for Veto
Posted on 04/19/2011 5:38:28 AM PDT by Cboldt
Governor Brewer's "I do not support designating one person as a gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate" doesn't hold water.
Under current Arizona law, the Secretary of State is the sole and solitary gatekeeper of the "qualification check" function, for those who seek the office of president of the United States.
Arizona Statutes: 16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper
A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper ...
C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.
The simple removal of paragraph "C" from the Arizona ballot qualification statute, 16-242, would enable challenges to qualification to be heard in a court of law, with whatever evidence is required to satisfy the judge.
Arizona Statutes: 16-351 Limitations on appeals of validity of nomination petitions; disqualification of candidate
B. Any elector [voter] may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.
The law should have beeen revised to allow the SOS to send to the legislature and governor any serious concerns regarding the vetting of a presidential candidate so that the reports could be debated and voted on. That would have been enough to allay the governor’s concerns about “one person” controlling the results.
This is disappointing indeed. Of course, before Brewer took on the Obama Administration over the border, she did not have a sparkling conservative track record. Arizona is a little like SC, in that it is such a conservative state that the leadership tends to get comfortably moderate because they’ll almost always win elections anyway. Funny how that works out sometimes. And sad.
I think she fabricated that excuse, counting on public ignorance of Arizona law. The Secretary of State has the power that she says it shouldn't have. I think the real reason she is against probing the qualifications is that 1) she doesn't want the qualification criteria "natural born citizen" to be debated, and 2) she made an official determination, as AZ Secretary of State, that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
-- The law should have beeen revised to allow the SOS to send to the legislature and governor any serious concerns regarding the vetting of a presidential candidate --
A formal mechanism like that might be preferable to litigation. I don't trust the courts either, but between all the liars, I give the courts more of a shot than the governor (See Jan Brewer).
But of course, the Secretary of State has staff counsel, and is free to raise questions as he/she sees fit in an informal way.
Very interesting point about Brewer as SOS.
Supposedly, the Arizona legislature passed the bill by sufficient margins to over-ride a veto by the Governor.
Let’s see what they do now.
Traitors in our midst. They’re everywhere!
Here is Brewer’s largest problem. Fron Wiki Brewer was “Born in California” that alone makes her suspect.
Arizona can still VETO OVERRIDE brewer.
Here’s hoping that they do veto override Brewer.
I really like Brewer. Does she do everything exactly as I would like? Well, no. But she is a spunky one and I support her whole-heartedly. If all our governors were as courageous as she is, the US would be in great shape.
“Traitors in our midst. Theyre everywhere!”
That’s what I was thinking.
With all due respect to the “traitor” comment — that sort of blurs the line between those who are flawed and those who are traitors. Brewer is flawed. McCain is a traitor. Let’s maintain that very important distinction and not cheapen terms like traitor or RINO etc. Flawed means what it means.
I expect to have policy differences with just about anybody. And like you, I like animated personalities and a hearty "get-R-done" attitude.
I think the observations in the OP are valid, just the same. Brewer has proffered a reason to veto the "birther bill," in that it puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. She, as a recent Secretary of State of Arizona, KNOWS that this office has the duty to certify presidential candidates as qualified - she herself did this. The rationale she's fronting is a crock, and she knows it's a crock.
We're all stuck with speculation as to the real reason she vetoed the birther bill.
Going forward, the Arizona legislature has the issue back on their desk, and I thought it would be useful for the public to be better informed about how AZ law is currently structured. I suggest that my proposed legislative solution is simple, and workable. Give the public the statutory right to challenge the qualifications of presidential candidates, just as they currently have for all other candidates. The legislature can omit all the details of how one proves "qualified," all that "circumcision papers" and other statutory detail can be omitted.
As I see it, there’s the distinct possibility that someone is running our country who has no constitutional right to sit in that office. If so, this would be a constitutional crisis and scandal of the highest order. If not, the least the American public deserves is an explanation why verifiable details regarding Obama’s citizenship have not been made public.
In this, we are faced with jeering contempt from half of our citizens (the left, needless to say), a media blackout, and the will of every elected (or appointed) leftist politician or judge to bury this issue as quickly as possible.
Some on our side, in an attempt to undercut this wall of silence, think it’s a good idea for the states to pass eligibility laws. “Okay... you’re not going to give us any information now, Obama? We’ll make it law that you have to give us the information if you plan to run again.”
Sounds like a good idea, right? Getting Obama out of office and saving what may be left of our country in two years?
So, why would someone who calls themselves a Republican POSSIBLY come out and undercut all this, and why should we not consider that traitorous to our party, beliefs and goals?
It just proves the GOP and the dem elites are all in this together. I’ll never again vote for the lessor of two eviils.
Obama is president and will be president in 2013 because of people like Brewer and McCain and the Bushes.
IMHO all of the proposed laws dealing with candidate qualifications are valid and there is no reason to either vote against them or veto them.
Every state constitution designates their respective Secretary of State as the person/office responsible for their individual ballot integrity. i.e., the people listed on the ballet are real people and are qualified to run for the offices.
All these bills do is to reduce the latitude the individual Secretaries can employ in validating the candidates. That's right - REMOVES the ability for a SINGLE PERSON to decide who can and cannot be listed on the ballot.
In 2008, in Arizona, one person made that decision. Her decision was influenced by the MSM and the liberals. When this bill becomes law, in 2012, in Arizona, the decision as to who can be on the ballot will reflect the majority of the state legislators in 2010, not one person acting alone.
It’s the birther thing, to me — I am happy and thriled to have Donald Trump pushing into it, because I am very unsettled about obama in so many ways. At the same time, to have the governor take hold of it, front and center, and write it into law marginalizes her in some way.
It’s like fighting DC from the Secy of State’s office in AZ. It’s not the way it needs to be handled, and it puts her in this camp in a way that others will feel free to discount her. Her work and accomplishments have been much broader and more significant than the birther issue and I do not think she should join that subset.
Well, she's "taken ahold of it" by vetoing it. The function of the proposed law is to diversify or provide oversight to the entity that concludes "qualified." The law does that for every trial - the right of appeal. But in the case of ballot access for presidential candidates' names, AZ law give the SoS the unreviewable power to certify, "this person is qualified."
-- Her work and accomplishments have been much broader and more significant than the birther issue and I do not think she should join that subset. --
She can't avoid the argument by vetoing the bill, or by signing it. The question of how to determine and certify eligibility exists, as does the question of "what exactly constitutes 'natural born citizen'." Why would a reasonable person not want to clarify those questions and issues in the mind of the public?
Plus, I'm sure she can multitask, and I'm sure most of the public can handle candidates on the merits; as you noted, "on the merits" means you agree on some things, and disagree on others.