She does have another chance. This was just for the primary. After the party convention, they have to submit papers to the SOS indicating that is the candidate for the general election ( like the one Pelosi signed ). The SOS has to certify those papers.
You are right, of course. However, the lessons since 2008 are that the issue must be timely addressed. In my view, and subject to the advice of local counsel which Orly almost certainly has, that is Tuesday morning in NH and it would be to stop off at the NH AG’s office or the courthouse, or perhaps both.
Clearly, her objective has been to give the NH SOS reason to deny an apparently unqualified candidate access to the ballot and being blown off by a commission is not the end of it. It is now more apparent to me that she did timely file a written objection and one hopes she will update that writing on Monday to document the seemingly defective behavior of the Commission.
Most would probably agree the SOS will not deny access based on the public’s knowledge of a foreign father, or Minor and the subsequent cases; nor should one expect that an argument over allegedly false federal SS#'s will provide such a reason to the SOS.
However, under NH's statutory scheme the SOS does have, or ought to have, an interest in whether candidates perjure themselves when submitting nomination papers. Hopefully, Orly set out in her objection a logical argument supported by the affidavits of experts that not only has this candidate not ever produced authentic birth documents to the public but rather has resisted doing so in each of many law suits.
So the issue can be easily stated: Does a government which obligates its citizens to certify a fact under penalty of perjury have a) the right and obligation to investigate reasonably apparent violations of that obligation and b) the right and obligation to compel production of documents that cure such apparent violations?