[American Constitutionalist]

Pardon me if I am not correct, but in 2008, all the certification letters, forms that were sent to all 49 states were all the same except Hawaii's.
Hawaii's was a little different.
They left our the part where it was suppose to say " Constitutionally eligible " . The Democratic Party of Hawaii chair refused to certify Obama that year, but old Nancy Pelosi signed the documents anyway.
If anything that is fishy is going on, that, is that.

[bluecat6]

Each state has there own and in some cases, very different, rules for getting candidates on the ballot.

The issue in Hawaii is that state law REQUIRES a written certification BY THE PARTY. Actually many states do not require this.

I believe the ORIGINAL national letter from DNC did NOT contain the wording required by the state of Hawaii - at first! But as you point out a unique letter - just for Hawaii had to be created.

But Hawaii law does NOT specifically indicate that the NATIONAL party must provide the written (and signed) statement of eligibility. Hawaii law just says ‘party’. And usually the STATE party (HDP) submits the letter meeting Hawaii law. Except in 2008. Then head of HDP Brian Schatz submitted a letter that like Nancy Pelosi’s DNC original letter omitted the legally required wording on meeting Constitutional eligibility. This is called the OCON. This was apparently caught at some point.

Now ask this. Given the highly incestuous political environment in Hawaii if this was a simple mistake would not someone figure out a way to just fix the Brian Schatz letter and re-file it? It may not be exactly by the rules if someone did that to fix an innocent error - but the ultimate fix was not by any clear rule either. So why not fix this ‘oversight’ with a simple amended letter? Probably because Mr. Schatz is smart enough to not give up his chair when the music stops. At some point the music stops and truth comes out. And Mr. Schatz probably does not want his name on a letter declaring Obama to be eligible according to the Constitution. After all, Mr. Schatz has access behind the wizards curtain via a HDP lawyer who did Stanley Ann Dunhams divorce.

Enter Ms. Pelosi/DNC letter 2.0.

So Hawaii law says ‘the party’ will submit an OCON in writting and Schatz original letter fails criteria. So in the last minute the NATIONAL party updates its letter and in a special meeting Hawaii accepts this new letter as the OCON - effectively dicarding (for no formally stated reason) the Brian Schatz letter. The Schatz letter - that was formally submitted by the deadline and was SUPPOSED to meet Hawaii state law did not meet the law. It was either just plain invalid or an attempt to defraud the election commission and ‘slide one by’.

So not only did Hawaii get ‘the special’ DNC letter from Pelosi but they HAD to get it - since Schatz submitted a legally worthless document in apparent hopes of defrauding the election commission.

So now, when the music stops - does Pelosi have a chair?