If I’m reading the decision right, it’s worth noticing that two of the concurring justices opined in writing that as Alabama state law stands currently (and by implication that of practically every other state in the union), the citizens interest in having only legally qualified candidates on ballots is not adequately supported given that specific mechanisms, powers or resources are not granted for the Secretary of State to investigate and ensure that qualifications are met.
In other words, of the nine justices, perhaps at least four feel that Alabama voters were and continue to be exposed to regrettable risks of what roughly amounts to disenfranchisement, given that unqualified candidates could be and may have been named on official ballots. Two of the four (including the Chief Justice) felt that the Secy. of State already has implicit responsibility to protect the integrity of the ballot, the other two pointed out shortcomings they feel need to be remedied in State law in order to explicitly engage the secy. of state in affirmatively verifying candidate qualifications.
I think the Alabama legislature ought to be moved to action. They should write a law that both assigns affirmative verification (and needed resources) to the Secretary of State, AND they should direct investigative resources and subpoena power toward prior questioned elections to determine whether in the recent past the citizens of that state have already been disenfranchised through the vaunting of an unqualified candidate by his or her political party.
The argument that it’s “too late now” and therefore moot, should no more be applied here than in the case of a murder. If the citizens of Alabama have been defrauded and cheated out of a right to vote by means of a clean ballot then why should that not now be discovered? Should the state not bring suit and seek recourse and censure against a political party who has sponsored the corrupting of a past ballot? Should the matter not at least be settled so far as informing the citizens as to whether or not their vote was subjected to a corrupt ballot and, if so, by whose doing?
Potentially robbing citizens of the right to a ballot with only legally qualified candidates is too great a crime for state governments to blithely look the other way. Alabama has admitted that it, like most states, has for all practical purposes a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy guiding its election practices. That must change!
Nobody wants to bell the hell cat.
All four of those justices agree that this case is moot because, once a Presidential election has been held, only Congress can investigate the qualifications of the winner. (Chief Justice Moore's dissent has a long discussion of this.) The issue was whether the SOS should investigate future candidates before they are placed on the ballot.
Thank you for your assessment. Legalese stuff always aggravates me so much plus I have a hard time wading through it, don’t have the right kind of brain.
Moving the State legislature to enact new legislation because the Judges are mimicking the "Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil" monkeys is the wrong course of action.
Better yet to inform the Judges that their decision is nonsensical, and the best way to accomplish this is impeachment hearings.
No new laws, just better Judges.
In CA the secretary of state refused to call for the birth certificate even though that office had previously removed Eldridge Cleaver from the ballot because his BC showed him to be to young.
No one has the balls.
And apparently, citizens don’t even have standing to call for an honest election.