Arizona Birth Certificate Law

[swansont]

If a candidate failed to submit required documents or the secretary of state deemed them insufficient, the candidate would not be listed on Arizona's ballot.

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/04/14/20110414arizona-lawmakers-approve-proof-of-citizenship-to-run-for-president.html

 

It seems to me that if they require anything beyond what the issuing state requires, this can't pass constitutional muster. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." So if Hawaii is satisfied that Obama was born there (to pick a random example), Arizona can't demand more evidence. Am I missing something?

[jackson33]

Yes and No, IMO; States can determine what requirements are for any number of things. including who is on their ballot, although requirements MUST be the same for all applicants and what's required in one State is not material to what other States require. Since your talking about Obama and they are probably as well, if the Hawaii Certificate of Birth, can be legally proved invalid in Arizona, which is a viable argument (Texas, doesn't accept their own such certificates in some cases), then they would have cause for the action. They could also use "extenuating circumstances" in being on the ballot for the only job in the US requirement being a Citizen BY BIRTH, which if effect is questioning ALL States authority to "not require" such proof, in this case. For instance here, States do require additional proof, for the running US Congress or State Office, where residency laws are applicable. Do I think these argument will hold muster, be validated in the Courts, NO because my own arguments are to weak for a State to use or said another way your correct, what's already accepted by tradition will generally win out.

[lemur]

You're missing that documentation-requirements could be expanding to the level of inter-Bantu regional control in Apartheid SA. Of course, considering EU member-state governments maintain rigorous identity-controls (as far as I know), maybe this is just a move in that direction.

[Marat]

There is certainly a tension between the duty of U.S. states to give full faith and credence to certain assertions of other states and the primary right of each U.S. state to conduct its own election of Presidential Electors. Essentially the national election is actually an election state-by-state, with the results of all the state elections being determined only when the Electors meet and then later when the results are certified before the Senate. Since this gives a very high priority to the right of each state to set its own rules for its own election, that might incline a court to recognize the constitutionality of a state law governing the legitimacy of candidates. After all, each state sets its own criteria now for what candidates' names are printed on the ballot, and for a third-party candidate this can mean having to collect 3% of the registered voters' signatures in Massachusetts to get on the ballot and many fewer in another state.

 

While blocking a candidate's name from being printed on the ballot by some special state rule might be easier, it could well be much more difficult to prevent votes written in on the ballot for that candidate from being counted in a state, since here the protections of voting rights in the federal Constitution would more clearly come into operation.

 

While there is a general principle of state's giving full faith and credence to offical acts of other states, there are already recognized limits to this principle in private law. Thus an insurance company licensed in state X with a certain capital might be found insufficiently capitalized to be licensed in state Y, so the certification of state X would not be accorded credence in state Y. Similar problems have arisen historically with marriage, especially when some states recognized interracial marriages and others didn't.

[swansont]

Moot, for now, since the governor vetoed the bill.

 

Too crazy, even for Arizona™

[lemur]

I hope this isn't too off-topic but I'm surprised that it doesn't violate some kind of harassment law to publicly chastise someone about the validity of their birth-certificate. Surely if an employer had questions about a birth-certificate, they would notify the employee and then contact the appropriate agencies. I think if the employer went around publicly defaming the "suspect" among their colleagues and the general public, the employee would have cause for complaint.

[Marat]

The U.S. libel laws are quite generous in the range of critical comments they permit about anyone who counts as a 'public figure' (cf. New York Times v. Sullivan). Usually the courts extend a strong protection to people against those making comments which impugn their professional competence if they are members of a profession, so since Obama is now exercising the profession of being President, anything that impeaches his standing to occupy that role harms his professional capacity and could be the basis of a claim for damages. But all of this would come into play only if the issue were not already covered by the public figure exemption. In any case, it is usually considered beneath the dignity of politicians in the U.S., though not in other democracies, to sue for libel, given the natural contentiousness of the political process.