Submitted by: John Butler
11 states now developing eligibility proof demands for 2012
11 states now developing eligibility proof demands for 2012
11 states now developing eligibility proof demands for 2012
Connecticut , SB291 require “that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.” That is needed to make sure the candidate “is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.”
Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.
Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution’s requirements for the president.
Maine , LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, “A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s driver’s license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.”
Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates “shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship.”
Nebraska , LB654, the certification for candidates would “include affidavits and supporting documentation.”
That paperwork would need to document they meet the “eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States .” It requires an affidavit that says: “I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America , owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth.”
Montana ’s plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.
Oklahoma , SB91 would require “proof of citizenship for certain candidates” and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an “original” birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.
Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”
Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates’ documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”
Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
Of special interest from the above listing is Georgia ’s HB 37 language regarding “standing” (or, the right to bring a question before the Court of competent jurisdiction) by common citizens regarding eligibility:
Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates by the Secretary of State using the procedures provided in Code Section 21-2-5.
What is wrong with you people in the United States.... Of course your elections have fraud... I think you are the only country anywhere that gets away with voting without showing proof of who you are... WOW!!! Time to get with the program... You all are looking like you are very stupid!!!
ReplyDeleteI tetally agree with the person who made the comment above! It is the Liberals that almost demand that there be no I.D. required as that is how they remain in office! The sooner we ID the dsooner we give an honest vote! Pastor Lee
ReplyDelete