CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS

Note: I copied the title of this posting and the information below from the newsletter I threw together on Thursday, 28 August 2008, and distributed via email that same day. Several people who read that newsletter have already begun to look up the laws in their states, and have contacted me with their questions. Some have forwarded legal cites, for interpretation. Given that this project is time-sensitive, I am throwing together this web blog to expedite the flow of information. Hope it works. From now on, post questions here; and I will answer these questions on the blog. (I wish I had more time to set all this up; but here goes.)

*******************************************************

CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS

Some weeks ago, investigators like Judah Benjamin (“JB”), who posted extensively on http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ and http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/ began filling the blogs with details of their work suggesting that BO might not a natural born citizen, making him ineligible to be POTUS under the Constitution. The reaction in the blogosphere was sudden and overwhelming. Now armed with information that indicated to them, perhaps BO is ineligible to hold the office of President; these frustrated voters chronicled their failed attempts to persuade someone, anyone, to intervene to prevent such an injustice: FBI, CIA, FEC, and the Democratic Party. And no one would listen. But I heard them and tried to figure out how to redress their complaints. I came up with this.

In order to run for President, the name of the Democratic candidate has to get onto the ballot in each state. Surely, there must be a requirement somewhere in the paperwork that acknowledges the person whose name is being submitted is eligible to hold the office for which he wants to run. I began with the laws in the state of TX, because on one of the sites I was reading, there were a lot of angry Texans. And, sure enough, there it was.

SUBCHAPTER B. PRESIDENTIAL AND VICEPRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

192.031. Party Candidate’s Entitlement to Place on Ballot

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 60th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president; and…

So, I started blogging, trying to spread the word: if you want to challenge BO’s eligibility to be POTUS, start with keeping him off the ballot in your state.

But I just learned that some of you were anticipating I would produce an action project to challenge BO’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballots in each of the several states. (Many of you participated in two other projects I initiated in an attempt to 1) hold HRC’s delegates until the Democratic Convention; and 2) conduct a bona fide open floor vote on the nomination, consistent with past practice.) I am initiating no such endeavor. But you can challenge him in your state. Start by calling your Secretary of State, who in most states is the person who oversees elections. And since challenging papers submitted to get onto the general election ballots of the states is date-sensitive, with dates that differ in each state; I put together many of the comments I posted on the noquarter site which, hopefully, will help to explain the rationale behind your action.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-02 23:38:00

I posted this last night, here and on texasdarlin (and puma pac blog).

**********************************************
I figured out how to contest BO’s eligibility to run for President, based on questions as to whether he is a natural born citizen!

Anyone wishing to appear on the ballot for President must register with the Secretaries of State in the individual states, according to their rules regarding numbers of signatures; and citizenship. The timetables for contesting the validity of ballot submissions are listed for each state. So, if BO manages to take the nomination in August then, his people will file paperwork to get him on the ballots of the 50 states. At this time, people can file individual challenges against his eligibility with the individual Secretaries of State.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-03 01:50:47

I wanted to clarify a few confusions in your comments, off the top of my head.

1. President is a federal office; and requirements to hold this office, which are contained in the U.S. Constitution, are also codified in federal law (U.S. Code).

2. Elections for the federal office of President are held in the several states under the auspices of the Secretary of State, part of the executive branch of government.

3. The state is responsible for promulgating the rules and regulations for conducting state elections, in compliance with all state and federal law.

4. Individual candidates or candidates representing political parties must satisfy filing requirements set by the state to appear on the ballot.

5. Eligibility challenges to ballot submissions can be made by interested parties (usually voters in the state) or by the Secretary sua sponte, that is, on her own. In other words, you could argue to her that BO does not belong on the ballot; or she could refuse to put him there. One could argue that appeals, by you or BO, of adverse decisions to eligibility challenges could proceed in either state or federal court (judicial branch of government), in the individual state.

Any case involving ballot challenges, filed in either federal or state court, would receive expedited hearings. If federal courts take jurisdiction, on the basis that federal laws defining eligibility requirements are at the heart of this conflict; or that multiple states are implicated in the dispute, then they could combine all pending ballot challenges in one case. (This would most likely be heard by the DC Circuit.)

Enough. I will read all these comments and write more tomorrow.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-05 15:12:30

This is why we need to pay more attention in school.

The FEC is entrusted to oversee the financing of elections.

Elections take place in states.

States, through executive officers, usually the Secretary of State, promulgate rules and regulations for conducting elections and for running for state and federal office, including POTUS.

In order to qualify to get on the ballot in Massachusetts, for example, to run for U.S. Senator, you must be a U.S. citizen for 9 years; for U.S. Representative, you must be a U.S. citizen for 7 years.

Challenges to ballot nominations must be made by registered voters in that state. Reasons for past challenges have included forged signatures, candidate does not meet legal requirements, signers not registered voter

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-10 01:40:02

Even assuming BO at one time satisfied both requirements for POTUS, that is, both natural born and, a citizen; once he was adopted by an Indonesian national, he became a citizen of Indonesia. When it comes to determining status of a person who can be said to have dual nationality, U.S. law defers to the law of the foreign sovereign. Thus, whether BO, having been adopted by an Indonesian, can be said to be a U.S. citizen and thus eligible to become POTUS under the constitution, is determined, under U.S. law, whether such a result is allowed under the law of Indonesia. And, it isn’t; Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-10 02:41:16

If this wasn’t such a sick circumstance, thinking the problem through would be a great legal exercise. Here’s what I think, off the top of my head.

While procedures for challenge differ in each state, generally, the initial challenge is filed with an executive agency, for example, the S of S or Commissioner of Elections. There would be a hearing. Adverse rulings eventually would reach a state court and, perhaps onto federal appeals court. (Remember the 2000 election? That reached the U.S. Supreme Court.) Or, instead of going into state court, someone would go into federal court to certify the ‘class’ of people challenging BO’s eligibility get onto the ballot in the several states; and the federal court would hear the challenges.

Or, where state laws allow, this process could be circumvented if a voter in that state asked the appropriate state actor – either the AG or the state court – for an advisory opinion as to whether BO satisfies eligibility to get on the ballot.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-10 01:31:54

BO ELIGIBILITY TO GET ON STATE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT

Every state has its own statutes, codes, rules, and regulations for getting on the ballot in a general election. None of those deadlines for a presidential candidate from a major party, chosen at a convention, has passed. Consequently, the period for challenging the nomination papers submitted by that candidate – through his party – have not passed, either.

Here is a section of the law from Texas. (I looked up this state for someone on another site.)

Note that a political party is only entitled to put its candidate’s name on the ballot in a presidential general election if the nominee possesses the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law.

SUBCHAPTER B. PRESIDENTIAL AND VICEPRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

192.031. Party Candidate’s Entitlement to Place on Ballot

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 60th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president; and

(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and

(3) the party is:

(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/el019200.html

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-10 11:45:02

…depends. Some states allow the legal use of the name you are known by. However, the caveat is that, you may use this name only when no fraud is intended.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-12 16:37:45

Know your government.

People appear to be so frustrated with their inability to redress what they suspect is BO’s ineligibility to be POTUS, they are grasping at straws. But as far as his involvement in this election goes, at this point, if he is only ineligible to be POTUS, no government actor has jurisdiction to do anything about it. However, he can trigger governmental scrutiny if he commits an affirmative act, for example, signing a document to get on the ballot swearing he is eligible to be POTUS (as opposed to having the DNC sign this for him).

As for his legal status in this country otherwise, there is always the INS.

FEC Mission and History

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.
http://www.fec.gov/

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-15 01:52:43

I already told you, in relation to the general election, the issue of BO’s eligibility for POTUS is not ripe until BO – assuming he is the nominee – files the papers to get on the general election ballot in each state, which happens after the convention. Some states require ballot submissions within 24 hours after the nominating convention; most allow more time. But challenges must be filed shortly – sometimes, within 3 days – after that. So, if you think BO will be nominated but, you do not think he is eligible for POTUS, you had better begin setting up your spread sheets now, with state general election ballot filing deadlines; challenge deadlines; and process for filing a challenge. Also, look up what is the burden of proof in each state. For example, in NC, the burden of proof is on the ‘candidate’ undergoing the challenge to prove he is eligible.

Stop talking and get to work.

Comment by jbjd | 2008-08-12 16:29:03

It is not too late to challenge BO’s eligibility to get on the general election ballot, in any state. If, after reading the laws from any particular state, you conclude the deadline for challenge has passed, you read the wrong law. First, use your common sense. How can the name of the party candidate put forward for POTUS already be certified on state ballots when the party candidate is not known until after votes are counted at the convention? In fact, state laws for candidates from major parties, chosen at nominating conventions, specify the filing deadline for getting onto the ballot in the general election is some date/time after that nominating convention. The challenge window is shortly thereafter, also specified in law.

Advertisements

6 Responses to CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR POTUS

  1. mcr33 says:

    An update on the lawsuit can be found on: http://www.nobamanetwork.com/

  2. […] the problems that plagued the 2008 election cycle from repeating themselves in 2012.  Again, 1) they are stealing from me; and, as usual, 2) they don’t know what they are talking about.  So, in the best interest of […]

  3. […] PLEASE, LEST YOU ARE TEMPTED AT THE OUTSET OF MY ANALYSIS TO COMPARE, CONTRAST, OR CHALLENGE RESPECTIVE CREDENTIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC BY US ON-LINE PUNDITS; STOP! I have asked readers to consider our respective legitimacy only by examining on-line track records based on criteria that include reliability of analysis, and accurate reporting of facts, a feat which can be accomplished even absent full access to the particulars in his or her CV. (Let’s start with this fact. The legal and political analyses of issues related to presidential eligibility which I began in 2008 in response to voter concerns, led me to recommend at that time, given existing state laws, the mechanism for keeping Barack Obama out of the WH was to keep his name off the state election ballot. Leo only accessed this mechanism for redress of the eligibility dilemma, 3 1/2 years after the fact.) CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE F…) […]

  4. […] eligibility issue on such things as privileged private documents or paid political advertisements. As I told you way back in the summer of 2008; it’s all about getting on the ballot. Trust me; it’s never too late to become a civic citizen, even if in your state, it’s […]

  5. […] then, the only way to keep him out of office is to keep his name off the general election ballot. CHALLENGING BO’S ELIGIBILITY TO GET ONTO THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE F…  “In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: