[DannyTN]

My thought is that rather than have the whereas recap all the failings of the system, like the judiciary, just go directly to the problem, that nobody checks the creditials of presidential candidates. You could even point out that a green card holder was on presidential ballots in some states distracting votes from legitimate candidates. But I think I would do that as supporting information and argument for the bill, rather than put it in the bill itself. As far as the other stuff that was mentioned by others, the SSN, and passports, etc. The more you add into it, the more ojbection you will have. I'd keep it as close to the minimum to verify Natural born status and eligibility as you could.

I liked that your's requires approval for all birth certificate records, that resolves getting the long form. What it doesn't do, and what none of the other legislation that I have seen does, is actually define what documents are acceptable or what Natural born citizenship means.

The Hawaiian short form shouldn't be considered evidence since it's not even acceptable to other government agencies. Without guidance as to what "Natural Born" means, state election officials may treat it as synonymous with citizenship. But at least your law, collects the necessary information and provides a method for a challenge.

[butterdezillion]

Yeah, we have to have a definition for “natural born citizen” before anybody can actually determine whether any specific individual qualifies as one. And this is going to come up; already there is talk about Jindahl and Rubio, and their eligibility would have to be resolved as well.

Somebody had suggested that a bill actually define the term, which would probably be challenged in the courts forcing the courts to rule on the definition. But it would also probably get the law thrown out, which would put us back to square one on requiring that eligibility be verified at the state level.

You brought up something else that I wanted some direction on also: how to go about “selling” this kind of bill to legislators. Everything that’s in this draft is a result of the crap that’s gone on. I tried my best to come up with easy, concrete ways to eliminate the possibility of corrupt bureaucrats messing with the documents, for instance, because the HDOH has been incredibly corrupt in all this. I tried to come up with language that would force both the SOS and the AG to take the concerns of “we the people” seriously and translate it into “standing” in the courts. Etc. I just wonder how much of all that history would be helpful for legislators to know as they consider whether a bill like this is necessary.

You’re probably right that the rationale or “selling points” might not need to be in the bill itself.