Osama Bin Laden tries to get on the GA ballot. His pal, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) challenges it in court, presents an online image of a driver’s license for Bin Laden and says, “Bin Laden is ineligible because he’s over six feet tall!” The judge says it’s an irrelevant argument and therefore Bin Laden no longer has to prove that he’s eligible - and thus has to be eligible. Never mind that the driver’s license wasn’t valid and Bin Laden never presented anything that WAS valid to prove his eligibility. He’s off totally scott-free because his friend KSM biffed the court challenge.
Makes no sense at all, Harlan1196.
There is no way to shift the burden of proof when the LAW puts the burden of proof on the candidate. Regardless of what happens in the hearing, the candidate still has to prove eligibility BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE. Nothing those plaintiffs did has the power to change the law.
So guess what happens when a plaintiff rejects a default judgment and asks the judge to rule based purely on the merits of their arguments and evidence? The defendant is now out of the picture - he has no burden whatsoever. Their case now has to stand completely on its own - the defendant's case has already been judged.