From the judges decision:
“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.”
The plaintiffs asked that the court decide solely on the merits of their arguments and evidence. They are the ones that shifted the burden of proof by asking the judge to decide purely on their evidence. The judge found their case without legal merit.
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.