I still feel that the scheme you have created to determine constitutional eligibility for POTUS could be construed as an unconstitutional infringement. Although you try to make the state responsible for the court costs involved, any candidate who is challenged will required to expend significant funds for representation in such an action. That in itself could be considered an infringement. But like I previously noted, it is not slam dunk and will bring the issue into the Judiciary. I just don't think you will be happy with the court's rulings, based on the previous rulings on this issue in the past 2 years. Particularly when SCOTUS was presented with this exact same issue in a Petition filed between the 2008 election and the inauguration ( I forget the name of the case , but believe it was brought by Donofrio). Not a single justice thought the issue had merit when it was legally ripe to be heard. They have since denied cert in another 9 cases. It obvious that they are of the opinion that the lower courts have properly decided the cases and the issues brought by the cases did not require SCOTUS intervention.
No court has heard any case on its merits. This bill would require them to hear it on the merits. That’s basically all it does. It requires the documentation to be collected, any potential problems identified, and any problems referred to the court to decide expeditiously, since the plaintiff has standing.
This bill wouldn’t change anything Constitutionally; all it would do is require that a court actually hear the case on its merits. Because the AG is to present the case on behalf of the plaintiff it would actually end up SAVING the plaintiff money, as compared to the current process.
I don’t see where there would be Constitutional grounds to challenge it.