[butterdezillion]

Thanks for responding. I definitely want an honest opinion, and am thankful for any honest opinion I get.

The first bill only makes consent for access to the records a requirement before the candidate can be placed on the ballot. It doesn’t say anything about eligibility requirements.

On what grounds would the first bill be Constitutionally challenged?

Somebody mentioned a severability clause. Do you know how that would work?

[tired_old_conservative]

In law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply. Sometimes, severability clauses will state that some provisions to the contract are so essential to the contract's purpose that if they are illegal or unenforceable, the contract as a whole will be voided. However, in many legal jurisdictions, a severability clause will not be applied if it changes the fundamental nature of the contract, and that instead the contract will be void; thus, often this is not explicitly stated in the severability clause.

Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.

Example:

If a provision of this bill is or becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, that shall not affect:

1. the validity or enforceability in that jurisdiction of any other provision of this bill; or

2. the validity or enforceability in other jurisdictions of that or any other provision of this bill.