The only way to get a ruling on the 2-citizen-parent definition, which was the one Congress used in the Leahy Resolution so Congress has already signed off on it, is by having a state actually use it so the court will be forced to rule on whether it is Constitutional.
I didn’t put any whereas or therefore in the short version, but maybe it could include a whereas that cites the Leahy Resolution.
Leaving out the AG part makes it simpler but what it also does is leave it up to the AG to defend the state’s position without necessarily having to accept input from the public. It also leaves it to the judge and/or AG as to whether the provenance and validity of the documents would be subjected to an audit/investigation. Maybe having the evidence available to the public would be enough accountability that an AG would be forced to treat the issue with integrity.
Leaving the issue to just the “judiciary” to determine the candidate’s eligibility means that it would have to go through all the state courts and then through all the district courts on appeal, which would be a long, expensive process. Because the bill says the name can’t be on the ballot until those steps have been completed (maybe I need to be clear that all the steps have to be completed) there would be a natural deadline of when the ballots were to be printed. It’s up to the candidate to see that the appeals are all completed on time. Having a streamlined process would have helped the candidate meet that deadline.
Another lawyer who gave me advice on this suggested that the state judiciary especially be designated as the place for the adjudication because state law can require the case to be expedited and the appeal can go directly to SCOTUS - which would be critical to keep political opponents from contesting on frivolous grounds just to keep the case locked up in federal appeals beyond the printing of the ballots. You said that the suits over Constitutionality could take 2 years to resolve. Unless something is expedited to leave out all the lawyerly jackassery, nobody who is contested would ever make it on the ballot.
The short form could designate the state Supreme Court as the venue for the case, with the appeal directly to SCOTUS. Seems like you’re saying that the person who files the suit gets to decide where it is filed, but is there anything the state can do to expedite and streamline the process?
This also means that if somebody monkeyed with the documents at a DOH somewhere they could cost a candidate a lot of money in arguing the lawsuits. I could see somebody doing that to Sarah Palin, for instance. Hopefully the deterrent would be that the DOH’s shenanigans would be investigated and somebody would get put in jail for it.
You can put whatever you wish in the proposal as to where a suit should be brought, but that will prevent the DOJ, RNC nor DNC from bringing a case in Federal Court since this issue necessarily involves a Federal, US Constitutional question. This will not prevent someone from being denied access to the ballot since I am sure the the enforcement of the law will be enjoined while the case is being litigated. Similar to the Arizona case.