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.
Another area of probable constitutional infirmity in your bill is your mandatory language regarding a state court to hear a case regarding this eligibility issue. That is a definite violation of the constitutional separation of powers. If you recall the Schiavo case in Florida several years,that was one of the constitutional infirmities the courts found in the law passed by Congress. I also don't
believe your idea that the AG present the case on behalf of plaintiff, will pass muster. In most, if not all states, the AG is charged with representing the state or elected officeholders in which they are a party. Since obviously the state would be party to any case brought under your law, a conflict of interest will immediately arise. In addition, I do not think that an individual whose candidacy is being challenged by state, will want that state's chief legal officer representing his interests.