The state has no interest in whether the candidate makes it onto the ballot or not. If an AG can prosecute crimes by individuals and that’s not “against the defendant’s interest” - because the AG is supposed to be as close as we can come to “fair and unbiased”, with no axe to grind one way or the other - then why would a case like this be any different?
An attorney suggested to me that a state court would be better than the feds because the state can mandate expedited review, whereas the federal courts could stretch things out forever - and because any decision by the state court can immediately be appealed to SCOTUS, which is where the interpretation of the US Constitution is properly done anyway. See, time is of the essence so that no candidate can be legally sandbagged into missing the ballot deadline.
Regarding whether the state can hear cases regarding Presidential eligibility, it seems like the CRS is saying that states are precisely where the Constitution places responsibility for the nitty-gritty administration of elections, so that is where it would HAVE to happen - but with SCOTUS ultimately being able to interpret the Constitution.
No matter how you slice it there is that uncomfortable gap between two conflicting Constitutional mandates - that the states run Presidential elections and that the federal judiciary interpret and apply the Constitution. The only way I know of for that gap to be bridged is if the state handles the process but is subject to the Consituttional review of the federal judiciary. And that’s what this bill proposes.
This bill does not support any particular view of the definition of NBC. It only provides a framework so that the courts must define it - because until they do, the Constitution is being interpreted and applied by a secretary who has no skilled knowledge of the US Constitution.
The issue of the AG supposing to side with the state workers is a really sore spot with me. The AG is not supposed to side with his cronies. He is supposed to protect the interests of the residents of his state as expressed through the laws and Constitution of the state. This is the crux of the whole stinkin’ problem with government in this nation. The bureaucrats think they are suppsed to do CYA and scratch backs for each other and screw the people. We’ve got NOBODY who EVER serves the interests of Joe Sixpack when the bureaucrats screw him, break laws, and do all kinds of corruption.
But even at that, the AG would not be arguing a case AGAINST the SOS because the SOS isn’t trying or wanting to keep anybody off the ballot. It’s not even his/her decision to keep the person off the ballot; he/she is just doing what the law requires, and that is just to allow the right people to make the decision as to whether the candidate is eligible.
Dispassionate. No vested interest except following the law - which is exactly what we need when we’ve got the fiasco with SOS’s like in Ohio, NJ, CA, and Alaska, and we’ve got communists like Soros intending to subvert the election process by getting the rule of PEOPLE, rather than the rule of law. As it is right now Soros knows that if he can get a corruptocrat in as SOS the law will be damned and so will the interests of the American people. That’s why we need laws like this, where the SOS is simply obeying the law and getting out of the way. And where we the people have a way to undo the damage of a corrupt SOS BEFORE it’s too late.
As to whether the candidate would want the AG to represent his/her interests, there would be nothing to stop that candidate from having his/her own counsel as well, although it might be good for politicians to have to rely on a public defender so that money can’t buy the decision. I nominate NEAL PUCKETT to represent the interests of every politician in the country in these cases. May he screw them all just like he screwed Terry Lakin, and good riddance to them all.
I foresee that if this proposal became law in the future and an election official tried to keep someone off the ballot based upon your statute, that the aggrieved party would immediately filed an action in federal court and the first thing he will request will be a TRO to restrain enforcement of the statute until its constitutionality is determined. I think this will be readily granted by any based upon the current state of law on this issue. Think of the type of actions taken in the Arizona anti-illegal alien case this past summer.
I agree that states have the right to administer run presidential elections but that authority also comes with the responsibility that if there is a constitutional infringement by either the state law or the method of the election administration, the federal courts will not hesitate to step in and enforce the constitution.
One thing I do not think you understand is that lawsuits are an adversary proceeding. There at least two parties to each suit. The AG cannot represent the candidate who was not allowed on the by the actions of the state or as a result of a state law and the state or the state offical . The state is necessary party to this type of case. Your scheme has the AG on both sides of the case, a definite conflict of interest.