The way the law reads it sounds like the Elections Officer is only allowed to decide what to do if the HDP and DNC name different candidates. To be placed on the ballot at all there MUST be a statement of Constitutional eligibility and there MUST be a statement from the DNC saying specifically who the candidate is for the DNC and a statement from the HDP saying specifically who the candidate is for the HDP. The only time the Elections Officer has any say in it is if the two name different candidates.
Hawaii has said that Obama’s records have not been sealed by anybody in Hawaii. The DNC and HDP both certified before Judge Surrick made any ruling in Berg v Obama and there is no judge’s order to seal the records which is listed in the case documents for Berg v Obama. Fukino said she saw Obama’s vital records so they weren’t sealed as of July 2009. And I did ask the HDOH to see the judge’s order unsealing Obama’s birth records, which allowed them to see his vital records, and was told that no such record exists. So it seems like Hawaii is saying there is no reason for Obama’s records to not be seen by either the DNC or HDP if they had Obama’s approval.
No such records exist? You heard them say Obama’s records do not exist? But they would not give you a letter or search record that conveyed that fact?
Back to the analysis, the HDP refused to certify, why? And the DNC did certify in some sense. That is a discrepancy and I think the analysis is saying this discrepancy is what allowed the Elections Director to put Obama on the ballot.
What is peculiar is how the documentation was altered to setup a situation where the Elections Director could use a loophole and circumvent the HDP.
I speculate that the HDP could not access the birth records because Obama was not giving authorization. So they balked and refused to certify.
Need some new blood members in Congress to hold hearings on this without fear of recrimination.