If Malihi didn’t say, then the “agency” has the burden of proof, UNLESS those other situations apply. And since the issue was whether Obama would receive the civil penalty of having his name rejected from the ballot, that would be the situation that my C&P alluded to. In which case, the burden of proof is on the person the civil penalty would fall on. IOW, Obama.
Hatfield wanted it specifically stated that the burden of proof fell on Obama, not the SOS - since the SOS wasn’t trying to prove or even claim anything. If Malihi neither denied the motion nor granted it, that could be his admission that the motion was irrelevant because the law ALREADY places the burden of proof on Obama.
The statute makes qualifying a POSITIVE requirement, not a passive requirement. The candidate SHALL be qualified - not the candidate shall be on the ballot unless disqualified. The statute itself places the burden on the candidate.
If “the agency” has any burden of proof, it is to prove that Obama satisfies the law. The agency has no probative evidence that Obama satisfies the law because Obama offered no probative evidence. If this case is between the agency and the challengers, then the agency has the burden of proving that Obama meets the statute’s requirement in order to be placed on the ballot - or to prove that he doesn’t.
Either way, the agency failed to prove anything. Obama failed to prove anything. So what we’ve got is the judge saying what Obama wants him to say, in spite of there being no probative evidence.
Which is why the decision totally stinks and breaks the rules of evidence that Malihi was required to obey - as I showed in previous posts.
Could it be because the judge did it in accordance with Georgia law?
Why do you think the SoS accepted the decision?