While true that Obama may not have any obligation to present his BC to New Jersey, it is equally true that the state AG has every state constitutional right, POWER, DUTY, AND OBLIGATION to remove him from the ballot and MAKE him present ANY BONA FIDES he deems fitting. This is far from unusual! Candidates at every level are often challenged as to their qualifications.
"May I see your license and registration please." One has every right to refuse this request. Whereupon one will be required to present said documentation in a court of law. And of course, be liable to detention in the meantime pending the posting of bond.
We are saying pretty much the same thing.
You quoted the essence of Masin’s decision, which I believe Apuzzo will demonstrate on appeal was incorrect; although the argument may be more applicable to the general election ballot than the primary. This because if a protest is not timely filed a candidate’s name can go on the ballot without any requirement for a showing.
IMHO, however, a clock starts to run the moment a candidate first swears eligibility under penalty, as was done here in the primary. The voters would hope the AG’s office could, if not of its own volition with a proper complaint in hand, take action to test the validity of that certification. Such action could require the candidate to provide bona fides in order to gain access to the general election ballot. That would likely give courage to other jurisdictions.
To your earlier comment, we are indeed looking for the (first)one out of 50 who will have the courage to take the proper course. A court decision that recognizes the importance of the statutory eligibility certification reguirement would be quite helpful.