The sec of state are charged with qualifying candidates to be on the ballot. That gives them the authority and responsibility to ask for evidence and verification.
Thanks for making my point. As I stated earlier, the political question doctrine prohibits the SCOTUS from reviewing policy decisions as to what constitutes proof of eligibility (as opposed to eligibility, itself). If you don't like the policy, then either (a) amend the Constitution to define what constitutes a politicsl/policy question; or (b) amend state or federal law with respect to the standard and/or procedure for challenging eligibility.
Nothing is “prohibited” by the political doctrine question. This “doctrine” is a legal invention that doesn’t even exist within the Constitution. It’s just an excuse for the Courts to avoid an issue they don’t want to get involved in. Also, when you say they can’t decide what “consitutes proof of eligiblity,” this is an equally ridiculous assertion. The Supreme Court LOVES to make ways to decide metrics.
Let’s look for example at the First Amendment which says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The Supreme Court took it upon itself to INVENT a test for what constitutes the establishment of religion. So here we have a specific phrase from the Constitution being evaluated with arbitrary metrics invented by the Supreme Court.
IOW, this can be done just as well with the eligibility clause, and the SCOTUS has already defined natural-born citizen, so it should be no problem to come up with a standard way to prove how someone meets that definition. After all, they invented standards of proof for other types of citizenship cases. They can do it here too.