It's being certified as true in substance. It is not being certified as to form, as an electronic image obviously isn't in the same form as a paper original.
Certification as to essential substance is what most states do. I've given you an example:
"I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the essential facts recorded on the birth record on file in this office for the individual named hereon."
This doesn't purport to say what is provided is in form exactly a copy of the original record on file. It affirms, though, that the "essential facts" as shown are "true" as compared to the facts shown on the birth record on file. And this is legally sufficient. And it's consistent with the practice of near all states to issue short-form certificates.
Your special-pleading fallacy is showing again. You assert that every other state's Secretary of State should have asked for Hawaii for a copy (even though no such secretary in history has demanded a candidate's birth certificate in a Presidential election, nor even the predecessor church/baptismal records, despite your claim the Constitution requires this). But even worse, you further assert that the form of certification used by Hawaii should be deemed insufficient, even though that very type of "short form" certification is used by most of the other states.
For being the supposed resident expert on logical fallacies, you fail to see in the mirror on this one.
One gets dizzy observing you spinning around your logical circles.
It is certified to be an abstract of a record which may have been put in their files in 1961, or a different record which may have been put into their files in 1964 (Soetoro Adoption) or even a different record which may have been put into their files in 1971 (Obama Sr. giving up custody) or even a different record that may have been put into their files around 2008. (Obama lawyers getting a court ordered amended birth certificate to reflect what they want it to say.)
What they have certified, is that something which has been put into the files is what we are showing you now.
Again, I am adopted. I have a fake birth certificate too. It was put into their files, and now that is the only one they will show you. The state in which I was born also has a cutesy clever legal dodge to avoid giving away the fact that it's a fake, replacement birth certificate.
They say " I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy, original of which is on file in this office."
A casual read will have you believing you are seeing an original document. If you parse it out, you realize that they are telling you that they have the original on file in their office. They are also telling you that what you are seeing is a "true and correct copy."
What they are *NOT* telling you is that what you are seeing is *NOT* a true and correct copy of the original, it is a true and correct copy of the REPLACEMENT, but they let you believe that it is a true and correct copy of the original, because that's what they are deliberately implying.
Very clever lawyer hair splitting that.
The point is to protect adopted children from learning through their birth certificate that they are adopted, so the state's ability to lie about birth certificates is built into the system. The 50 states collectively lie about 120,000 birth certificates every year.
There is much hanky panky going on regarding Obama's birth certificate, and if people are overly suspicious of that lying sack of sh*t's credentials, well then he's earned it.