Actually, it doesn’t say run. It says eligible. But, as per the state ELEC offices, the party putting the candidate on the ballot has to vet the candidate.
This is where Philip Berg’s suit has a standing. They didn’t respond to Berg’s suit either which was two parts. Fine, if Berg doesn’t have a standing on vetting Obama, so be it. But he, as a democrat, did have standing in challenging the DNC. The judge has no right throwing that out.
If a person is not eligible TO the office how could they run FOR it?
Anyway,
I think the judge sort of summarily punted the whole thing by saying his court didn't have jurisdiction on the case. What followed was really irrelevant, why include it? Unless you had a political point to make, and a platform for an attempt at discrediting Berg.... Who wrote this Opinion?