Replies

(Citing Kreep's Opposition Motion)
...As discussed above, in twenty-six States and the District of Columbia, Presidential Electors are prohibited by statute from voting in variance with their pledges, or, if they do, they face civil or criminal penalties and fines. The act of determining eligibility is one that requires discretionary authority, so that a candidate found to be ineligible may be removed. However, any discretionary authority of the majority of the State’s Presidential Electors has been removed by statute, and the Presidential Electors, instead, perform a ministerial function of casting their votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. ... Yes! This is c-r-a-z-y, and is why regardless of what happens with these cases, the focus should be on changing the laws in individual States.

The Electoral College is constitutionally empowered to make such decisions, but half of the States have voluntarily elected to strip their electors of this constitutional power/right. Those laws should be changed.

Similarly, because States retain the power to determine how federal elections are run (within the boundaries of the 14th Amendment), States have the power to require proof of eligibility, but have voluntarily elected to ignore this power. In practical terms, if only one single State changed their rules in this regard, then the entire country would benefit from it, because in order to get on the ballot in that one state, all candidates would have to provide sufficient proof of eligibility. However, I believe that all States should exercise their right (and power) to require proof of eligibility by requiring submission of an original, certified birth certificate that is accepted by the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age (or, other authenticated documentation acceptable to the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age).

Those laws should be changed.

Considering how robotic the EC has become, it would be easier for states to pass laws requiring the SOS to verify Constitutional qualifications. It seems to me the founders were concerned with a very different country, back then, and didn't necessarily foresee the EC becoming a decision-making body, but rather an educated one capable of tabulating local votes across a scattered, rural populace with only rudimentary means of communication.

Kreep is arguing original intent vs. modern reality (pre-electiricity/railroads vs modern high-speed communications):

Defendants cite in their Motion to Dismiss, the concurring opinion in Williams v Rhodes as support for their contention that it is the exclusive role of the Electoral College to decide whether a presidential candidate is eligible for the office. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. However, the concurrence instead indicated the concerns that the founders had regarding the fact that the nation was too spread out for the average citizen to be able to make an informed decision about whom to vote for as president, "[t]he [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation whose continental dimensions were thought to preclude an informed choice by the citizenry at large."

This concern is no longer relevant because, while the original intent for the Electoral College was to have a set number of "knowledgeable members of the community" make the decision of whom to elect as president, the modern function of the Electoral College is to simply cast a vote for the Presidential Candidate who received the majority of the vote from the State which each Elector represents. This change in the nature of the Electoral College has taken place because information about each candidate is now available for every voter in the country, which allows each and every voter to be "knowledgeable members of the community" capable of making informed decisions of whom to elect president.
(Citations removed)

By the time the modern EC meets, the votes have been tabulated, examined, analyzed and regurgitated, ad nauseum, by the media.

However, I believe that all States should exercise their right (and power) to require proof of eligibility by requiring submission of an original, certified birth certificate that is accepted by the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age (or, other authenticated documentation acceptable to the US State Department as proof of US citizenship and age).

You do realize that the COLB certification that Hawaii now issues routinely, as do most other states, is accepted by the DOS as proof of US citizenship and age? If states passed that law, they would have to accept the Certification of Live Birth, as opposed to a copy of the original birth certificate.