I don’t think it’s a problem about voters being disenfranchised because of requirements to follow for how a candidate is supposed to get on the ballot...
For example, there’s a “date” requirement. If the candidate does not follow the required date to file, they’re not on the ballot. But, no one is going to say that these voters are disenfranchised, by the state (because of their date requirement) if the candidate fails to meet it.
And also, another similar example (although not applying directly to the Presidential candidate) is a residency requirement for a particular office (in the state). With that, if the candidate does not meet the state law which requires a certain residency for that candidate to be able to be on the ballot (or even qualified to run) — the voters cannot put up a challenge saying that because the state required a certain residency that they were disenfranchised because of the state law.
There’s just too many examples of these types of things where (as you were saying) that a bunch of voters could say that they were disenfranchised because the state had a law which prevented the candidate from being on the ballot... LOL...
Yes, but when we start talking about withholding electoral votes, we could be running into problems.
FWIW, I have no issue with requiring candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate for verification. This is perfectly acceptable as the Constitution stipulates certain requirements to holding office. But this is something that Obama could have easily complied with and that's not what the people behind this type of legislation want. They want a law written in reaction to Obama's election and they want it to be specifically one that he can't comply with. This is why Rep. Burges would put the Secretary of State in the position of having to determine whether "individual circumstances" of a candidate's life disqualify him from being on the ballot. That's where "pre-approved by the State" comes into play and with this we'd be treading into dangerous territory.