[allmendream]

Asking specifically for the “long form” would be a ‘poison pill’ that would make this legislation unconstitutional according to the full faith and credit clause.

We need to pass legislation that requires the candidate to request the State of birth send proof of birth within that State directly to the SO-State to be put on the ballot of the State.

The form Hawaii says they issue for proof of birth within the State of Hawaii is the short form.

Why would the Hawaii DOH issuing the short form directly to the SO-State of the balloting State not be sufficient?

Better to swing for the fences and get a unconstitutional strike out? Or to hit the easy ball right over the plate and score a base hit towards our goal of ensuring that candidates are actually eligible?

[edge919]

Asking specifically for the “long form” would be a ‘poison pill’ that would make this legislation unconstitutional according to the full faith and credit clause.

It shouldn't be a problem in Hawaii. By law, any part of any certificate must be made available to a legal requester. The DOH can't arbitrarily decide not to give out a long form because they don't want to.

[Jeff Winston]

Asking specifically for the “long form” would be a ‘poison pill’ that would make this legislation unconstitutional according to the full faith and credit clause.

Why?