That is almost certainly true, but doesn’t seem on point. No one here is, or should be, arguing that on the basis of the language in this bill, the SoS is responsible for determining NBC, or should bear liability for any misjudgment in that regard. (Quite the opposite, of course, if the bill specifies two citizen parentage.)
The issue is whether it is favorable to patriots that a single official be the gatekeeper for determining conformance with the statute and the names on the ballot. Section -351 you cited earlier provides for exactly such a court review after ballots are printed.
Fortunately for AZ, Rep Seel happens to agree with the single gatekeeper concept.
It is difficult to argue with the remainder of your comments; they describe the stuff you and I wish America was made of.
However, given clear evidence the voters are being dumbed down, that 47% of them are not taxpayers, most of them have no idea who is serving in their local government and that “they” have sent close to 100 out-of-the-closet socialists to Congress – it seems clear we need stronger laws that reflect the Constitution.
IMO, that includes adding NBC to state eligibility requirements, rather than hoping the USSC will hear a claim by a defeated candidate.
The timing is after the candidate has been "nominated," or after the last day for filing candidacy. This is before ballots are printed. The law gives the court 10 days within which to render a decision, and the court decision is directly appealable to the state supreme court.
Contrast with AZ law (as it stands now) regarding presidential nominees. The SoS certifies eligibility, and that decision may not be challenged.
My other point is that the AZ legislature can avoid all the minutia that pertains to defining NBC, and simply provide that after the SoS certifies "qualified," the public may challenge on substantive grounds.