“Does it give him the authority to decide who to put on the ballot?”
Not exactly. The following is why Gov Brewer supposedly vetoed the bill requiring a birth certificate (although it didn’t really):
“I vetoed HB2177 yesterday and I would like to take a moment to explain why I made that decision.
The bill would have granted sole power to the secretary of state, a county recorder or a city clerk to arbitrarily remove any candidate from the ballot in any federal, state or local election. As a former secretary of state, I do not support designating one person, at their own discretion, as the gatekeeper to determine who can and cannot appear on the ballot, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions in future elections.
Also, the bill would require candidates for President - regardless of gender - to submit various records, including baptismal or circumcision records. I hope that it’s obvious why these type of requirements could be problematic.”
The ARS says, if I have the correct one:
“D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.”
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00311.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS
So as I read it, the party or candidate vets themselves, and presents an affidavit with information like birth date & location, etc. I don’t see any sign that primary documents, such as a birth certificate, are required.
I strongly believe they SHOULD be required, but the law doesn’t say that now. It amazes me that I need to show more documentation to get a driver’s license than a candidate for President has to show to get on the ballot...
Thanks for the link. I’m looking at this statement:
“D. All persons desiring to become a candidate shall file with the nomination paper provided for in subsection A an affidavit which shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of state. The affidavit shall include facts sufficient to show that, other than the residency requirement provided in subsection A, the candidate will be qualified at the time of election to hold the office the person seeks.”
It doesn’t say what facts are sufficient to show that the candidate will be qualified. I would presume that is left to the SOS then. And the HI statute allows a verification so that government officials can verify that the facts claimed on an application (such as the affidavit required here) are actually true. There is nothing here that excludes a SOS from making the decision as to whether the facts shown are sufficient or that excludes the SOS from verifying whether the claimed facts are true.
Unless there is another place which says more than this one, I would assume that it is the SOS’s job to determine whether the facts presented establish eligibility, and there is nothing to prevent the SOS from verifying that the stated facts are accurate. I also don’t see here anything that says that the name HAS to be printed on the ballot if the forms are properly filled out - just that they CAN’T be printed on the ballot if they haven’t filled out these minimum requirements.
Is there a section where it lists the duties of the SOS, or describes the exact procedures that have to be used by the SOS in determining whether the stated facts are sufficient to show that the candidate will be qualified?