It was another person who used Roger Calero as an example. I attempted to clarify the circumstances of Calero’s candidacy. He always knew that he was ineligible to be president and he didn’t even try to get on the ballot in some states.
His candidacy was purely symbolic.
You are correct, five states did not allow Calero on the ballot and there was a substitute candidate for the Socialist Workers Party in those states.
I have no trouble at all with the Chief Elections Officer of a state (usually that is the Secretary of State) ruling that someone is ineligible for the ballot.
I applauded the extra step taken by Arizona’s and Kansas’ Secretaries of State in getting official confirmation of Barack Obama’s birthplace before agreeing to clear him for the Arizona and Kansas ballots.
In many states, the state election laws would need to be revised in order to give the Chief Election Officer the power and authority to remove candidates from the ballot.
Each state has its own system. In quite a few states there is a Governor appointed Election Board or Commission that handles challenges to credentials. For example, in Kansas there is a state Objections Board composed of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Lieutenant Governor who handle objections to a candidate’s eligibility. In New Hampshire there is a Ballot Law Commission. In states like Georgia and New Jersey there is a multi-step process: an Administrative Law Judge conducts a trial and makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can accept, reject or accept in part the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling; the plaintiff then has the option of appealing the Secretary of State’s decision to a state appellate court, the state Supreme Court and then the federal courts.
Nor do I, but the issue in some of those court cases was whether the public had a right to COMPEL the Secretary of State, (0r other election officials) to do their D@mn job.
The court ruled, "No, the Public does NOT have a right to compel State election officials to do their D@mn job. " They can do their job if they wish, but nobody can make them do it.
Again, just pure, concentrated unadulterated idiocy from the Courts. It's probably a long distance leftover from the Prigg v Pennsylvania decision back in 1842, and is another example of how the slavery issue just totally bollixed our laws.