“Petitions, declarations are part of the process. I had two opponents removed the first time I ran because of petition and signing errors.”
I agree that the rules should be followed. But I am wondering what the underlying issue is here. It’s probably looking at the wrong end of the question to focus on a high visibility, top of the ballot race involving a major candidate whose intentions are universally known.
I’m guessing that the real concern is downballot shenanigans involving local races in which someone might file fraudulent paperwork in someone else’s name, just to cause confusion or to split the vote with dummy candidacies. But offhand, I can’t think of examples, probably because everyone has always had the rule that candidates had to have their documents signed and witnessed.
A couple of colorful war stories would be instructive. I assume the rule exists for a reason. If there is indeed a reason, the rule should be followed. And that means it should be impartially applied.
Which it almost certainly won’t be, but let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.
In order to run for any office, there are several administrative things you must do. It’s spelled out clearly in the instructions everyone gets when they pull their papers to run for office. If he did not sign it, that’s cause to kick him off. The witnesses names, that’s a whole other legal ballpark. But if he is not kicked off, this will set a precedent that is not good. Trust me. What I told people who did not like a took a legal avenue against potential opponents is this: Why would you want people in office who can not follow the SIMPLEST of instruction. it’s not hard, folks.