[BP2]

The constitution requires the candidate to be quailified.

This is debatable. The courts (and I do too, to some degree) think that that political candidates, even for US President, have a Constitutionally-protected right to run for office. As the First Circuit explained in 1985, candidates' "right to run for public office touches on two fundamental freedoms: freedom of individual expression and freedom of association." (Flinn v. Gordon, 775)

In my mind, that's why Roger Calero was allowed to run for office in 2004 and 2008, despite the fact he's a naturalized US Citizen (not a NBC) born in Nicaragua.

Two observations on this, however:

1) They may have the right to RUN for office, but not HOLD an office that has restrictions in place by the US Constitution (part of the "standing" issues plaguing some of these cases).

2) Was Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver's civil rights violated in 1968 by California SOS Frank Jordan when Cleaver was REMOVED from the ballot as a POTUS candidate for being only 34 years of age? BTW, the Calif. Supreme Court & the SCOTUS refused to hear that appeal. A similar SOS "disqualification" took place with "Larry Holmes" in 2004...

[nufsed]

If you do not meet the constitutional requirements to HOLD office, you can’t be voted for for that office. That would make your candidacy a fraud and your election a fraud. Any other interpretation is unsustainable because it makes a farce of the law of the land and your holding the office a violation of that law.