In many states the law says that the Secretary of State MUST approve the nominee of a “recognized political party” for the ballot.
A change in the wording of state election law is needed in those states because the “damn job” of the Secretary of State is to rubber stamp a party’s nominee.
In most states the Secretary of State has no investigative budget, no legislative enforcement ability (ie subpoena power) and no staffing to conduct a thorough examination of candidates’ qualifications.
In Alabama the state Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state law dd not empower the Secretary of State to investigate Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship. Alabama has an elected Supreme Court with nine elected Republicans on the bench.
Back to that Prigg v Pennsylvania for this sort of nonsense. Obviously Constitutional law is supreme, but apparently States are under no obligation to enforce constitutional law.
Certainly in the case of Prigg v Pennsylvania they weren't.
A change in the wording of state election law is needed in those states because the “damn job” of the Secretary of State is to rubber stamp a party’s nominee.
No, the law just needs to be tossed out as "unconstitutional." It is and ought to be the duty of every government official to ensure compliance with constitutional law.
This is a situation where the courts should have been doing their D@mn job for the last two centuries.