Roger Calero could not be on the ballot in several states and the Socialist Worker Party had to use a substitute candidate (James Harris) in states that would not allow Calero on the ballot.
“In 2004, Róger Calero was the SWP candidate for President of the United States and received 3,689 votes with Arrin Hawkins running for Vice President. Because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero is ineligible to become U.S. president under the United States Constitution, meaning that even had he won the election, he would not have been permitted to serve, and so James Harris, the Socialist Workers’ Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed, receiving 7,102 additional votes.
Róger Calero again ran for President of the United States representing the SWP in the 2008 presidential election, together with Alyson Kennedy for vice-president. Again, James Harris stood in for Calero in several states. In the 2008 presidential election, Calero was on the ballot in five states, where he received 7,209 votes. Coupled with the 2,424 votes received in the five states where Harris was on the ballot.”—Wikipedia
All of which changes nothing. The question was asked why Cruz was still on the ballot if he was an illegal candidate. Roger Calero was on some of the ballots despite being a foreign Communist, which demonstrates the U.S. elections allowed an ineligible candidate to be on at lest some state ballots despite his strikingly obvious ineligibility. Just because the same kind of government malfeasance has allowed Ted Cruz to remain on all of the ballots so far does not indicate he is a lawful candidate, especially in these days of such widespread contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution by the Democrat and Republican political parties and their supporters in all walks of life.
So now you're using Roger Calero? All this time I thought you didn't like seeing an example of someone being kicked off the ballot for failure to be eligible.
As I have pointed out to you many times in the past, Apparently state election officials do have, and can use this power, if they wish.
The court cases you trumpet about simply assert the public can't force them to do their D@mn jobs! (Which is utter nonsense, and about par for the course with our modern idiotic judiciary.)
So do you support state officials kicking ineligible candidates off the ballot or not? You can't be in favor of both sides of the issue at the same time. It must be either one way or the other.
So how about you decide which side of this issue you are on, and let us know?