January 22, 2010
Rep Judy Burges
Seems Arizona state lawmakers want to make sure future presidential candidates provide proof of natural born citizenship BEFORE they get placed on the ballot. The proof will be independently assessed by the secretary of state, and if unsatisfied, the SoS can withhold the candidate’s name from the ballot.
That’s a step beyond Florida Rep Bill Posey’s bill.
The measure, HB 2441, was introduced by Rep Judy Burges (R-District 4), who apparently had no comment.
SEN SYLVIA ALLEN (R-Snowflake):
Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc. It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen.
And of course the democrats immediately think it refers to barry. Why? It cannot be used retroactively. And if barry is a natural born citizen, why are they even commenting on it – let alone characterizing it as “ridiculous and offensive”. And in the state of Arizona, one would think a democrat would want this measure to pass because of Sen McCain’s tenuous NBC status on the infinitesimal though possible chance he were to run again.
REP KRYSTEN SINEMA (D-Phoenix) said it was:
…ridiculous and offensive.
He clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year. The question has been asked and answered.
[By whom and what was the answer?]
Notice Rep Sinema mentions nothing about his COLB or birth status – just that the federal government installed him. Yes, they installed him. Perfect word. Just like he was coronated – not nominated. He hasn’t earned anything and is an empty suit. He will go down as the most arrogant fraud in US history and right down the hall with be the most corrupt media in US history.
They could not stand the thought of having a woman as president. Especially THAT women. And they got something “worse” than a woman – they didn’t get a man.
They got a ditherer.
And the ditherer has been dithering while the job market burned.
Then Rep Sinema makes a curious statement about the likelihood of it being enforced when it hasn’t even been passed.
The secretary of state has no jurisdiction over federal law or over the federal government.
What federal law overrides the constitutional requirement for president?
And why would the federal government be involved in the placing or the “installing” of a candidate on the Arizona ballot?
The only reason she mentioned the federal government is because she knows the candidate for president (the only one known at this point) has already made it past the S of S but would not if the bill passed between now and next election.
Her comment otherwise has no meaning and therefore would not have even been thought of.
Why would she care about someone she doesn’t even know – someone whose name hasn’t even been put on a ballot – in reference to a bill that has not passed and maybe never will?
Your boss needs a license to run the business you work for. You learn that in two year’s time, when he is required by law to renew his operating license to remain the boss, a new requirement MAY be put in place. You hear he MAY have to submit his birth certificate to the state licensing board for review before he gets his new license.
Do you automatically assume your boss will not be able to do so if he’s been running the business for a year and has worked in the field for more than a decade? Besides, what’s the big deal, everyone has a birth certificate, right?
Would you think two steps ahead of something you have no reason to doubt?
You might when it means keeping your own job if you know/suspect your boss got the job because strings were pulled and that he doesn’t really have a birth certificate or won’t be able to produce one because it would blow his cover and expose all the lies he has told about himself.
You don’t need a deposition – you don’t need a birth certificate – she said it all already. She admitted there is a possibility the bill might have to be challenged and the only person it would apply to is someone she already knows will be running for president and since no one has announced their intention it has to be the incumbent president.
Signed, sealed, delivered.
Any Arizona constituent out there want to solve the mystery once and for all in one short legally-videotaped visit?
16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot
When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his choice by a mark as defined in section 16-400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.
Amended Bill [emphasis added]
REFERENCE TITLE: presidential candidates; proof of qualifications
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Second Regular Session
(11) Representatives: Burges, Ash, Barnes, Biggs, Gowan, Hendrix, Lesko, Mason, Montenegro, Seel, Williams
(4) Senators: Gray C, Gray L, Harper, Pearce R
(19) Representatives: Antenori, Barto, Boone, Court, Crump, Driggs, Goodale, Jones, Kavanagh, Konopnicki, McComish, McLain, Nichols, Pratt, Reagan, Stevens, Tobin, Weiers JP, Yarbrough
(6) Senators: Allen S, Gorman, Huppenthal, Melvin, Nelson, Verschoor
amending section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to conduct of elections.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot; notice; affidavit; verification
A. When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his the voter’s choice by a mark as defined in section 16‑400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.
B. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that political party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice‑president.
Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
C. The secretary of state shall review the affidavit and other documents submitted by the national political party committee and, if the secretary of state has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the secretary of state shall not place that candidate’s name on the ballot.
Recall that Arizona was the only state (I’m aware of) where barry signed a form saying he was a NBC. It’s clear they don’t want to be burnt again. And it’s clear they don’t trust the DNC to vouch.