Is there a link to an online text of the Haynes case?

Dare I hope there's a gold-fringed flag in those courtrooms, just to watch Carl freakout??

Haynes v. Wells: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-c ... 15412.html

And here is Judge Malihi's order in the Keith Gross case: http://alt.cimedia.com/ajc/pdf/polinsider/gross.pdf

The latter is insightful not just because of the citation to Haynes, but in a larger sense, because it illustrates a successful eligibility challenge and it shows the judge's analysis in holding against the candidate. The facts and evidence presented, and the applicable law are all laid out cleanly.

Silly Loren. No, that's not what it means at all.

If you read the comments of the mental midgets at ORYR, etc., some Obots brought up the proposition that Mr. Jablonski will simply present the COLB if verification is needed.

The geniuses first said no, that won't work, but then have now come around to they hope/pray he does so as that will then demand

yes... I am tracking the state cases on my blog

Georgia

ORYR comment:

Thanks Loren. I still don't see a statutory path to challenge eligibility prior to the Presidential preference primary though.

I may be reading the case too narrowly, but it seems to me to touch almost entirely on matters of state law relating to candidates for offices in which state eligibility requirements apply, and in which the legislature may establish whatever requirements they wish that do not violate the state or federal constitution. Further, the candidate found ineligible (over a vigorous dissent) appears to be ineligible entirely because of state restrictions on residency within a state, which a state is entirely within its powers to establish.

I don't see where it is relevant to any federal candidate, as the state has no powers whatsoever to establish eligibility requirements for federal candidates other than those already in the constitution, and even its constitutional powers to establish new ballot access procedures does not apply to Obama. In this case, the issue is whether a candidate for state office meets a state requirement, that is, that the candidate be eligible to vote in a district in which running for office. A Presidential candidate is eligible if meeting the Article II requirements even if ineligible to vote anywhere in the country due to being convicted of a crime of moral turpitude or other such restrictions.

I can't see a case like this, with a dissent from its only proposition directly relevant to the President, applying to an administrative agency in its broadest interpretation. I still think the prexy's dude will probably present something if a hearing ever happens, but I don't think he has to.

Yea, that's what I was getting at in my previous.

I admit the statutes aren't overwhelmingly clear on this, but I'm fairly confident that the challenge system *does* apply to Presidential candidates, and I'm only marginally less certain that such a challenge can be brought at the time of filing for a primary.

My conclusion with regards to the primary is largely based on the Gross decision, where the challenge was filed after Gross filed his notice to run in the Democratic primary. He was then removed from the ballot before the primary election. That same year, several other challenges were filed against other candidates before the primary election.

Plus, as a practical matter, it makes far more sense to challenge a candidate's qualifications before a primary, than to have to wait until after they've run and potentially won a nomination.

As I pointed out above, the statutes involving challenges (21-2-5) or filing notice (21-2-132) specifically reference "candidate[s] for federal office." Lexis doesn't identify any particular caselaw dealing with federal candidates, but does note a 1983 Attorney General opinion stating that the only qualifications a candidate for U.S. House must satisfy are those in the U.S. Constitution (and simultaneously saying that any residency requirements imposed by 21-2-132 on federal candidates are unenforceable).

But the challenge system doesn't create new or additional qualifications. It's simply designed to make sure that for any federal or state office, a candidate applying to run on a Georgia ballot actually meets the existing qualifications. Which is what's laid out in the first sentence of 21-2-5: "Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."

At the very least, the fact that there's apparently no caselaw dealing with federal candidates means that no one's appealed a case involving a federal candidate to an appellate court in an effort to say that it *doesn't* cover federal candidates. The plain language of the statute, on the other hand, suggests it does.

A comment at ORYR



Anyone know if that is true?

Gross does not deal with a Presidential candidate. As there is an entire, separate statutory scheme laying out the rules for the Presidential preference primary and there is no reference to the challenge provisions set out elsewhere and no challenge provision in the PPP rules themselves, I remain unconvinced that a challenge can be brought before the PPP.

I also note that the PPP elects the electors, who are represented in the aggregate by the potential candidate's name on the ballot rather than have the names of dozens of electors cluttering up the place. I submit that the "candidates" in question, that must be eligible for election, are the electors and not the persons to whom they are pledged.

I saw that too, and I have no idea. The OSAH website is literally impossible to search, and I certainly never *heard* of a Presidential challenge in 2008. I also don't see anything in the SoS press release archive regarding such a challenge.

Could this be a reference to Terry v Handel from 2008?

I found it in the Birther Case String Cite document and on the Scorecard.

also from ORYR...

Also cited in Tes's 'string cite' document on Scribd

That was exactly the direction I was going in my thinking. Dr C also has the case on his list.

Ah ha. A bit of confirmation for my point above.

raicha sed...

For the moment, I'll leave it at this: the Georgia Secretary of State would appear to agree with me. After all, his office forwarded the challenge to the Administrative Hearings office, where it was assigned a case number and the parties were given deadlines for filing pre-trial orders. If it was patently and plainly invalid to make this challenge, I don't think it would have its current posture at the administrative court.

That's not to say that Obama's attorney couldn't try to make such an argument later. But for once, we actually find ourselves in an inverse scenario where 'Why doesn't he just give the court a birth certificate?' is actually a smart legal strategy. Obama's legal fees will be a lot less if they just have a 10-minute hearing and enter the COLB as evidence, rather than spending hours drafting motions and briefs.

I think there's a good reason why I don't see any caselaw involving federal candidates. Like I said before, residency is complicated. Citizenship isn't. Age isn't. Nobody challenges federal candidates because ineligible people don't make serious runs for federal office.

Link to the transcript of the motion hearing in Terry with the Superior Court rationale regarding "electors".

Yes, looking across the various state election laws, I was surprised how there were ways to object to presidential electors etc but not always to nominees for President. In some states one can raise objectes to nominations but it is not clear that this applies to Presidential elections in all cases and the law assumes that the nomination is legally correct placing the burden on the plaintiff to show fraud or deceit.

In Georgia the election code 12-2-132 explicitly excludes presidential electors as being covered by the rule which is pointed out during the oral arguments of this case.

Except the Terry case has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statutory challenge scheme. Terry just filed 1) a lawsuit, 2) against the Secretary of State, 3) in Superior Court, 4) demanding an injunction, 5) two weeks before the general election.

Under Georgia code, Obama is still a "candidate." It calls him that in the very statute that tells the political parties when to notify the SoS of who to put on the primary ballot. OCGA 21-2-193: "shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot." The Georgia Democratic Party submitted one name: Barack Obama.

For the primary, he indeed may be a candidate but generally speaking the nomination of the candidates is the responsibility of the party.

Under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132 there is no requirement for nomination of the Candidate

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 is trickier but the SOS site only shows forms for US representatives, not US President candidates.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-199

The presidential preference primary may be considered as a general primary for any political party wishing to elect committee members or officers therein. Such party shall prescribe by state party charter, bylaws, or rules and regulations regarding qualifying of candidates and the fixing and publishing of qualifying fees, if any.

Dismissed on standing!!

Boy, would the birthers hate that, as they think they have been "granted" standing.