So what you're saying is, when the birthers are done failing at challenging President Obama's qualifications for the primary ballot, they can then challenge him again in all the states on the general election ballot?

No. When they are done failing, only persons who have standing to make the challenge can challenge him again in all the states on the general election ballot.

I would find it odd if the executive agency in charge of putting names on the ballots used in DRE machines, as paper abentee ballots and otherwise lacks the jurisdiction to do its own job. Perhaps they lack the legal discretion to do anything (as appears to be the case in New Hampshire) other than put the names provided by the parties on the ballot, but that's rather different than lacking jurisdiction.

I guess we'll see, since if the administrative court lacks jurisdiction that will be the first thing it addresses, assuming the case isn't so completely screwed up that no hearing occurs at all.

If the challenge was based on a failure of the SOS to put the correct names on the ballot, meaning the ones properly provided to them by the party's state executive committee, I would agree that the administrative court would have jurisdiction to determine whether the SOS had followed the election law. The state party would have standing for that challenge, IMO.

But I don't see where anyone has standing to challenge the party's primary process to determine the number of delegates to be apportioned to potential candidates at the convention, unless they are challenging it through the party's procedure, set out in their Selection Plan.

Not according to the GA Fulton Court ruling. Lack of standing. Of course, one can challenge as often as the legal system allows you to do so. Could they proceed under OCGA 21-2-5 then? The SOS of GA does not appear to think so

I was just thinking that!

Not birthers in general, but those with standing can challenge at the general.

And after the election there's always quo warranto available to a proper challenger.

Probably Mrs. Pro Bono Publico.

It Georgia it would be:

What kind of flowers do they like. Just to be prepared.

But the GA SOS office referenced the ruling that one does not vote for the candidate but for the electors and that the SOS has no power to reject access to Presidential nominees, once duly certified by the party

I don't want to speak for raicha but I believe she's referencing the general election.

Exactly, as were they. The finding was that since one does not vote for the candidate but for the Presidential electors, not to be confused with the delegates in the primary, the SOS has no power over the nominee.


here

Neither do I, but I won't repeat my argument that is upthread.

Jablonski will undoubtedly address it. The judge's (or should that be judges'?) analysis will be enlightening.

Right. But let's say that I am a Presidential elector selected under GA statute O.C.G.A. 21-2-172. (Nomination of presidential electors and candidates of political bodies by convention.) As I read 21-2-5, I would have standing to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for which I am eligible to vote.

Yes, because we began talking about what the nutters could do after they fail in this challenge to the PPP.

A but the presidential elector is not voting in GA for the nominee. Things get a bit confusing here. The presidential electoral college is not under state control?

Well, there are all those public health workers, who answer to the Surgeon GENERAL, who answers to OBAMA.

The statute doesn't say "voting in GA" it says "eligible to vote for a candidate". Whether that is referring to the Electoral College vote or not I cannot say at this point in my reading of Georgia's election law. The statute is not specific on its face.

Man what a mess. So in other words, a elector from the set of presidential electors who may vote for Obama as the candidate could stand up and object. Does not make a lot of sense but yes, that is what the law does suggest.

A federal court would certainly have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a constitutionally infirm primary ballot, such as one that enforced a "white primary" system of the sort previously used in the South by the Democratic Party to disenfranchise black voters in states where the primary was effectively the entire election (as only Democrats would ever actually be elected). I assume a state court would have jurisdiction to challenge a constitutionally infirm primary ballot based either on the federal or the state constitution. I would find it quite peculiar if the state body itself had no power to stop itself from proceeding on an illegal course, considering its broad discretion in interpreting its own statutory mandate and that it is the entity with the most experience interpreting that mandate.

I suppose it is possible, but it would be very bad policy.

This seems to be a grant of general jurisdiction over primary and election-related activities:



O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(10).

Removing a clearly ineligible candidate would seem to fall under that description.

It's arguable this section, being more specific, is more applicable:



O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31(5,6).

The Secretary of State, of course, is on the State Elections Board, as are representatives of the two political parties and two other people not running for office. I would consider the grant of general jurisdiction over primaries and elections in the statute, both what I quoted and as interpreted by the Attorney General opinions mentioned earlier in this thread, to extend to deciding what is properly on the ballot.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-32 governs the filing of legal actions by the Board, but it doesn't seem reasonable to require the Board essentially to sue itself over how it conducts its own enforcement of the laws that are its job to apply.

This statute governs hearings before the Board.



O.C.G.A. § 21-2-33. It would seem odd to give the Board power to hold hearings over "any matter connected with or bearing on the proper discharge of its duties" and to compel witnesses to testify if it could not actually make a decision on that basis. Of course, the "frauds and irregularities" language echoes the language authorizing the Board to bring legal actions in the previous chapter and thus arguably does not confer any additional jurisdiction.

I think, therefore, subject to judicial review, the Board can decide the factual issue of whether Obama is an NBC. It presents no particular analytical difficulties, is within choices left to the State Election Board (composition of primary ballots) and in this case, is the most efficient forum for fact-finding. I don't see them dodging it unless Orly screws it up in a jurisdictional way.

The statutes do not clearly grant specific jurisdiction over the eligibility of a Presidential candidate.

So to argue the other side a bit, the statutory language states:



O.C.G.A. § 21-2-130(1,4).

Further:



2005 Ga. AG LEXIS 3 (Ga. AG 2005). However, I think the supervisory power of the Board, by necessary implication, includes the power to decide what to put on the primary ballots for the state. In this case, to do that requires only a simple factual determination that I believe the Board is capable of making.

The same AG opinion interprets O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172(b)(1)(B) as establishing that the



Again, it seems odd to give them that power, to reject the rules a party uses in nominating candidates, while not giving them the power to supervise in any way how they actually enforce those rules. I imagine they could reject a party's proposed rule only to nominate ineligible candidates, but not one that requires the party only to nominate ineligible candidates, so if the party actually wants an ineligible candidate on the ballot, despite having a rule against it, I don't see why the Board can't say so.

In any case, while there's nothing explicit giving them jurisdiction (or at least I don't see enough likelihood of turning one up to keep searching for one), I don't see why they wouldn't have it under their general powers.

That's all well and good if you take the position that voters in the Presidential Preference Primary are casting votes for a candidate.

I take another view. Each vote for a name on the ballot is a vote for apportionment of some of the 124 Democratic delegates to be pledged to that person at the Convention where the actual nomination of a candidate will take place.

There are no candidates on the ballot to be removed. For the Democrats, the entire primary is a mathematical exercise in delegate selection.

But I'm done with this too. Time to argue about Hawaii.

You pretty much destroyed Orly's petition for an emergency hearing with the Chief Election Officer to adopt, amend or repeal rules... Stop beating up intellectually challenged people....

I've been working this evening so I'm just catching up. I havn't even finsihed this thread but I second Realist's comment.

In Indiana, one can object by filing a CAN-1 form however the Ankeny v Daniels ruling in Indiana will make any challenge likely to fail...

Hilarious, one of the most promising states for a challenge and then this...