This issue is very relevant to our case (Noonan v Obama) in CA Superior Court, the Dummett case and some in other states, because it involves the question of whether Secy’s of State have a ministerial responsibility to vet candidates. The answer is a resounding YES, but ever since the age of Obama, seemingly all Secretaries of State no longer think they have such a responsibility, even though most did this in a previous era. Isn’t this just amazing? Are we gonna put up with this %$***#$! MUCH LONGER? It is very clear that Progressives are in charge of the government, party labels meaning not so much. Even though this case is related to the age eligibility requirement, not natural born Citizenship, as our cases are, it is the same principle of eligibility vetting.
[OBC reads much too much into this
Ballot Access article:]
Quote:
On April 2, Heidi Fuller asked the California Supreme Court to hear
Fuller v Bowen, the case that challenges the refusal of the California Secretary of State to enforce the California Constitutional qualification that says legislative candidates must have lived in the district for a year before filing to run for that office. Normally the California Supreme Court would have decided by this week whether to hear the case. But on May 23, the Court pushed back the date by which it will decide that to June 29.
The Superior Court had ruled that the California Constitution’s one-year residency requirement violates the U.S. Constitution, and therefore the California Constitutional provision should not be enforced. But the State Court of Appeals had, in a sense, reversed the Superior Court, and said it doesn’t matter whether the California Constitutional provision violates the U.S. Constitution, because in any event the Secretary of State has no authority to judge qualifications and must let anyone run for the legislature without investigating any of their personal characteristics.
The trouble with that theory is that it would let anyone run for the legislature, regardless of that person’s age and that person’s current residency. And the trouble with the Superior Court decision is that federal and state court decisions, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions, overwhelmingly and unanimously agree that one-year residency requirements for legislative candidates do not violate the U.S. Constitution.