Via Oklahoma bill tracker:

I can't believe Oklahoma is being that sane.

This one doesn't look bad at all. It avoids all of the problems in the AZ bill.

Where's the part about the Presidency and Vice Presidency?

I can't see Miki Booth being happy with it, but it's fairly sane as birther bills go.

Regarding this bill (in comparison to the Arizona bill), OFGS ends with, "There is nothing wrong with a state wanting proof of citizenship for candidates on their ballots."

I somewhat disagree. I agree there's nothing wrong with it, I just think it a solution in search of a problem. I don't see how the current mechanisms are so ineffective in dealing with ineligible candidates that a fix is required.

Also, I think it would be safe to assume many birthers are "small government" conservatives. Yet here's a bill that would enlarge government, and create more costs for candidates and government. President Obama, in the SOTU address, referenced getting rid of burdensome regulations; this kind of bill would a perfect example of that goal.

Very true, but it appears the time has come for this anyhow.

Maybe it's intended to save the states from bankruptcy. Every $10 helps.

Sorry, but this bill is flawed also.

Persons born in New York City can only get a BC from the City Dept. Of Health.

Also, both this bill and so far the Maine one, require candidates to present photo ID. Candidates are going to have to fly around the country and meet all of the states' deadlines to personally show their IDs. It's not like they can order 50 drivers licenses like they can BCs.

Same with these:

And just what is meant by "original"?



So anybody running for any office in the state will have their personal info exposed for identity theft. People with "short form" BCs will be grateful for less info exposed, but at a minimum DOB and Mother's maiden name exposed just to run for city council? How many people run for each of these offices that won't even win, but will still have their info made public?

I dunno. I honestly think that the fact that Roger Calero, a guy who publicly *admits* he's not a U.S. citizen AT ALL, managed to get on the Presidential ballot in a handful of states, suggests that a modicum of scrutiny might not be a bad thing.

And it's for this same reason that I kinda like Oklahoma's bill, because it actually covers all races and not just the Presidency. Major contenders for the Oval Office are scrutinized pretty heavily for a long time, like Judge Robertson (IIRC) pointed out. But virtually all political positions require ordinary US citizenship, and people running for State House or Public Service Commission could easily slip under the radar.

More scrutiny wouldn't have helped the Calero situation, as he was plainly ineligible. The solution to a future Calero is just to require candidates to certify -- under penalty of perjury -- that they are eligible. A felony conviction is a nice deterrent.


From a birther perspective, I agree the Oklahoma bill is an improvement, as it does apply to all candidates. But from a real-world perspective, it is an unnecessary increase in paperwork, costs, etc. Again, I don't think the current methods of eligibility enforcement are so broken that they need fixing.

I personally disfavor this approach at the state level, although I do believe that candidates like Calero, even if elected, should not be allowed to serve when they are blatantly ineligible. My opinion is at odds with existing Supreme Court precedent, which I gladly admit, specifically, Burdick v. Takushi 504 U.S. 428 (1992), rejecting a challenge to a prohibition on write-in votes in Hawaii in a 6-3 vote with Kennedy, Blackmun, and Stevens dissenting.

I believe the ballot is as much a forum for First Amendment speech as any other piece of paper expressing an opinion about the government, and voters have a fundamental right to use such forms to express their opinions, even if those opinions involve a desire to elect ineligible candidates, vote for "Mickey Mouse" or "The Lizard People," or otherwise express their contempt for the electoral process, however imprudent their use of this right may be.

Therefore, I believe that even blatantly ineligible candidates like Calero, just as "Mickey Mouse," should be on the ballot if they otherwise meet the procedural requirements. Clearly, such candidates should not be allowed to serve, and it is obvious that at least Mickey Mouse would be incapable of actually serving, but voters (IMO) have an absolute right to use their vote to express an opinion. This is a core principle of democracy, and I do not approve of abandoning it.

Loren's argument is pretty convincing to me. If you are so unsatisfied with the candidates on the ballot, then I think you should be free to write in any candidate, even one ineligible for office.

However, those on the ballot should be limited to those who are eligible for office in the first place. Should Calero be subject to prosecution for running for President in 2008? Maybe. But I don't know if there is any crime in running for an office on is not eligible for.

And I tend to think that's a rather bad idea. Most of all, I think it would serve to greatly undermine voter confidence in the electoral system. One of the little things that underlies Birther paranoia is the fact that there's no formal federal scrutiny of eligibility. They just wrongfully assume that Obama somehow exploited that.

Now imagine expanding that lack of scrutiny to every race on the ballot. Voters in the voting booth couldn't have confidence that their votes will really count. They wouldn't know if the person they're voting for would actually be permitted to take office. It could be a severe blow to one's faith in even minimally competent government. I know that I would be bothered to think that any number of the candidates on the ballot might be ineligible, and worse yet, that the state office in charge of elections didn't care.

Moreover, such a system permitting ineligible candidates onto the ballot (especially "Mickey Mouse" and the like), would create some insanely perverse incentives. In a moderately close race, the supporters of one candidate could simply raise funds to put on the ballot an ineligible person with a name that's identical to the opposition's. After all, if candidates aren't being scrutinized for eligibility, it doesn't matter if they're too young or live out of state. Or, like Mickey Mouse, aren't even real.

Worse yet, such a system of allowing on ineligible candidates could easily screw up races with multiple candidates, like open-seat judicial races.

And what do you do if an ineligible candidate actually *won*? Particularly in a two-person race? That constituency has to be told that the guy they chose won't take office, and instead the win goes to the loser.

Did Reps in any of the states in which Calero was on the ballot run around and close whatever loophole allowed him on, like they are trying to do with President Obama? Or does the ineligibility hate only apply to the black guy with the scary name?

I'm aware of that, and you have a lot of good reasoning on your side.



I believe the electoral system is very rickety and flawed, and that these flaws stem from the bad (but unavoidable) compromises we made when drafting the Constitution. The Electoral College, for instance, has been an utter disaster, and has resulted in numerous electoral debacles that called into question the legitimacy of a Presidency. Bush v. Gore was hardly the first such imbroglio. The dispute between Hayes and Tilden is particularly apropos, and resulted in extensive controversy in Congress. More to the point, the disputes between Jefferson and Adams in 1796 (which resulted in Adams being elected President and his opponent Jefferson Vice-President), and the bitter 1800 election (which led to the Twelfth Amendment), showed that there are very deep flaws in our electoral system.

I do not think these deep flaws should be ignored, and while events like Mickey Mouse appearing on the ballot may seem to deride the idea of democracy itself, I think that such events are actually an entirely valid expression of derision for a ridiculous and flawed system, and that including such candidates actually furthers the improvement of democracy.

In short, I think democracy should be a mess and should look silly, because it is.



I don't think this encourages the view that the state office of elections doesn't care, so much as that the system we laid out in the Constitution is actually deeply flawed. I think citizens should be aware of the flaws in our Constitution. It may be one of the best constitutions on Earth, and it may have inspired similar documents all over the world, but let's not pretend it's perfect. It may be the case that the Article V process for amending it is permanently broken, and that our system for electing Members of Congress and the President are hopelessly flawed without amendment, but I don't think that stripping voters of expressive rights, via provisions prohibiting write-in votes or excluding ineligible candidates, actually serves any valid purpose.



I'm in complete agreement with you that "malicious" ineligible candidates should be prohibited, if the other side can make a showing that some candidate is an actual sham candidate with no interest in the office, injected into the race solely to harm a legitimate candidate. There is virtually no chance, however, that "Mickey Mouse" would be such a candidate.



An obviously ineligible candidate, like Calero, would be disqualified. Most such candidates are so unlikely to win that the issue is not going to arise. If an obviously ineligible candidate like Calero ever did win, it would do no more than demonstrate that the electoral system is hopelessly broken and needs to be fixed.

I don't see that happening. I think the ballot is the very core of our democratic republic, and that it should by definition be open to expressive conduct, even if that conduct is stupid.

As a matter of practicality, many of the people in charge of vetting eligibility, if there are any such officials, simply ignored Calero. Perhaps they figured that since there was literally zero chance of him actually getting elected, why bother? Scary Black Guy, by comparison, was a shoo-in winner once he got nominated. The fact that not a single politically-motivated election official attempted to kick him on the ballot is just another proof that until Obama was elected, no serious or sane person actually thought he was unqualified.

Only after his election did a gaggle of nutjobs come along to make up a bunch of BS that would disqualify him.

By way of example, a few years ago it was alleged in San Francisco one of its supervisors (the elected legislative body) failed to meet the residency requirements. So the City Attorney filed a quo warranto action.

N.b.: the duly appointed city official initiated the appropriate legal procedure. And not a bunch of nutjobs reading someone anonymous blogger who doesn't understand the law.

I have no opinion about this specific case. But unlike the federal quo warranto statute, the writs available to many state residents are more robust. I am a huge fan of the prerogative writs in general.

SB 91 is on the Agenda for the OK Senate Rules committee tomorrow, Weds, 24th. I think the committee will be broadcast so I'll give an update tomorrow PM.

At least this means that the other two OK birther birther bills should die since they have to clear Rules by 28th and this is the last rules before then.

I'm with Bob on this one. How many non-citizens have won public office in the past, I don't know, 100 years?

I agree that this is a solution looking for a problem.

Uhh, not to be picky but today's the 23rd. Is it today or tomorrow?

Silly me - it's today the 23rd

It's a solution looking for an Obama.

Still over an hour to the Rules committee meeting but I see that an amended version of this bill has appeared. So it looks as if there've been some behind the scenes consultation .



I'll load it up to my scribd page later and post a link.