The Arizona legislature adjourned for the year on the evening of April 29. SB 1024 did not pass. It is the bill that started out as a simple bill to delete the names of presidential elector candidates from the November ballot. It was then amended to require presidential candidates of qualified parties to submit proof that they meet all the constitutional qualifications. Although the bill had passed in both houses, the two houses passed different versions, and there was no time for a conference commitee.
The legislature also failed to pass any bills to cut off funding for the Public Funding program for candidates for state office.
How many incumbents do NOT have the constitutional qualifications / requirements to be de facto holding the office involved ???
Do only the party hack Supremes know for sure ???
Arizona already requires candidates for office to submit an affidavit proving their qualification to hold the office they seek.
As part of changing the ballot, independent candidacy for presidency was restructured to be in the name of the presidential candidate, and not the presidential electors associated with the candidacy. If you look at Arizona’s certificate of ascertainment from 2008, there is no mention of Ralph Nader next to the 11,301 votes; but instead a reference to the statute that he qualified under (Good ol’ ARS Section 16-341 Candidate Presidential Electors).
So under the restructuring, Nader would have been the candidate and would been required just like any other candidate to file an affidavit as to his qualifications.
But this left a loophole for the qualified parties who simply inform the SOS as to who their candidate would be. Arizona could probably get around that by simply requiring all presidential candidates file for office, and permit them to acknowledge the endorsement of the political party. Barack Obama would tell Arizona that he wants to be on the ballot, provide an affidavit that he was qualified, the name of his vice presidential candidate (and his signature), the name of his presidential electors (and their signatures), and the endorsement of a political party (and the signature of an authorized office of the party).
This is good news.