Louisiana Representative Alan Seabaugh (R-Shreveport) has introduced HB 561, to require all candidates for President and Congress to submit birth certificates as a condition of appearing on the ballot. The provisions of the bill relating to candidates for Congress appear to violate the U.S. Constitution, Article I. They require candidates for Congress to certify that they are residents of Louisiana. However, Louisiana is in the 5th circuit, and the 5th circuit in 2006 ruled in Texas Democratic Party v Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (2006) that candidates for Congress are eligible whether they live in the state or not, at the time they file to run for office. The U.S. Constitution requires members of Congress to be residents of the state they represent “when elected”, not before. The Texas decision said that Tom DeLay was eligible to run for re-election in 2006, even though he had moved from Texas to Virginia. DeLay was hoping to be declared ineligible, because if he had been ineligible, the Republican Party would have been able to replace him as its nominee in the 22nd U.S. House district.
The U.S. Constitution does not bar naturalized citizens from serving in Congress.
The part of the Louisiana bill relating to presidential candidates seems flawed as well. The bill does not seem to acknowledge that not everyone has a birth certificate. By contrast, the bill on this subject that has already passed the Arizona legislature acknowledges this point, and has provision for alternate methods for proving one’s place of birth. The Louisiana bill requires either the national party or the state party to be responsible for submitting the birth certificate, although the birth certificate must be attached to an affidavit signed by the presidential candidate.
The Louisiana legislature convenes on April 25, and adjourns in late June. Thanks to Bill Van Allen for the news of the Louisiana bill.
For gerrymander Congress folks —
U.S.A. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1, para. 1 part —
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ***
Again – the physical place of birth is MEANINGLESS.
It is the nation-state status of the REAL father in the second that the child is born.
noting – these days allegedly about 20 percent of the kids being born do NOT have a legal father — i.e. naughty women doing whatever with some other guy(s).
See Maury and DNA results — you are [not] the father. Crowd goes wild – with either results.
—
How many special quo warranto (now regular civil actions) regarding qualifications for Prez/VP and State/local officers ???
This stuff AIN’T atomic physics — regardless of ALL of the MORONS raving about some place of birth and lack of birth paperwork.
I think one can get around the issue of full faith and credit.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
Hawaii will be first and foremost on the list of states needing future US-DOJ pre-clearance under the future “Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Act” — once (and if) the current POTUS is removed for nbc in-eligibility having not shown constitutionally valid certifying documentation including nbc related birth documentation.
Tom DeLay resided in Texas when he filed for election and at the time he was nominated in the primary. He subsequently moved to Virginia.
The ruling in the 2006 case was that Benkiser (or anyone else including Tom DeLay) could not be certain that Delay would not move back to Texas before election day. Tina Benkiser was the Texas Republican Chairman at that time, and under state law the party must make a determination that a party nominee is not eligible before replacing him. Benkiser had made that determination, which would have permitted the Republican Party to choose a new nominee. The Democratic Party sued to stop them from doing so.
In similar cases for legislative candidates, the nominee has simply moved to a different district, and become ineligible because they did not reside continuously in their district for the required period before election. For Congress, since a representative need not live in his district, they would have to move from the State, but that was not good enough since the court ruled that it was indeterminable where DeLay would reside on election day.
I’m not sure that the 9th Circuit decision can be construed as to let someone on the ballot who was not a resident at the time of their declaration of candidacy.
@Jim Riley
How could the 9th Circuit decision not be construed to let someone on the ballot who was not a resident at the time of their declaration of candidacy?
The court said, “The California residency requirement has the likely effect of handicapping the class of nonresident candidates who would otherwise meet the requirements of the Qualifications Clause. Therefore, because states do not have the power to add to or alter the requirements enumerated in the Qualifications Clause, Section 201 of the California Elections Code is unconstitutional insofar as it requires candidates for the state’s delegation to the House of Representatives to reside in the state prior to the election.”
The party hack robots LOVE subverting constitutions in ALL election related stuff — it is in their EVIL party hack genes — just like spiders liking to eat flies.
P.R. and App.V. — before it is too late — and the gerrymander MONSTERS start Civil WAR II.
The state legislators that want to add qualifications to those enumerated in the constitution should seek an amendment or just secede and not be bothered by the U.S. Constitution. Like DC they like it any which way but literally.
#5 I wrote “9th Circuit” when I meant “5th Circuit”. I was referring to Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser.
You are referring to Schaefer v Townsend. While it said that California could not require residency at the time of declaration of candidacy, it could require that a candidate “file a document with their nomination papers attesting that they will be inhabitants of the state when elected”.
@Jim Riley
Thanks for clarifying. After I posted my response, I thought you probably meant to type “5th” instead of “9th.”
However, I also don’t see how the 5th Circuit decision could not be construed to let someone on the ballot who was not a resident at the time of their declaration of candidacy.
Even if Delay was a resident of Texas at the time of his declaration of candidacy (which is not clear from the decision), the court said that the state could not create a pre-election inhabitancy requirement. Requiring a candidate to be a resident at the time of their declaration of candidacy would do that.
#9 A state may reasonably demand that a candidate document his qualification to serve as Representative, eg his age, citizenship (including length of time), not violated the 14th Amendment restrictions, and intent to reside in the State.
The fundamental problem is the lengthy preliminary procedures that effectively establish a de facto residency qualification, and also exclude large segments of the population from choosing their representative (eg supporters of minority parties, 18 year olds, new residents, new citizens, re-enfranchised felons; while allowing the participation of recently deceased, former residents, former citizens, and newly convicted felons).
Well, I agree, but I don’t think any of that is an argument that the 5th Circuit decision can reasonably not be construed to let someone on the ballot who was not a resident at the time of their declaration of candidacy.
Oh please!! When will my native state start addressing important issues? Poverty in the state, education, jobs, loss of our Barrier Islands, safety in the Gulf. The Louisiana of fifty years ago would not have ever bought in to this “no story.”