On January 13, 2015, two individuals who had previously run for President filed a petition for cert with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule that California election officials have a constitutional duty to investigate the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates before listing them on the ballot. The two individuals who filed the case are John Albert Dummett, Jr., and Edward C. Noonan. Dummett had declared for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and is also seeking the nomination in 2016. He lives in California. Edward C. Noonan, another Californian, had sought the presidential nomination of the American Independent Party in 2012. The case is Dummett v Padilla, 14-826.
The cert petition takes pains to say that the case is not about President Obama, and that the issue of presidential constitutional qualifications is unsettled law that the Court should settle for the sake of future elections. California’s Secretary of State kept some minor party presidential candidates off the 2012 presidential primary ballots because of constitutional qualification concerns, yet refused to investigate the qualifications of some major party presidential candidates in both 2008 and 2012. The problem for lawsuits like this one is that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to reject electoral votes cast for ineligible presidential candidates. Page 26 of the cert petition says, “After a general election has occurred, it is unrealistic to expect that objections will be lodged by Members of Congress based on the constitutional eligibility of a candidate.”
This particular case was filed in California state courts. The state court of appeals rejected the case last year, and the California Supreme Court refused to hear it on October 15, 2014.
This case is almost identical to a previous California case of Keyes v. Bowen. The SCOTUS refused to hear that case and will refuse to hear this one.
BTW, in the case of the minor party candidates who were removed from the ballot, each had admitted they did not meet the eligibility requirements when the filed to run. So the SoS had a duty to remove the self-admitted, ineligible candidates. In the case of the major party candidates, the questions of their eligibility have been based on speculation and rumors. In those cases election laws do not give the SoS authority to investigate.
The petition claims to not be about Obama, but the petition ignores the history of the case. The petitioners are die-hard birthers: Noonan, for example, regularly calls for President Obama to be executed for treason. And Noonan was kicked out the AIP, so he started his own parry, which he refers to as “the birther party.”
As the commenter above noted, the courts have already ruled that a Secretary of State has the authority to remove from the ballot a candidate that admits she or he is ineligible for the office being sought. So this case adds nothing to the mix; it is just more sore losers.
In any event, the petition will be deadlisted, and cert. will be unceremoniously denied. Continuing the birthers’ perfect record of failure.
The gerrymander Congress ONLY counts the E.C. votes in the 12th Amdt.
See 21 Amdt, Sec. 3.
I.E. the COURTS are supposed to rule on Prez qualifications — i.e. possibly SCOTUS.
Gee – do the State courts rule on the qualifications of State executive officers ???
See the OLDE quo warranto cases – by what warrant do you hold office X.
lets all remember Lee Harvey Oswald travels to USSR and the FBI sitting on the travel records of Ann Dunham for six years.
The minor-party candidates who were removed from the ballot were publicly and indisputably constitutionally ineligible, either because of age or being naturalized immigrants. They bragged about/campaigned on it.
The major-party candidates in 2008 and 2012 were, and are, perfectly eligible, and nobody submitted any evidence to the contrary. This isn’t a double standard. When the Democrats nominate a 28-year-old and the Republicans nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger, maybe then this will actually be an issue.
Also, nothing in either federal law or the Constitution says states can’t put ineligible candidates on the ballot. Nothing says electors pledged to such candidates can’t win and then cast their votes accordingly.
It only becomes a problem when Congress has to decide whether or not to accept those as valid votes. But if a state legislature wants to structure a system where votes for ineligible candidates count in determining who gets to be an elector, then they can do so under their plenary power to select electors however they want. They could pick random names out of the phonebook if they wanted to. They can pick electors pledged to vote for Queen Elizabeth for President and Pope Francis for Vice-President if they want. Congress won’t count those votes, but the states are free to cast them.