it appears that legal teams are already writing briefs to challenge the law as soon the ink dries... why?
isn't it really just enforcing the Constitution?
Final version
The final version of House Bill 2177 requires candidates for local, legislative, statewide or national office to provide the Secretary of State's Office with documents proving they meet the qualifications for the office sought. Those documents could vary depending on the office.
Presidential candidates must have their national political party send the secretary of state an affidavit from the candidate saying that they are natural-born citizens, have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and are at least 35 years old. The party must include documents proving that information, preferably a long-form birth certificate. If that document is not available, the candidate can provide at least two of the following: early baptismal or circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child, or an early census record.
Legal questions
Legal experts say bill supporters may have awhile to wait before they can celebrate. Federal lawsuits are expected to challenge the bill's constitutionality.
Under that portion of the Constitution, Hasen said, Arizona could be within its power.
But, he said, the problem may be the part of the Constitution that lists the set qualifications for president. He said a U.S. Supreme Court ruling said states don't have a right to add to those presidential qualifications.
"If Arizona passed a law saying the president has to be 50, that would be unconstitutional," he said. "So, the question is whether this is simply implementing the constitutional provision or whether it creates additional qualifications."
isn't it really just enforcing the Constitution?