Comments on Advance Indiana™: At Least 10 States Considering Ballot Access Legislation For Presidential Candidates

There is no controvery. A small number of people...

2011-01-27T20:20:19.638-05:00

There is no controvery. A small number of people in this country are just trying to undo the voice of the people in 2008.

I agree completely with Advance Indiana. Obama, ...

2011-01-27T16:53:03.245-05:00

I agree completely with Advance Indiana.

Obama, or in fact anyone with a short form birth certificate, will simply prove it to the states that require it.

Since in Obama's case it is the official birth certificate, and in other states that have adopted short-form birth certificates as their official birth certificate it is too, the state that desires to see the birth certificate will accept the COLB or any other official birth certificate--whether it is long-form or short-form.

I've made that point before, Cato. Hawaii offi...

2011-01-27T12:18:59.743-05:00

I've made that point before, Cato. Hawaii officials say they have a recorded record of Obama's birth so the state will issue the COLB needed to get on the Indiana ballot. Reagan's birth was registered whether there was what people descibribe as the long-form certificate or not. When he was born, most babies were born at home and not at hospitals where the long-form certificates were used.

The red staters are insisting on birth certificate...

2011-01-27T12:04:24.301-05:00

The red staters are insisting on birth certificates, not bibles or vital records.

Obama has well met the standards you deem sufficient in your 10:58 post.

Obama has a vital record on file with Hawaii, more specific than the records from the states you noted.

By the way, Reagan had no birth certificate.

See this information: The content of the records ...

2011-01-27T10:58:10.295-05:00

See this information:

The content of the records will vary with the locality and time period. Records may have been recreated when they were damaged or lost.

New England. (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont) These states have kept good vital records. The town clerks kept register books as early as the 1600's (see the “Town Records” pages for details). Most of these states have statewide indexes of the existing records. Most New England states began statewide registration of births, marriages, and deaths between 1841 and 1897. Vermont began centralized registration in 1919, but individual town records go back to the 1700's. Except for New Hampshire (which began recording marriages as early as 1640), many New England marriages in colonial times were not recorded because of the laws and religious customs of the region.

Middle Atlantic (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland). It is unusual to find any vital records before 1885 for New York and Pennsylvania, except in the larger cities. All of the states began statewide registration of births and deaths between 1878 and 1915. Statewide registration of marriages began between 1847 and 1906. New Jersey and Delaware have marriage records dating from the 1660's (or the creation of the counties), but systematic recording of marriages in New Jersey did not begin until 1795.

South. (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,Texas, Virginia and West Virginia) In the southern states, laws for civil registration of births and deaths were enacted between 1899 and 1919. Marriages were a legal contract which involved property rights, so the counties recorded them carefully, starting in the early 1700's (except in South Carolina where they began in 1911). Most states initiated statewide marriage files between 1911 and 1962. Virginia counties began recording births, marriages, and deaths in 1853, but stopped between 1896 and 1912. Church vital records often reach back into the 1700's.

Midwest. (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin ) Government officials in the midwestern states began files of births and deaths as early as the 1860's in many counties. Statewide registration of births and deaths was initiated between 1880 and 1920. Officials began recording marriage dates as soon as each county was established and generally began statewide registration between 1880 and 1962.

Great Plains. (Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and South Dakota)

West. (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) The western states vary greatly in their registration of vital records due to their different settlement patterns. Most areas began statewide registration of births and deaths between 1903 and 1920. While most counties were keeping marriage records by 1890 or the date the county was created, statewide registration generally began between 1905 and 1978. Hawaii's records of births, marriages, and deaths start as early as the 1840's.

Also, I don't know where you are getting that ...

2011-01-27T10:54:48.413-05:00

Also, I don't know where you are getting that five number, Cato. States have had vital records laws to record births for a long time now.

Family Bibles used to be maintained as evidence of...

2011-01-27T10:53:12.065-05:00

Family Bibles used to be maintained as evidence of a child's birth into the family. Families recorded births in them as a matter of course. That was how it was discovered long after his death that Chester Arthur had lied about the date of his birth.

The presidential election is NOT a federal electio...

2011-01-27T10:45:58.217-05:00

The presidential election is NOT a federal election. It consists of 50 state elections that selects electors to the electoral college.

The electoral college conducts the 'federal election' that selects the president.

Don't be coy, Gary. You know exactly what the ...

2011-01-27T10:43:37.305-05:00

Don't be coy, Gary. You know exactly what the game is these red-staters are playing.

By the way, all but about five of our presidents did not have a birth certificate.

You presume, Cato, Obama will not be able to produ...

2011-01-27T10:32:06.799-05:00

You presume, Cato, Obama will not be able to produce the requisite evidence to get on these state's ballots or swear under oath he is constitutionally eligible? Do you know something different from what Obama's defenders have been saying all along he was born in Hawaii and a birth certificate documenting his birth there exists. The only reason he would be denied access is if he refused to produce the proof of his eligibility or refused to swear to his eligibility. Why would he do that?

Gary, as an attorney, you must know that the court...

2011-01-27T10:23:22.155-05:00

Gary, as an attorney, you must know that the court's methodology is nothing but whatever is required by present need.

The Feds will quickly grow weary of states asserting supremacy.

Obama may not run, again, but if he does, he's on every ballot, or that state's delegation will be denied its votes in the Electoral College. If the sitting President is denied ballot access in one of these red states, there will be rampant charges of a conservative coup d'etat and a corresponding delegitmizing of the U.S. government.

This country cannot afford to be a third-world mess where the President refuses to abdicate amid charges of rigged elections and a rival armed faction is in the streets seeking to oust the sitting government.

These red states are playing with dynamite.

State ballot access laws have long been upheld by ...

2011-01-27T09:10:40.553-05:00

State ballot access laws have long been upheld by the courts. States have enacted varying laws imposing varying degrees of burden to get on the ballot that have been upheld by the courts. SB 114 does not require any additional qualification that is not already required by the U.S. Constitution.

It's a federal election, so look for the feds ...

2011-01-27T08:49:48.753-05:00

It's a federal election, so look for the feds to tell the states just how far they can go on these measures.

Secretaries of State everywhere are at risk of the Federal Elections Commission taking their jurisdiction if these laws annoy the feds too much.