Comments on: When can states impose their own conditions on presidential candidates’ ballot access? https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/03/can-states-impose-conditions-presidential-candidates-ballot-access/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Thu, 05 Apr 2018 14:20:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Steven https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/03/can-states-impose-conditions-presidential-candidates-ballot-access/comment-page-1/#comment-348398 Thu, 05 Apr 2018 14:20:34 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=69325#comment-348398 One distinction between this and the Arkansas case is that the Constitution requires popular election of Representatives, but allows state legislatures to appoint electors or choose an alternative system of electing them. I assume this doesn’t give the legislature plenary authority to, for example, give the state’s electors to the white candidate with the most votes, but I would think that it would give them more flexibility.

My other thought: is there overlap between the people pushing extra state-level requirements for presidential candidates and the people pushing a national popular vote? I think of them as both coming broadly from the left (though obviously not in the Arizona case), and they are clearly in tension with each other, but maybe they aren’t the same people on the left, or maybe someone can offer a justification for supporting both other than political expediency.

]]> By: Senate bid to deny Trump ballot access in Maryland | Free State Notes https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/03/can-states-impose-conditions-presidential-candidates-ballot-access/comment-page-1/#comment-348364 Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:41:34 +0000 https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=69325#comment-348364 […] Note also that the Arizona legislature in 2011, under the influence of “birther” sentiment, passed a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state’s ballot. Although natural born citizenship unlike the release of tax returns is of course a genuine constitutional prerequisite for serving as president, the interference with the appropriate distribution of federal-state power, as well as the intent to target one particular candidate, namely birther target and incumbent President Obama, was evident enough that conservative Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the measure. [cross-posted from Overlawyered] […]

]]>