Plaintiffs in the Georgia ballot challenge argue that the burden of proof is on the defendant (Obama) to prove eligibility, citing Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.S.2d 430 (2000). I wrote about this in my article Burden of proof in Georgia. In all the furor leading up last Thursday’s hearing, I failed to note that the defense filed a brief challenging that contention, arguing that the instant case differs from Haynes and that the rule that should be followed is:
a citizen may not be deprived of this right [to hold elective office] without proof of some disqualification specifically declared by law.
Patten v Miller, 190 Ga. 123, 139 (1940), et al.
The full Jablonski motion follows: