Main Menu

Archive | Legislation

Missouri birther bill passage doubtful

Missouri Senate Elections Committee Chairman Kevin Engler says that with only 3 weeks left in the legislative session, it is doubtful that the so-called “birther bill” will be debated by the Senate even though it was passed by a Senate committee. Senator Robin Wright-Jones called the bill “a ridiculous piece of legislation,” reports St. Louis station KMOX.

The proposal, HB 1046, requires political parties to provide identity and birth documents and defines a “natural born citizen” as:

… having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth or having been declared a national and United States citizen under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.

I wrote about this bill previously.

Missouri House defines “natural born citizen”

The Missouri House yesterday (March 29, 2012) approved  House Bill 1046, legislation to require that presidential candidates submit birth certificates to the Missouri Secretary of State.

One interesting feature of this bill is that the birth certificate submitted by the candidate would become a “public record.” The birth certificate requirement is somewhat confusing and might present a problem, not for Obama but for others.

Evidence used to verify a nominee’s status as a natural born citizen must be in the form of the most complete record of birth available from the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee’s birth.

Now does that mean “available at the time” or “controlling at the time?” I think it’s the latter, and if that’s right it only says the most complete record of birth available from Hawaii (the controlling authority at the time of the nominee’s birth).

But what is remarkable almost beyond belief is that this legislation defines “natural born citizen” in a way that is consistent with consensus legal opinion on the subject:

“Natural born citizen” means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth or having been declared a national and United States citizen under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.

Birther Bills: They’re Back!

If you’ve been reading the coverage of the Arizona Cold Case Posse, you probably also know that Arizona Representative Carl Seel is headed back to the Arizona legislature with another attempt to get a birth certificate from Barack Obama. See my article: “Arizona legislator seeks ‘third-time charm.’”

Nebraska is back with Legislative Bill 654 that requires a birth certificate from presidential candidates and makes it a Class IV felony for a member of the Electoral College to vote for someone not certified as eligible by the Secretary of State.

Read more:

Kansas committee approves Birther Bill

The Topeka Capitol-Journal reports that the Kansas House Elections Committee yesterday approved a bill that would require candidates for state and federal office to provide proof of citizenship.

Representative Ann Mah (D-Topeka) called it a “birther bill.”

Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican and chairman of the House Elections Committee, said origin of House Bill 2224 was tied to anxiety about Obama’s birth status.

He said the amended version had more to do with acknowledgment  candidates for state and federal office in Kansas should be held to the same identification requirements applied to people casting votes in the state’s elections.

The version of the bill currently available from the Kansas Legislature web site states:

(e) A candidate for any national or state office who seeks nomination by either primary election or petition pursuant to subsection (a) shall show proof of United States citizenship to the secretary of state in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s drivers license or other government-issued identification.

New Sec. 2. (a) The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice-president. Within 10 days after the submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit proof of the candidates’ United States citizenship to the secretary of state in the form of a certified copy of the candidates’ birth certificates and the candidates’ drivers licenses or other government issued identification.

(b) If the national political party committee does not submit the documents required by this section, the secretary of state shall not place
those candidates’ names on the ballot in this state.

Sec. 3. K.S.A. 25-202 is hereby repealed.

Sec. 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.

Read more:

New Hampshire Birther Bill nixed

The Concord Monitor reports that the State House Election Law Committee roundly rejected (14-3) a bill that would have required candidates for President to submit their birth certificates.

The bill (HB 1164) was sponsored by two of the Republican lawmakers that unsuccessfully tried to keep Obama off the NH primary ballot last year. Sponsor DeLumus explained that the bill was not against Obama because it wouldn’t take effect until 2013. Even after removing “long form” language in favor of a “certified copy of a birth certificate” the Committee wasn’t buying.

New birther bill in Arizona

The Tucson Citizen reports the birther bill is back, introduced by Representative Carl Seel. His bill was passed last year, but vetoed by Republican governor Jan Brewer.

From Blog for Arizona:

Seel’s solution is to simplify the bill so that a candidate would only be required to sign, under penalty of perjury, an affidavit swearing that he or she meets the qualifications for the office, including their citizenship. If citizens were to question whether the candidate was qualified, Seel’s bill would state that the citizen would have standing to file suit against the candidate.

It should be interesting to see what if any effect the Georgia ballot challenge court proceeding will have on the bill. A birth certificate submitted to the court and positive determination of eligibility in Georgia would, in this writer’s opinion, take the wind out of the sails of a bill in Arizona.