Arizona State Reps and Senators Introduce Citizenship Bill
A number of State Reps and Senators in Arizona have introduced SB1158, entitled, “presidential candidates; proof of citizenship,” to revise Arizona’s statutes relating to the conduct of elections.
A current listing of State-based initiatives can be found here.
Here’s the bill’s text…
REFERENCE TITLE: presidential candidates; proof of citizenship
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
First Regular Session
2009
SB 1158
Introduced by
Senator Pearce; Representative Burges: Senators Gorman, Gould, Gray C, Harper, Verschoor; Representative Seel
AN ACTAMENDING SECTIONS 16-341 AND 16-507, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 16-341, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
16-341. Nomination petition; method and time of filing; form; qualifications and number of petitioners required
A. Any qualified elector who is not a registered member of a political party that is recognized pursuant to this title may be nominated as a candidate for public office otherwise than by primary election or by party committee pursuant to this section.
B. This article shall not be used to place on the general election ballot the name of a political party which fails to meet the qualifications specified in section 16‑802 or 16‑804, or the name of any candidate representing such party or the name of a candidate who has filed a nomination petition in the immediately preceding primary election and has failed to qualify as the result of an insufficient number of valid signatures.
C. A nomination petition stating the name of the office to be filled, the name and residence of the candidate and other information required by this section shall be filed at the same time and with the same officer with whom primary nomination papers and petitions are required to be filed as prescribed in section 16‑311. The petition shall be signed only by voters who have not signed the nomination petitions of a candidate for the office to be voted for at that primary election.
D. The nomination petition shall be in substantially the following form:
“The undersigned, qualified electors of __________ county, state of Arizona, do hereby nominate __________, who resides at __________ in the county of __________, as a candidate for the office of __________ at the general (or special, as the case may be) election to be held on the __________ day of __________, _____.
I hereby declare that I have not signed the nomination petitions of any candidate for the office to be voted for at this primary election, and I do hereby select the following designation under which name the said candidate shall be placed on the official ballot (here insert such designation not exceeding three words in length as the signers may select).”
E. The nomination petition shall conform as nearly as possible to the provisions relating to nomination petitions of candidates to be voted for at primary elections and shall be signed by at least the number of persons who are registered to vote determined by calculating three per cent of the persons who are registered to vote of the state, county, subdivision or district for which the candidate is nominated who are not members of a political party that is qualified to be represented by an official party ballot at the next ensuing primary election and accorded representation on the general election ballot.
F. The percentage of persons who are registered to vote necessary to sign the nomination petition shall be determined by the total number of registered voters from other than political parties that are qualified to be represented by an official party ballot at the next ensuing primary election and accorded representation on the general election ballot in the state, county, subdivision or district on March 1 of the year in which the general election is held. Notwithstanding the method prescribed by subsection E of this section and this subsection for calculating the minimum number of signatures necessary, any person who is registered to vote in the state, county, subdivision or district for which the candidate is nominated is eligible to sign the nomination petition without regard to the signer’s party affiliation.
G. For the purposes of this section, a nomination petition for the office of presidential elector shall include a group of names of candidates equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state instead of separate nomination petitions for each candidate for the office of presidential elector. A valid signature on a petition containing a group of presidential electors candidates is counted as a signature for the nomination of each of the candidates. The presidential candidate whom the candidates for presidential elector will represent shall designate in writing to the secretary of state the names of the candidates who will represent the presidential candidate before any signatures for the candidate can be accepted for filing.
H. A person who files a nomination paper pursuant to this section for the office of president of the United States shall designate in writing to the secretary of state at the time of filing the name of the candidate’s vice‑presidential running mate, the names of the presidential electors who will represent that candidate and a statement that is signed by the vice‑presidential running mate and the designated presidential electors and that indicates their consent to be designated. A nomination paper for each presidential elector designated shall be filed with the candidate’s nomination paper. The number of presidential electors shall equal the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER FILING THE NOMINATION PAPER, A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
I. A candidate who does not file a timely nomination petition that complies with this section is not eligible to have the candidate’s name printed on the official ballot for that office. The filing officer shall not accept the nomination paper of a candidate for state or local office unless the candidate provides or has provided all of the following:
1. The nomination petition required by this title.
2. A political committee statement of organization or the five hundred dollar threshold exemption statement for that office.
3. The financial disclosure statement as prescribed for candidates for that office.
Sec. 2. Section 16-507, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
16-507. Presentation of presidential electors on ballot; notice; affidavit
A. When presidential electors are to be voted for, the candidates therefor of each party shall be grouped and printed together, arranged in each group in alphabetical order, and the entire group of electors of each party shall be enclosed in a scroll or bracket to the right and opposite the center on which shall be printed in bold type the surname of the presidential candidate represented. To the right of and on a line with the surname shall be placed a square in which the voter may indicate his choice by a mark as defined in section 16‑400, and one mark opposite a group of presidential electors shall be counted as a vote for each elector in such group.
B. 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 POLITICAL PARTY’S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE‑PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
The highlighted areas are in the original and are the key aspects of this statute revision.
Please be aware that if the above were to be passed and signed into law, we would have at least one State in the Union requiring that the candidate for President would be legally obligated to provide their vital records for the Office.
As I’ve said from the beginning on this blog, this is the way to go. Remember that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution stipulates the what of eligibility; it does not specificy the how. Furthermore, while requiring a background check — such as Top Secret level or the like — could be construed as unconstitutional, my opinion is that any State is well within their 10th Amendment rights to require any and all documentation on behalf of the candidate to be furnished prior to being allowed on the ballot.
Together with Oklahoma as two States recognizing there being an issue with candidate accountability, this kind of State-based legislation is a much-needed first step towards reforming the electoral process.
-Phil
Did anybody see the definition of a natural born citizen in the bill? I didn’t. If they don’t define it in the bill, it’s back to the courts again…
please someone comment on this.
And what is the difference and where in text of the Constitution is there support for the difference?
The 14th Amendment Does say that an ‘American citizen’ means people born on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
It doesn NOT say ‘Natural Born Citizen’ it says ‘Citizen’. there is a difference.
The 14th Amendment DOES say natural born citizen means people born on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment DOES NOT say that natural born citizens means people born to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
And, actually, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment defines natural born citizen already.
States can’t pass ex post facto laws. Article I, Section 10.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have to define NBC, and probably wouldn’t venture into that territory. It’d just strike down the state law.
John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:”[4]
“ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
Send this to every representative who is clueless about NBC.
In the United States the prevailing common law adopted at the time of the Constitution was that of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Jus soli is Latin for “right of the soil” and refers to birthright citizenship attained by being born within the United States. Jus sanguinis, Latin for “right of blood”, applies to those who attain birthright citizenship by being born to parents who have US citizenship. These principles form the basis of the current federal law regarding citizenship, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). The current INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1401, outlines various ways that our law recognizes individuals can become naturalized citizens. The INA includes three provisions that are applicable to determine President Obama’s citizenship. The INA states, in pertinent part, that the following individuals shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Further, a special provision in the INA exists related to persons born in Hawaii. Codified at 8 U.S.C. 1405 that provision states:
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
Despite these legal authorities supporting the position that President Obama would fall within the definition of a naturalized citizen under the INA, a number of legal challenges to President Obama’s eligibility to serve were filed in courts across the country. On Friday, December 5, 2008, The US Supreme Court denied an application for an emergency stay that sought to block President Obama from being sworn in. In that case, the Court denied a petition for certiorari from a New Jersey man who claimed that since President Obama had dual nationality at birth, he could not fulfill the requirements as set by the Constitution that the President must be a “naturally born citizen.” Other similar lawsuits were also filed but have ultimately been dismissed by various Federal Courts and courts of appeal.
Ultimately, the Congress counted the votes of the Electoral College on January 6, 2009, and certified the results as required by the Constitution. President Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on January 20, 2009.
There is no doubt that our nation faces many challenges ahead. I look forward to working with the new President and Administration to draft laws that will help move America forward on a bipartisan front. However, you can be certain that I will continue to push for Congressional oversight over to ensure transparency in the Executive branch.
States cannot dictate what the U.S. Constitution means.
…but far left liberal whack jobs can? by changing what is defined, for example very clearly since the 1940s in CALIFORNIA state constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman?? doh!
Are you saying that natural born citizen is not a result of being born to US citizens on American soil??
What are you saying?? Anyway?
Actually I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of states demanding such. It would save a lot of hassle. But I’d like to see it made more clear what documentation is required to meet the requirements in such an act, to prevent political opponents from “moving the goalposts” and seeking more and more “proof” until the demands become completely unreasonable.
I’m kinda curious what happens to the “birthers” though if these bills pass, 2012 rolls around, and President Obama submits the appropriate documentation to meet the state requirements to be on the ballot. Will it put these claims to rest finally? Or will people just believe the state in question is part of the “conspiracy” ??
I’m glad Arizona is stepping up and introducing NBC legislation. I hope all of the other states follow suit. One suggestion…they should add a clause that makes this requirement retroactive and allows the state to verify his credentials anytime post-election. Otherwise, we have to wait for four years before it will have an effect and it may be too late by then.
The state cannot dictate …. yes. But a state can sure challenge it by passing any law, as history ad nauseum shows. Some makes it, most does not.
Now if a state passes a law that defines NBC, then someone who doesn’t like that definition, they will be forced to sue it, hopefully to the SCOTUS. Then we get a clear “This is what NBC means” instead of the limpwrist the issue has gotten. Basically it forces the issue, and standing is moot.
As for the AZ, i wonder if this will make it through thier process. Hopefully McCain stays away from it.
Yeah, you should really take a social studies course sometime if you’re going to make claims about the constitution. States cannot dictate what the U.S. Constitution means.
they need to put in a definition, clear and simple, of natural born citizen because the idiots on the left will say things like
“doh, homer, the Constitution doesn’t define what a natural born citizen is….it can be anything, like ….this dat , and da other ting”.
Because that is what the argument is going to be, at least half of it.
Then next , when OBAMA runs again, assuming this pitiful sham of a flim flam isn’t forced to leave the office until that time comes: they will say he has precedence…..and all the court cases dismissed or decided in his favor. He’s a slimey, slick “slim shady” , as enimum would say…..
Way to go Arizona!