"...presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president". I find that hard, not to say impossible, to presume.
Each state has an official, elected or appointed, but sworn in either case, who has the duty to verify that candidates are qualified for …
"...presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president". I find that hard, not to say impossible, to presume.
Each state has an official, elected or appointed, but sworn in either case, who has the duty to verify that candidates are qualified for the ballot, by age, criminal record, residence, etc. THAT is the individual who has the authority to deny a person a place on the ballot for violating 3/14. John/Joan Q. Public has no duty or right to make that decison for the State (or whatever body for which the ballot is intended). His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot. Then the authorized official, if a decision has not already been made, has to decide of there is a basis to disqualify that write-in person.
All voters have a vested interest in who is and who is not qualified for an elected office. While voters are not the only possible parties to seek court determination of this question, individual voters are not limited in their voting to only the persons whose names are on a ballot.
I never said voters were limited: "His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot."
And a "vested interest" is not the same as a legitimate duty to make a determination. Any court wishing to duck the issue could rule that John or Joan have no specific standing to demand a premature determination by the elected official. I think the court would be right to do so, but that is only my "vested" opinion.
"...presumably any registered voter would have standing to determine who is and who is not qualified to be on a ballot as a candidate for president". I find that hard, not to say impossible, to presume.
Each state has an official, elected or appointed, but sworn in either case, who has the duty to verify that candidates are qualified for the ballot, by age, criminal record, residence, etc. THAT is the individual who has the authority to deny a person a place on the ballot for violating 3/14. John/Joan Q. Public has no duty or right to make that decison for the State (or whatever body for which the ballot is intended). His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot. Then the authorized official, if a decision has not already been made, has to decide of there is a basis to disqualify that write-in person.
A sworn official, sworn to uphold the constitutions of their state, and of the United States.
All voters have a vested interest in who is and who is not qualified for an elected office. While voters are not the only possible parties to seek court determination of this question, individual voters are not limited in their voting to only the persons whose names are on a ballot.
I never said voters were limited: "His/her choice is to vote for whomever s/he wishes on the ballot or to write in someone not on the ballot."
And a "vested interest" is not the same as a legitimate duty to make a determination. Any court wishing to duck the issue could rule that John or Joan have no specific standing to demand a premature determination by the elected official. I think the court would be right to do so, but that is only my "vested" opinion.