Drawing the line

Arizona Gov. Brewer Vetoes Presidential 'Birther' Bill

Apparently even the support of Trump for the birther movement cannot convince some Republicans. Governor Brewer is about as conservative as a Republican can be, but even she found this bill too extreme.

Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, "I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.""In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far."

brewer-vetoes-presidential-birther-bill/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C210191

I wonder if this will effect other states that have similar bills pending.

Governor Brewer, who has gotten the highest score from the NRA for supporting gun rights, also vetoed the bill that would have required college campuses to allow guns to be carried on campus in public areas. I think the sticking point there for her was it took away the rights of individual campuses to make the rules regarding guns on campus. There is nothing in AZ law that prohibits guns on campus, just the colleges own rules.

I don't think it was that she thought it was too extreme... I think it was because her attorney-general, and the rest of the state lawyers finally made her see that it was unconstitutional, and the cost of fighting yet another dumb law all the way through the SCOTUS would look pretty stupid in a budget that is already killing people over transplants...

I don't know if cost is an issue here.....so far, when AZ has laws that need defending, such as SB1070, private donors have stepped up to the plate with cash (we do have some wealthy conservatives here that love this stuff). Governor Brewer may be a conservative Republican, but she is also a pragmatist. She probably couldn't see where these bills would do her reputation in the state any good right now and quite possibly do her harm....she has been spending a lot of time defending transplant deaths as a necessity to balance the budget. That has not gone over well.

As for the gun bill....AZ universities depend on out of state students to keep in-state tuition low (although in-state tuition is rising fast as part of the budget mess) Brewer may be afraid that such a bill would discourage some students, or parents, from considering AZ universities and colleges.

Her vetoes were certainly a surprise.....everyone from the legislators to the public just assumrd she would sign them. Maybe it was just payback.....a couple issues she wanted addressed in this session never made it to the floor.

In her remarks vetoing the bill, one complaint that she had about the bill is that it would require candidates to possibly submit records of their circumcision.

perhaps it had more to do with the wording of the bill?

it will be interesting to see how other states draft their qualifications to run for elected office.

The US Constitution sets the qualifications for running for federal office, the states can only set qualifications for state office.

I read that she said as a former Secretary of State that she didn't think it was a good idea to have the final decision in the hands of one person.

I heard her interview. She said it places too much power with the Secretary of State as the final gatekeeper in deciding who could be a candidate and who could not. I could see it easily abused.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The US Constitution sets the qualifications for running for federal office, the states can only set qualifications for state office.

Indeed it does, but it is silent, and thus a power reserved to the sovereign states and their citizens, on ensuring qualification prior to the election or ensuring qualification prior to inclusion on the ballots. One must submit to the state rules for inclusion on the ballot in that state. Some presidential candidates are not included on the ballots in all 50 states because they have not satisfied the state rules to be included on the ballot in that state. If the state rules require that a candidate prove eligibility prior to be included on the ballot in that state, then the candidate must prove to the satisfaction of the state that they are qualified to hold the office that they are seeking before being included on the ballot.

The states may not require additional qualifications beyond the Constitutional requirements for federal office.

edited to add:

The supremacy clause prohibits the states from such actions.