Georgia
- GA SOS Web Site (overview election code)
- GA Statutes - Official Code of Georgia Annotated OCGA
O.C.G.A. 21-2-529 If the result of the primary or election is confirmed, the petition dismissed, or the prosecution fails, judgment shall be rendered against the contestant for costs
Burden of proof
Recently, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. Obama is not qualified to run for President and should not appear on Georgia’s ballot. See Terry v. Handel, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 2008CV158774. On October 24, 2008, the Court entered an Order recognizing that in Georgia, as elsewhere in the United States, voters cast their ballots for “presidential electors,” rather than directly for a candidate, when voting for the office of President of the United States. See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3; O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. Because of this, the Secretary of State of Georgia does not have the authority to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a political party. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-172 to 21-2-200. Rather, Georgia law imposes duties simply for the examination of presidential electors. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. The political parties’ candidates for President of the United States are typically determined through a political party’s convention. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191 to 21-2-200. Therefore, any concerns you may have regarding the qualifications of Mr. Obama to remain on Georgia’s ballot as a candidate for President of the United States should be directed to the Democratic National Party.
I hope this information is helpful to you and thank you for your concern.
Rhonda M. Brown
Operations Coordinator
SOS Elections Division
Terry v Handel
- Fulton Superior Court 08CV158774S Dismissed, Oct 24, 2008
- GA Supreme Court S09A1373 Dismissed, May 18, 2009 (all justices concur)
There are rulings by the Court in Haynes v Wells and O’Brien v Gross, citing Haynes, that suggest that for state representatives and state offices, the burden of proof lies with the defendant. It is not clear if the statutes cited apply to Presidential candidates. During the primary the voters vote for the candidate, during the elections, the voters vote for the presidential electors. Some states allow objections to be filed to the filing of the nominating papers of a Candidate.
- Haynes v. Wells, 538 SE 2d 430 – 2000
Referencing OCGA § 21-2-132(e) and OCGA § 21-2-153(e) *May not apply to presidential candidates)
The relevant statutes, discussed in Division 2, supra, required Haynes to file an affidavit attesting that he was eligible to vote in the fifth district. Thus, the statutes place the affirmative obligation on Haynes to establish his qualification for office. Wells is not required to disprove anything regarding Haynes’s eligibility to run for office, as the entire burden is placed upon Haynes to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. He failed to make that showing. Hence, his candidacy for the fifth district seat was invalid.
Filings
- Farrar et al v Obama - David Farrar, Lea Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth – Orly Taitz
- Powell v Obama - Powell & Hatfield Kevin Richard Powell
- Swensson v Obama – Swensson & Hatfield – Carl Swensson
- Welden v Obama Welden & Van Irion – David P Welden
- Blanchard v Obama -
- Paul Andrew Mitchell – Amicus Curiae Request
- Paul Maas Risenhoover – Pro Se
I understand Haynes v. Wells, 538 SE 2d 430 – 2000, was a GA State case, but the tradition of job seeking and hiring has always placed the burden of proof of qualifications and work authorization (quo warranto) on the employee, and the burden of verification on the employer (I-9, E-Verify).
I-9
“In 1986, Congress passed a law that placed the burden of verifying employment eligibility on employers, and imposed harsh penalties on not only employers who deliberately hire unauthorized workers but also those who make inadvertent errors on the eligibility verification form known as Form I-9.” The essence of the DHS I-9 form/process is discriminatory hiring.
E-Verify
“The federal government and an increasing number of states are requiring employers to participate in E-Verify, an electronic employment eligibility program. Beginning September 8, 2009, many federal contractors and their subcontractors are required to begin using E-Verify. More than ever, E-Verify will impact employers’ bottom lines.”
http://www.fragomen.com/globalcapabilities/CountryServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=CountryServices&service=27
You are not very familiar with quo warranto. A bit desperate to compare elections with work authorization..
Figures…
There are too many birther idoicies to count, but this is yet another one-”The President is my employee”. No, he isn’t. He is an elected official. Neither he nor your Congressperson, state rep, town council member, school board member, etc. are your employees. They “work for you” in the philosophical sense that they are supposed to take care of your interests. But there is no legal employee-employer relationship.
Well, intuitively this may make some sense but from a legal or logical perspective…
So birther….