----- Forwarded Message ----From: "Roberts, Matt" <mroberts@azsos.gov> To: ##########@yahoo.com" <##########@yahoo.

com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:03 AM Subject: RE: Web Contact Message - Contact Secretary Bennett Hi ##### Sorry that your email got missed in our correspondence folders, and we thank you for contacting our office regarding the ballot requirements for President of the United States. As you likely understand, the Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen. The statutory framework in Arizona places great reliance on independently mounted challenges from the candidates opposition. For example, the Secretary of State or appropriate county election official does not review nomination petitions to verify that voters are qualified electors, rather, that responsibility falls to the loyal opposition. Nevertheless, in Arizona, there are two possibilities for challenge, though neither is express nor absolute. First, it is possible that an action might lie under section 16-672, Arizona Revised Statutes. That section reads as follows: 16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds: 1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election. 2. That the person whose right to the office is contested was not at the time of the election eligible to the office. 3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise. 4. On account of illegal votes. 5. That by reason of erroneous count of votes the person declared elected or the initiative or referred measure, or proposal to amend the constitution, or other question or proposal submitted, which has been declared carried, did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for the office or a sufficient number of votes to carry the measure, amendment, question or proposal. B. The contest may be brought in the superior court of the county in which the person contesting resides or in the superior court of Maricopa county. C. In a contest of the election of a person declared elected to a state office or of an initiated or referred measure, constitutional amendment, or other question or proposal, which has been declared carried, the attorney general may intervene, and upon demand, the place of trial of the contest shall be changed to Maricopa county, if commenced in another county. While this section of law only speaks to state offices, it has been judicially interpreted to be applicable to nominees to the United States Congress. Harless v. Lockwood, 85 Ariz. 97, 332 P.2d 887 (1958). Therefore, there is an argument that this statute might be extended again to the Office of the President. It is, however, not certain.

Additionally, it is possible that a challenge could be mounted pursuant to the terms of section 16-351, Arizona Revised Statutes, which reads as follows: B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable. Section 16-351 is generally used to challenge nomination petitions, but it is possible that subsection B could be interpreted to stand alone and to provide a right of action for candidate qualifications in general. This section has also been interpreted to apply to candidates for federal office. McClung v. Bennett, 225 Ariz. 154, 235 P.3d 1037 (2010). In conclusion, Arizona is very different statutorily from other states, however, there are perhaps two colorable arguments for challenge. In addition, state Representative Carl Seel has introduced legislation requiring a candidate 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, Seels bill allows citizens standing to file suit against the candidate.

I would encourage you to consider these options.

Matthew Roberts Director of Communications & Community Outreach Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State 1700 W. Washington, 7th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007 mroberts@azsos.gov