Kirk Johnson of the NY Times News Service reports from Oklahoma that so-called “birther bill” may come up for a vote next week. Following on the heels of a veto from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of similar legislation, Oklahoma is the birthers next chance to get a legislative bite into Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Supporters of the measure… say that they simply want to clarify the status of all candidates and that Obama’s case has only sharpened the issue and illuminated what they call a glaring hole in the statutes.
Oklahoma Senate Bill 91 passed with overwhelming support in the Senate last month, and unanimously (including three Democrats) by the House committee that reviewed it.Let’s look at the current amended provisions of the Oklahoma proposal:
[ordered_list style=”decimal”]
- Presidential candidates must file an affidavit of eligibility.
- Presidential candidates must submit a state or federal photo ID.
- Presidential candidates must present a certified copy of a federal or state birth certificate or certificate of birth abroad.
- Documents available for public inspection.
[/ordered_list]
Go for it, Oklahoma!
Update:
The Republic news site in Columbus Oklahoma, reports that Republican leaders are still pondering whether to bring this bill to a vote in the House (I suggest interested readers view the full article):
House Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, said he has not decided whether to schedule the measure for a vote before a legislative deadline Thursday [April 28, 2011]. He said he wants to consult with Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, who has kept her distance from the legislation and declined to discuss it publicly.
Republican leaders believe the country is watching what’s happening in Oklahoma. People looking a the bill may well wonder what all the fuss is about. They might not wonder that if they saw some of the other bills.
The COLB meets the test. BO is on the ballot in OK.
Exact language from the statute:
I don’t see any problem with this law or have any objection, as long as it is possible for the candidate to present a photocopy rather than the original of the photo id. (I see it as being logistically difficult for candidates to show up at election offices to show their ID’s, though I suppose Barack Obama doesn’t have any particular need to keep his driver’s license or his regular (non official) passport on his person. But other candidates might want to hang onto their picture ID’s.
The two salient points that differentiate this law from the Arizona law that Brewer vetoed.
1) It clearly will accept certified copies of whatever record each state issues, without specifying what needs to be on it beyond “birth document”.
2) It does not put the Secretary of State in the position of making a decision on candidate qualification. Instead, it merely requires submission of the docs — so therefore no state official purporting to rule on qualifications of a Presidential candidate. (or being sued over their decision)
I agree with the analysis of both Vince Treacy & Expelliarmus on this.
So far, I don’t see any real issues with their current wording on this.
It is a fairly reasonable bill and hardly qualifies under the “Birther Bill” definition, as it seems to have none of the crazy and extra-Constitutional requirements that those other Birther Bills have.
Apart from
2.The Secretary of State decides the documentation required.
No actual issues, BC gets us the NBC and arguably the 14 years piece, photo ID does the proof of identity
The affadavit is redundant if they gather the other data
Public inspection I have a personal issue with from an identity theft and data security perspective.
However, it does have the major problem of making candidates for Federal office provide documentation to the state.
This seems reasonable and Constitutional to me – the birthers are going to be livid when they hear about this next week…
I would note that the current bill doesn’t state that the original documents are available for public inspection. It states that **copies** of the original documents will be made available for public inspection. I suppose they realize that no government agency has a right to keep a copy of a Certificate of Birth Abroad, since the State Dept won’t issue a replacement unless it’s lost, damaged, or stolen.
I would have no problem if they noted that certified birth certificates would be kept. It’s easy enough to get one in almost any state of birth. Part of what the birthers seem to want is to be able to go an fondle one of these official documents.
Well, you don’t want your drivers license number made public. One should probably consult the Oklahoma Open Records law before saying what this means in practice.
http://www.foioklahoma.org/OpenRecords.pdf
Orly sure thinks it’s not going to pass…from her site…
We need you to mobilize, we need urgent help in Oklahoma. Corrupt Speaker of the House Kris Steel is engaged in obstruction of Justice and refusing to put Presidential eligibility certification bill to a vote.
We need all patriots of this country flooding the phone lines of Chris Steel and each and every state representative and state senator in Oklahoma and demanding an immediate vote. This bill is widely expected to pass, we have the votes to pass this bill and make it a law. We need patriots to demand that the Attorney General of Oklahoma start criminal investigation of Kris Steel for refusing to bring the bill to a vote in order to cover up for Barack Obama, who is sitting in the White House while committing Social Security fraud and treason.
If Steel allows the bill to go to a vote, but Fallin pulls Brewer and vetoes it, we need Attorney General of Oklahoma criminallly investigating Fallin for obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting Social Security Fraud, elections Fraud and treason.
Currently the recall is on the way of Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer. we need Attorney general of Arizona to start criminal investigation of Kirk Adams, speaker of the House of Arizona, who maliciously cut the state assemby short and ended it 3 days early to take from the state representatives an opportunity to overwrite Brewer’s veto, Kirk Adams-speaker of the House of Arizona is guilty of Obstruction of Justice and aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason, which is being committed by Obama. Governor Jan Brewer is guilty of aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason.
Please, take a day off from work, go to the Attorney General of Oklahoma, if you are OK resident. Go to AG of AZ if you are AZ resident . Visit the governors, visit the state assemblies. We have to succeed. If this fraud is allowed to go on for 4 more years, United States of America as we know it, will no longer exist.
Two years? Six years?
Do you know how many states have open records for birth certificates? I know California is one, but where “non-authorized” informational copies are overlaid with a message that they’re not valid for identification purposes.
See update to the article.
Personally, I think that it’s funny that Orly doesn’t realize that this law poses no impediment to President Obama…
Funny, but predictable. And someone needs to explain to her the difference between “overwrite” and “override.”
I see no problem with this on its face. guess we have to see what amendments they load on it.
Yeah, the first time you see it you get a little laugh at her expense, but the more it happens you start to cringe a little and just want someone to explain it to Orly privately so she’ll stop…
I doubt it will get loaded with amendments (especially poison pill amendments) – most likely the Democrats don’t care about this bill (and rightly so) or would like it to pass (if I were in the OK legislature, I’d vote for this bill – and say that I did so because I was confident that it was Constitutional and that President Obama was, too…) and any Republican that attached a poison pill (or voted for it) would be excoriated by the birthers for doing so (destroying their pander to the birthers). I’m guessing this will succeed or fail based on whether or not it was put up for a vote (the governor here doesn’t have cover to ‘take one for the team’ like Gov. Brewer did as this bill isn’t facially unConstitutional and completely unworkable like the AZ bill). So the question is, how much does Speaker Steele fear the birthers?
Forced public disclosure of a birth certificate might not be legal under federal medical privacy laws.
A passport would seem to fulfill this requirement, or a Driver’s License.
If all 50 states passed this type of requirement, would the Candidate have to hotfoot it to each and every state capital with his Passport so the SoS can photocopy it?
I assume they would redact stuff from the photocopy before making it available for public inspection?
Actually, the obvious solution would be to attach a photocopy to the affidavit referenced in the statute, along with the statement that “the attached is a true and correct copy of my passport/driver’s license.” The law says that the candidate should “present” the photo identification, but does not require it to be “original”.
I think the picture ID thing is pretty silly for a presidential candidate, when it come down to it. Though I suppose that without it, we ran the risk of Tina Fey being elected vice president the last time around.
Honestly, would you have seen that as a problem?
This sounds problematic to me but maybe I’m missing something.
Section 2 states:
“1. An original birth document issued by a state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, or a certified copy thereof;
2. An original birth certificate issued by the federal government, or a certified copy thereof;
3. An original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad; or
4. An original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States.
Copies of these documents shall be made by the State Election Board and kept available for public inspection pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Records Act.”
Why are certified copies acceptable for categories 1 and 2 but not for categories 3 and 4?
I must be missing something.
It is interesting that this OK bill implicitly answers the question posed to Justice Thomas whether people born in Puerto Rico are NBC. It would be nice to have an answer to this question, but I don’t think a state legislature can do it.
Not really. The bill doesn’t purport to decide whether the Puerto Rican would qualify – it only requires that the individual put forth the documents that show the basis on which they *claim* qualification. They are saying that they will allow the Puerto Rican to run — that’s not the same as saying that Congress has to seat him or her.
A couple thoughts:
To be clear, this bill is not like AZ, where the Secretary of State was empowered to review individual docs and determine whether they are sufficient. Rather, the Secretary of Board of Elections will issue regulations to specify documentation required. So, it’s not a case of individual analysis, but of issuing regulations that apply to everyone. If the regulations go too far, they can be struck down as overbroad.
The bill requires “original birth document issued by a state” or certified copy thereof. If read literally, the HI COLB would not qualify because it is not a certified copy of the original birth document issued in the 1960s. So, I think the validity of this law may well depend on the details set later set forth in the regulations. One can argue that it’s invalid on its face for vagueness – but, I personally don’t think that will fly. I do think that if the Secretary interprets that literally to mean that the actual “original document” or certified copy thereof is required, that would not be upheld under FF&C (the state is requiring proof above and beyond that required by federal law to prove citizenship) and possibly Equal Protection or related principles (people (other than Obama) whose original records were destroyed by fire, flood, or other disaster are disqualified; I’m still not clear whether every single state actually permits persons to obtain copies of the “original” documents).
I find it interesting that, under this bill, OK would accept any and all “original United States Certificate of Birth Abroad” and/or “original Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States” as automatic proof of natural born citizenship. Guess they’re not concerned at all about the implications of Rogers v. Bellei; and guess they don’t believe McCain was qualified to be President (because, by all reports, he did not have any such original report/certificate).
Good idea! Ok. Stat. Tit. 54, § 24A.5 provides that “All records of public bodies and public officials shall be open to any person for inspection, copying, and/or mechanical reproduction during regular business hours; provided:
1. The Oklahoma Open Records Act, Section 24A.1 et seq. of this title, does not apply to records specifically required by law to be kept confidential including: [legally privileged records and records of meetings lawfully closed to the public]
2. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record containing exempt material shall be provided after deletion of the exempt portions, provided however, [Dept of Public Safety need not produce driver license files of persons whose license # was not provided by requester; Bureau of Investigations not required to produce criminal records of people whose names/dates of birth are not provided by requester]
~~~~
So, since birth certificates are required by law to be kept confidential (under many states, including HI), I think that, under Ok. Stat. Tit. 54, § 24A.5 (1), any HI birth certificate must not be disclosed to the public. At a minimum, Ok. Stat. Tit. 54, § 24A.5 (2) requires redaction of confidential information, so drivers’ license numbers and other points of data deemed confidential must be redacted prior to disclosure to the public.
My layman’s opinion is that the COLB is a “certified copy of an original birth document” under Hawaiian law.
I think it’s around a dozen. OH, CA, IN, MA, MN, MT, WA and NJ come to mind.
#3 and #4 are documents of which the State Dept will only knowingly issue one copy, which is essentially the “original”. The only means to get another one is to report the original lost, stolen, or damaged, and the replacement becomes the “original”.
I agree with your reading under HI law — and as long as OK respects FF&C, that will be enough. The issue will be whether the Secretary applies HI law on what constitutes and original, or whether s/he applies a stricter standard than that provided under HI law. Maybe someone already did this and I missed it, but it would be interesting to see how OK law on the issue of COLB (if at all). If OK law is the same as HI, then there should be no reason that the Secretary wouldn’t accept the COLB. IF OK law is different, and the Secretary applies OK law, then there’s a problem.
Again, as I posted above, the law is about ballot qualification, not the qualifications to take office.
It makes sense to set up a broader standard for ballot qualification, so that no one who is potentially eligible is excluded. (That is also the only way such a qualification could stand up under legal challenge in any case).
I don’t think Oklahoma is making a determination one way or another over whether the person born abroad is a natural born citizen — they are simply setting forth a mechanism for candidates to show the documentation by which they claim such status.
And as to McCain …. I don’t know what he would have done if he had no documentation to prove his citizenship status. I suppose the statute would be better if it had a clause that said, “or such other government-issued document proving that the candidate was entitled to US citizenship at birth”
It seems to me that overall the Oklahoma bill makes some sense because it comes pretty close to the kind of wording that is ministerial only and does not put an undue burden on ballot qualification. It also could function as a model for any other state. If multiple states pass such laws, then the main problem is the cumbersome impact of a candidate having to order up 50 certified copies of birth certificates — or worse, having to send their original consular report of birth abroad around on a tour of 50 states within a very short time frame after their party’s nominating convention. So in the end it really doesn’t work for states to expect to see an “original” of anything for Presidential & VP candidates.
But short-term, if the next election rolled around and Oklahoma had the only such law — Obama wouldn’t be the one with a problem. .
Except the bill is saying that a candidate must provide proof that they meet Constitutional eligibility, and that to do this they can provide certain documentation. To me that implies that they are accepting that documentation as NBC proof.
McCain has a birth certificate and a passport. If he didn’t have a birth certificate, his mother is still alive and could provide an affidavit.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the bill addresses only ballot certification and that it makes sense to set up at least as broad a standard …
Expelliarmus: I don’t think Oklahoma is making a determination one way or another over whether the person born abroad is a natural born citizen — they are simply setting forth a mechanism for candidates to show the documentation by which they claim such status.
… and prohibiting someone who doesn’t meet their standard from getting on the ballot which could, thereby, prevent someone otherwise qualified from being elected.
Expelliarmus:And as to McCain …. I don’t know what he would have done if he had no documentation to prove his citizenship status. I suppose the statute would be better if it had a clause that said, “or such other government-issued document proving that the candidate was entitled to US citizenship at birth”
Yes. Well, first, he certainly has documentation that he’s a US citizen by virtue of his passport. He reportedly has a copy of his birth certificate (based on statements he made in Hamblin v. Obama et al. But what was reported was his original birth certificate, not any original Report of Birth Abroad. However, based on a clarification above of what constitutes an original “Report of Birth Abroad…,” I think there’s no doubt that he could obtain one if needed.
Expelliarmus:It seems to me that overall the Oklahoma bill makes some sense because it comes pretty close to the kind of wording that is ministerial only and does not put an undue burden on ballot qualification. It also could function as a model for any other state. If multiple states pass such laws, then the main problem is the cumbersome impact of a candidate having to order up 50 certified copies of birth certificates — or worse, having to send their original consular report of birth abroad around on a tour of 50 states within a very short time frame after their party’s nominating convention. So in the end it really doesn’t work for states to expect to see an “original” of anything for Presidential & VP candidates.
I don’t think that ordering 50 copies of a certified COLB/BC is unduly burdensome – that’s about $500 or so. But I agree with you that it may be practically impossible to shuttle around an original version of the “Report of Birth Abroad…” in the short period necessary.
And, to be clear, I have no issue with a state requiring a candidate to provide proof of US citizenship so long as the “proof” required is consistent with what is required in the birth state (and shows birth in US) and/or under federal law (for other situations).
Expelliarmus:But short-term, if the next election rolled around and Oklahoma had the only such law — Obama wouldn’t be the one with a problem. .
I still think that depends on whether OK applies the law of the issuing state as to what is “original.” The statute is less than clear on that.
I think that they *are* accepting it as NBC proof. But that doesn’t mean that the entity responsible for finally determining qualifications – Congress – will agree with them. I think Expelliarmus’s point is just that — even if a state allows a person on the ballot, it’s still up to Congress to determine qualifications in the end – by accepting or rejecting the Electoral College Vote and raising (or not) objections at the time of ECV certification.
Do you have a specific reference here?
I think Ann might appreciate a little help against Puzo1 on this site:
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/04/final-report-obamas-birth-announcements.html?showComment=1303691392617#c3240602333748305521
Sure – although I *did* admittedly leave out a phrase – i meant what was OTHERwise reported was his BC,…”.
See McCain’s Motion to Dismiss in Hamblin v. Obama et al (Case 2:09-cv-00410-ROS Document 34 Filed 08/10/09 Page 3-4) for the following statement: “McCain has ample evidence documenting his birth at the family hospital on the Naval base, and his counsel explained by letter to plaintiff that McCain could readily produce proof if ever this case merited discovery.”
See Michael Dobbs, “John McCain’s Birthplace,” Washington Post (May 20, 2008).. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html for the following statement: “[T]he McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo. The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here [link]. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.)”
So McCain says he has “ample proof” that he was born in the family hospital on the naval base (not proof of US citizenship per se) and Michael Dobbs reported that he’s seen the BC (not report of birth abroad), and it was issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base.
As I’m sure you know, neither of the two alleged McCain BCs floating around the web were signed by a William Irvine, which means that either Dobbs reported inaccurately or both of them are fake.
And, of course, I guess it *could* be that McCain was referring to his own newspaper announcement* rather than his own BC ad “ample proof” — but given the attorneys (and individual) involved, I assumed he meant actual proof in the form of a BC. (*Announcement @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf)
Also, I think Ann might appreciate help against the blatant lies on this site:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-ineligibility-the-american-press-has-dishonored-itself/
It is my guess is that the “birth certificate” shown to Michael Dobbs was one of those hospital souvenirs and that his official birth certificate is a consular certificate of birth abroad, so I was interested in any new information to test my guess. I had searched the one document in Hamblin (McCain’s motion to dismiss) for “birth certificate” to no avail, so I asked.
One of the McCain birth certificates on the Internet, the one submitted in Hollander, is a very clumsy fake made by typing McCain information onto a real certificate from Panama (only in a different font). The other one (the “short form”) just appeared on the Internet with no provenance whatsoever, and I never seriously considered it.
Hmmm. I thought that it was a “real” BC issued by the PCZ Government and that when he was born, there was no such thing as a consular certificate of birth abroad for the PCZ. If you browse .gov sites, you’ll see that (a) PCZ BC materials are always treated separate and apart from other births abroad – at least if such birth occurred between 1904 and 1979; and (b) and that pre-1979 births for US citizens were registered by the PCZ:
“From 1904 until 1979, the Canal Zone Government registered all civil acts of birth, death, and marriage in the Canal Zone for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. Since 1979, the Panama Canal Commission has issued certified copies of these documents in response to requests from the public. On December 31, 1999, the Panama Canal Commission will no longer exist. On December 1, 1999, those records were transferred to Passport Services in the U.S. Department of State, which will provide the certification service just as it does for similar records issued by U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad.” See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/w2w/foreign.htm#canal_zone,
And Consular *Reports* of Birth Abroad, anyway, clearly are not available for any pre-1979 PCZ births. See http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html
See also
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_5055.html
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200312310
http://panama.usembassy.gov/obtaining_former_panama_canal_zone_documentation.html
http://www.rushmypassport.com/us_proof.html – an nongov service site – which indicates that actual BCs rather than Reports of Birth Abroad are issued for PCZ births. (Scroll all the way to the bottom for the notes).
Then again, I may be completely misunderstanding what I’ve read on these types of sites….
You’re being too kind.