It doesn't look like Barack Obama will need to get his original birth certificate to state officials to be on the presidential ballot in Arizona next year.

On a 5-3 vote Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee defeated SB 1526 which would let Arizona impose its own requirements on what someone needs to prove before being on the ballot in the state. Three Republicans voted with the two Democrats on the panel to kill the plan offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.

Virtually identical legislation was introduced in the House in the form of HB 2544. But that measure has never gotten a hearing.

The issue first arose in 2008 amid questions about whether Obama could prove he met the federal constitutional requirements of being a "natural born" citizen, born in the United States. Theories have ranged from claims he really was not born in Hawaii to questions of whether he forfeited his citizenship by moving overseas as a child or never had it because his father was Kenyan.

Each of the measures would preclude a presidential candidate from appearing on the Arizona ballot unless party officials provided certain information to the Secretary of State's Office. That includes an original "long-form birth certificate" complete with the name of the hospital, attending physician and signatures of witnesses, to a sworn statement that the candidate had two parents who were citizens at the time of the child's birth.

"I think it's inappropriate for the state of Arizona to establish its own criteria for a federal office that goes beyond what the (U.S.) Constitution requires," said Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix. And Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said this could create a situation where each of the 50 states would be screening presidential candidates using different standards.

(15) comments


bad evt


side note I stayed at the same dorm as jim jones did..


the birther extremely pisses me off and I do not like the guy.. But how stupid can you be. Make me god and then believe it after all last name is smith/

misha trotsky

To Accuracy: The Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible:

Read the entire article: copy and paste


misha trotsky posed:


Globe magazine July 12, 2010 cover story stated “Obama was not born in the U.S.” and featured a copy of the Obama African Birth Certificate! Listed under; CERTIFIED COPY OF RESISTRATION OF BIRTH – Office of the Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya. Web:

While on Barack Obama Kenyan Registration of Birth, Snopes listed the Kenyan Certificate as FALSE Claim. Web:


In conclusion: Lawmakers’ bills in Arizona and other states requiring presidential candidates to show birth certificate are needed.

misha trotsky

I found Obama's Kenya birth certificate:


The Arizona Legislation Bill (SB1526), that would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates prove their “Constitutional Eligibility” to be placed on the Arizona ballot, was voted down 5-3 by the Senate Judiciary Committee with the help of three Republicans Senators.

The five that voted against it were; Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Steve Gallardo, with the help of Republicans John McComish, Adam Driggs, and Rick Murphy. Two Republicans, McComish and Driggs, whose position on the bill was unknown until the vote came out against it, seemed to be worried about what other states would also do. Other states . . . no concern about their state.

"Presidential candidates won't need to show birth certificate for Arizona ballot??"

The bill isn't "dead" until the end of the session (it can come back as a strike-everything amendment to another bill at any time). The questions are; Can the Rules Committee of the Senate still hear it? And, that the House had finally scheduled it for a first read, which apparently can also mean a committee hearing there?


Look to the moon in the night sky and not hear it chime.!

What is the chime of?


Oh, yeah.... note to Speaker of the House Boehner: an alleged (not yet released) baptismal certificate from a Black Liberation Theology Church does not make someone a Christian. Neither does their simple claim to be one. Actions speak louder than words, but words can be telling too: "...the [Islamic] evening call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds I've ever heard". Obama then recited the prayer in perfect Arabic, which starts out when translated: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet...". In other words, its a statement of faith. Doh! We have been duped. Everything he has done since elected speaks even louder than the words he spoke (which I quoted above) in a pre-Election interview. I want a real black president. One who grew up in America, not indonesia. One who is an American black. Even Obama's skin color is a sham.


Obama admits -- by definition -- that he is not a "natural born citizen" in his autobiography and on his website. His birth certificate is not Obama's definitive eligibility issue. However, this Arizona bill is about verfication of (!) citizenship (!) for future candidates. How can any American be against that unless they do not believe in (U.S) national sovereignty? Question authority. Investigate it yourself. As for Obama, his nationality was once Indonesian (established fact). His college records are not available at all anywhere. Did he receive aid as a foreign student? Which SSN did he use to register for selective service? What date did he register? If you honestly investigate those questions, you will learn that you know next to nothing about Obama.

"NOTE Concerning Confidential Information on Birth Record
The bottom portion of the birth certificate (entitled "Confidential Information for Public Health Use") contains confidential personal information (race, occupation, and medical data - including pregnancy history). Health and Safety Code Section 102430 allows this confidential information to be included on an authorized copy only when specifically requested by the person named on the certificate, the mother listed on the certificate, or the parent who signed the certificate (a father may only receive a confidential copy if he signed the child's birth certificate). Because a confidential birth certificate contains very personal information, it is not commonly used (or needed) for identification, travel, school, or sports-related purposes. If requesting a birth certificate that contains the confidential information, please write "Confidential Copy" on the application form.

At some point California switched to a database software program to gather vital statistics, which are then used in reports sent to various departments for analysis. The system does not request the parents nationality or immigration status-- something to fix.


Sad day for America when legislators fail the Constitution.

Regardless of Obama, the bill should have passed.


Your profanity screener is illiterate.


"Senate Judiciary Committee ", bu no vote. That isn't my idea of democracy.
11 states now developing eligibility proof demands for 2012

Connecticut, SB291 require “that candidates for president and vice-president provide their original birth certificates in order to be placed on the ballot.” That is needed to make sure the candidate “is a natural born United States citizen, prior to certifying that the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.”

Georgia, HB37 not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.

Indiana, SB114 to require candidates to provide a certified copy of their birth certificate and include an affirmation they meet the Constitution’s requirements for the president.

Maine, LD34 require for all candidates for public office to provide proof of citizenship. It states, “A candidate for nomination by primary election shall show proof of United States citizenship in the form of a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s driver’s license or other government-issued identification to the Secretary of State.”

Missouri , HB283, require that certification for candidates “shall include proof of identity and proof of United States citizenship.”

Nebraska, LB654, the certification for candidates would “include affidavits and supporting documentation.”
That paperwork would need to document they meet the “eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” It requires an affidavit that says: “I was born a citizen of the United States of America and was subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, owing allegiance to no other country at the time of my birth.”

Montana’s plan that candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for “unnecessary expense and litigation” involving the failure of ‘federal election officials’ to do their duty.

Oklahoma, SB91 would require “proof of citizenship for certain candidates” and take the openness one step further, allowing the public access. It demands an “original” birth certificate issued by a state, the federal government, or documentation of a birth of a U.S. citizen abroad.

Pennsylvania working on a proposal that would demand documentation of constitutional eligibility making sure that presidential candidates meet the Constitution’s requirements for age, residency and being a “natural born citizen.”

Texas House Bill 295 A bill filed for the Texas Legislature that would require candidates’ documentation. It would add to the state election code the provision: “The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate’s original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen.”

Arizona Bill within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

Of special interest from the above listing is Georgia’s HB 37 language regarding “standing” (or, the right to bring a question before the Court of competent jurisdiction) by common citizens regarding eligibility:

Any citizen of this state shall have the right to challenge the qualifications of any such candidate within two weeks following the publication of the names of such candidates by the Secretary of State using the procedures provided in Code Section 21-2-5.

Again, there are some who oppose those of us who question the President’s eligibility. However, if the question is so “crazy” or otherwise irrational, why is it that nearly a dozen States are taking the issue seriously enough to craft legislation to enact enforcement of the constitutional presidential eligibility clause? Further, why would the Hawaiian House consider a measure allowing any concerned citizen to request a birth certificate from its vital records department if all of this is a ruse?


This is good, some common sense prevailed.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.