Arizona | Birther | Jan Brewer | News

BigGayDeal.com

Arizona Birther Bill Heads to Jan Brewer After Clearing Legislature

The country's first "birther bill" could become law, in Arizona, Politico reports:

Brewer After it easily cleared the state Senate Wednesday, the Arizona House on Thursday night voted 40-16 in favor of the legislation requiring presidential candidates provide proof that they were born in the United States before being able to get on the ballot in the state. Four members of the state House didn't vote on the bill.

Lawmakers in 10 states introduced birther bills in their state legislatures at the beginning of this year's sessions, but the Arizona bill is so far the only one to make it to a governor's desk. The measure had failed twice in the last two years to make its way through the legislature, but this time was shepherded by a compliant Republican leadership that had not been eager to advance the issue before.

Governor Jan Brewer has not indicated what she will do with the bill, but has five days to sign or veto it before it becomes law.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. So glad to see the Republicans keeping up on their promises of placing jobs and the economy as their no. 1 concern. Oh, wait . . .

    Posted by: LiamB | Apr 15, 2011 9:39:52 AM


  2. I am assuming that there is already some mechanism in place that requires candidates for president to prove citizenship. After all, we've been doing this for several hundred years now.

    Clearly and unashamedly, this is directed at Obama and will be an sideshow during the next election as they will probably require him to personally show up at the AZ capital with birth certificate in hand.

    Arizona is trying hard to unseat Texas and Oklahoma as the Extremist State.

    Posted by: Chadd | Apr 15, 2011 9:48:32 AM


  3. My sister and several aunts and uncles live in Arizona. I just don't understand. They are all such progressive, open-minded people. How did the state become overcome by crazies?

    Posted by: George | Apr 15, 2011 10:03:18 AM


  4. No problem...the states that don't allow the President onto the ballot because of this stupidity can simply be left out of the Electoral College tally. They can run their state ballot process however they want, it doesn't mean the resulting Electors have to be accepted as legitimate. The Supreme Court has already ruled votes don't have to be counted.

    Posted by: RWG | Apr 15, 2011 10:07:29 AM


  5. @Chadd, haha no. She's just targeting brown people again.

    Maybe it's accurately called governing from the directive of some un-exposed for-profit corporation, happy to use bigots' beliefs against their interests? You know SOMEONE will get profit from this. Maybe that private prison or something that put her in office?

    Posted by: just_a_guy | Apr 15, 2011 10:09:58 AM


  6. Great. So we just created a law that sets up a secret police to vet our political candidates. Just what a Constitutional Democracy with free and open elections needs.

    Posted by: Beef and Fur | Apr 15, 2011 10:11:33 AM


  7. George
    There are a pocket of Arizonans that are of the progressive mold. Unfortunately, especially after the economic bubble burst, we're left with the dried up bigoted racists that Arizona has ALWAYS been known for. We huddle in small masses for support. The amount of crazy in this State, predominately in Phoenix and the surrounding cities is mind boggling.

    Posted by: Keith | Apr 15, 2011 12:31:26 PM


  8. my god which is worst state when in comes to dumbass state laws montana texas or arizona? they all seem intent on passing laws to abridge people's rights. seems like all the fundies who blame god revenge for natural disaster live in the areas where most of the natural disaster take place. maybe god hates the funies

    Posted by: walter | Apr 15, 2011 1:19:34 PM


  9. Isn't this already a law in the Constitution itself?

    Posted by: romeo | Apr 15, 2011 1:51:34 PM


  10. So...someone help me understand this:
    1) AZ is putting forward a law requiring a presidential candidate to show proof of birth to make it on the ballot in that state.
    2) AZ has 11 delegates to the electoral college who, generally, cast their votes in favor of the candidate who received the majority of the popular vote in their state. However, I don't know if the state actually has anything in the books, but the delegates are not necessarily REQUIRED to cast their vote for the popular vote winner.
    so
    3) The State of Arizona, by doing this specifically to avoid putting Obama on the ballot in their state for the popular vote, can actually set themselves up to allow only 11 state citizens to vote for a man who is not on the ballot...thereby they have voted to remove their voice from the next presidential election because they don't trust Hawaii.

    Does this about sum things up? Or am I missing something here?

    Posted by: Jay | Apr 15, 2011 2:33:53 PM


  11. From what I read over at Americablog on this yesterday, there's some "exceptions" to needing the birth certificate -- the bill will also accept a certificate of baptism and, if you're a male, the fact that you're circumsized is good enough for them. Seriously! http://www.americablog.com/2011/04/arizona-senate-passes-birther-bill.html

    Posted by: Ryan | Apr 15, 2011 5:56:16 PM


  12. So much for a second run for McCain!

    Posted by: Garst | Apr 15, 2011 6:36:34 PM


  13. Once again our Governor (puppet for Russell Pierce) and legislature has proven to be a complete embarrassment. Please don't think that all Arizonans are moronic bigots. As a born and bred Arizonan, these people and their horrific judgments are appalling to me.

    Posted by: Ken C | Apr 15, 2011 8:24:32 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: Amazing Clip of NYC's Greenwich Village in the 60's« «