Sharon Meroni Continues Quest to Force Candidates to Prove Citizenship

Algonquin Township’s Sharon Meroni challenged the candidates running for legislative office in her part of the state, just as she challenged the candidacies of various judges, including Independent Sally Wiggins’ during the last election cycle.

Amanda Howland

Dan Duffy

Her most recent action is to drop the three candidates for State Representative to fill Mark Beaubien’s seat starting in 2013, but to continue the challenge of State Senator Dan Duffy’s and his Democratic Party counterpart Amanda Howland’s right to be on the ballot. Both are unopposed in the primary election.

She is seeking administrative review in a case entitled Meroni V ISBE, filed in Cook County Tuesday.

“Our suit seeks to get at the underlying Constitutional issues with as little disruption to the different candidate campaigns as possible,” Meroni explained.

“The underlying issue is that the US and Illinois Constitution requires citizenship, but there is no process where the candidate‚Äôs citizenship qualifications are entered into the public record,” she explained.

“Consequently, we [at Defend the Vote] believe that infringes on my right to vote.”

“We are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court,” she concluded.


Comments

Sharon Meroni Continues Quest to Force Candidates to Prove Citizenship — 2 Comments

  1. Are Illinois Employees required to undergo E-Verify before getting a job.

    What would be the impact if an Illinois Governor EO requiring all candicates for 2012 election (town, city, county, state or Federal Candidates including Pres and VP) to undergo E-Verify or not be on the ballot; “Candidate’s Choice” to be appropriately on or off the ballots.

    In case of the POTUS and VP, which required consntitutioinal “natural born citizen” status, if no E-Verify then SCOTUS declaratory judgement clearing the individual as qualified IAW the Constitutional requirement and Minor V. Happersett.

    After all, if the Governor, the number one law enforcement Officer in Illinois, permits an unqualified candidate onto the ballots to be elected and that individual causes a crime(s), then is not the Oath of Office of the Governor in question logically.

    Especially, if the individual could have not been e-verified in the first place.

    Think deeply about this one.

  2. Minor v. Happersett has nothing to do with the definition of Natural Born Citizen, it does not mean what many people think it does. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett. That case was related to a refusal to allow a woman to vote, a right which has been established via the 19th Amendment since the Supreme Court issued the Minor v. Happersett ruling.

    The most recent case that the Supreme Court decided related to the definition of “Natural Born” is Wong Kim Ark from1898, where the Supreme Court held that a person born in the USA of foreign parents was entitled to claim citizenship and therefore could not be refused re-entry to the USA.
    Minor v. Happersett has nothing to do with the eligibility of Barack Obama under the current interpretations of the rules defining “natural born” citizenship. To claim otherwise is at best disingenuous, and at worst dishonest.

    In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in 2009 that Barack Obama is fully eligible to be the President, and that ruling cited Wong Kim Ark extensively.

    Any attempt to claim that Barack Obama is not eligible has to begin by understanding case law. Hanging onto Minor v. Happersett doesn’t cut it.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>