New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan recently addressed the controversy surrounding the removal of a former president's name from the state's ballot. Despite facing tremendous pressure, Scanlan decided against removing the name, emphasizing his obligation to uphold the state's constitutional requirements for presidential candidacy. In an informative interview, Scanlan clarified his position and shed light on the potential consequences of yielding to such demands.
The issue of removing a former president's name from the ballot initially arose in New Hampshire. Constitutional academics produced a white paper on the matter, and some politicians in the state aimed to promote the idea. To address these concerns, Scanlan collaborated with the state's Attorney General and thoroughly examined both the relevant statute and the Constitution. It became apparent that New Hampshire law clearly stipulates the qualifications for presidential candidacy, including being 35 years old, a natural-born United States citizen, and having lived in the country for at least 14 years.
Scanlan emphasized that these qualifications are straightforward and can be easily proven or disproven. He noted that candidates with indictments or convictions in their past have previously participated in the New Hampshire presidential primary. Such instances demonstrate that meeting the constitutional requirements suffices for appearing on the ballot. Scanlan warned against the potential consequences of introducing subjective discretion into the process, suggesting that it could be abused in the future.
The Secretary of State acknowledged the concern of individuals who seek to exclude certain candidates they dislike from the ballot. However, he stressed the importance of maintaining a fair and sound electoral process. Any decision to remove a candidate based on personal preferences sets a precarious precedent, making it more challenging to ensure a fair and neutral democratic system.
In anticipation of the Supreme Court's involvement in this matter, Scanlan refrained from speculating on its stance. He reinforced the idea that the current phase of the nomination process, involving each state's selection of delegates for the convention, is not the appropriate arena for addressing such issues. Scanlan underscored the significance of the Constitution and due process, emphasizing that any potential conviction would not alter the requirement to meet the established qualifications.
In conclusion, Secretary of State David Scanlan affirmed his commitment to upholding the constitutional requirements for presidential candidacy in New Hampshire. By refusing to remove a former president's name from the ballot, he sought to preserve the integrity of the electoral process, cautioning against the potential repercussions of subjective decision-making. While the Supreme Court's ultimate role remains uncertain, Scanlan highlighted the need for impartiality and adherence to constitutional principles in determining the outcome of this situation.
