Certificate Of Write-In Candidacy: Fill & Download for Free

It varies by state. Some allow write-in candidates for President, some don't. Some allow such candidates but only if the candidate registered, typically by gathering a sufficient number of signatures and submitting a certificate of candidacy.

Well, it would never happen. First, people who declare candidacy are vetted by their parties and by the press. It's possible I suppose that after an election someone would discover that the person being elected was really not 35 (maybe a forged birth certificate) or that he was born in Canada and someone discovers that neither of his parents was a US citizen at the time. Nothing, I suppose is impossible, but this comes close if for no other reason than someone would have already found out. Of course, write-ins could confuse the process but wouldn't for several reasons. First at least in my state there is no place for a write-in; maybe in some states there is. Second to be elected President he/she would have to get a majority of the votes in enough states to win the Electoral College. But those who vote in that body are not obligated to vote for a particular candidate. It's only by tradition that electors pledged to a particular candidate vote for that person. Since your friend Bob would not have a slate of electors pledged to him, it's hard to imagine that whomever serves would vote for him. But the larger point is that it would almost impossible for a write-in candidate to win a majority in any state let alone enough states to win. Americans don't always elect the best person, understanding that there would be disagreement on "best", but they're not totally stupid.

I’ve been skeptical about the constitutionality of “sore loser laws” in the main[1]; however, given that it’s beyond unlikely that Blankenship’s challenge will make it to the US Supreme Court one way or another, based solely on West Virginia’s (highly flawed) existing law, my guess is that Blankenship will lose in a court battle and have to rely on a write-in campaign.I would expect the West Virginia Supreme Court would lean a lot on its decision in Wells v. State of West Virginia (W. Va., 2016), in which it denied a registered Democrat from running as an independent in a local election because they weren’t able to compete in the primary (due to missing the filing deadline):West Virginia does not recognize an official designation of “Independent.” Rather, those who are “unaffiliated” are registered as such. To run as unaffiliated or “independent,” petitioner may not merely declare himself “independent” or lacking in party affiliation; he must change his registration to reflect accordingly. West Virginia . . . requires that he declare his party affiliation, if any, and aver that he has not otherwise been affiliated in the 60 days preceding the filing. This Court has observed that such requirements “promote political stability, preserve party integrity, and prevent voter confusion.”. . . The circuit court found that the certificate nomination process is available only to third-party or independent candidates, rather than individuals affiliated with a recognized political party who neglect or refuse to participate in the primary process or seek nomination by the executive committee of their party or convention. Without question, this Court has historically recognized [the certificate nomination process] as “providing the method for ballot access for third-party and independent party candidates.” . . .Notably, the West Virginia Secretary of State's official credentialing form and nomination petition expressly state that they are for “independent” or “minor party” candidates. There is nothing on these forms remotely suggesting this process is for use by individuals with recognized political party affiliation. . . .Quite simply, members of recognized political parties are to be nominated by their party during the primary election. . . . The evolution of [the certificate nomination process] lends further credence to our conclusion that it was not designed for, and therefore does not permit, a member of a recognized political party to avail himself of its process. . . .Not only is this conclusion consistent with the statutory scheme and compelled by our canons of statutory construction, its equity is apparent. . . . [T]o permit recognized political party candidates to then by-pass the primary and use the nomination certificate process allows him or her to then appear on the ballot ostensibly as the candidate of one of the recognized parties. To suggest that this would create voter confusion is putting it mildly. These requirements seek to avoid “political opportunism which is [ ] likely to threaten the State's interests” . . . and are necessary to maintain “order, rather than chaos” in the nomination process.Doesn’t sound to me like the West Virginia Supreme Court is going to be very sympathetic to any arguments about ambiguity in the text of the law on which Blankenship seems to be hinging his candidacy. He ran as a Republican, lost as a Republican, and so is effectively shut out from the November election.Footnotes[1] http://georgetown.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/pdf/99-4/Kang.PDF