WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 4352

Certification by presidential candidates and political party chairs that the candidate satisfies all eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution required.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bianca Virnig

HF 4352 would require presidential candidates and their party chairs in Minnesota to certify that the candidate meets all U.S. constitutional eligibility requirements.

Introduction and first reading, referred to Elections Finance and Government Operations
#elections #governmentaloperations-federal
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 4352

Summary: HF 4352 (Minnesota, 2025-2026)

Purpose and intent

HF 4352 seeks to require presidential candidates and political party chairs to certify that the candidate satisfies all eligibility requirements of the United States Constitution. The bill is designed to create an affirmative certification process, ensuring that both the candidate and the governing party officials attest to eligibility before or during the campaign process.

Key provisions and changes

  • Eligibility certification requirement

    • Presidential candidates would be required to certify that they meet all constitutional eligibility criteria to hold the office of President of the United States (including, but not limited to, natural-born citizen status, age, and residency requirements as interpreted by the U.S. Constitution and applicable law).
    • Political party chairs would also be required to certify that the party’s presidential nominee satisfies these constitutional eligibility requirements.

  • Who must certify

    • The candidate seeking the presidential nomination.
    • The corresponding political party chair (likely the chair of the party that nominates or supports the candidate for president).

  • Scope of applicability

    • Applies to presidential candidates and the involved party leadership in the state of Minnesota.
    • The exact process (timing of certification, format, and whether certification must accompany ballot access filings or convention-based nominations) would be specified in the bill’s provisions (not provided in the summary).

  • Enforcement and consequences (typical potential features)

    • The bill may specify consequences for false or fraudulent certifications (e.g., removal from ballot access, penalties, or disqualification).
    • There may be a mechanism for challenges or verification by election officials, the attorney general, or a designated state body.
    • It could include timelines for correction if a certification is found to be inaccurate.

  • Procedural details (likely)

    • File or submission deadlines tied to ballot access or nomination processes.
    • Documentation requirements for the certification (a sworn statement, affidavit, or formal certification form).
    • Potential alignment with existing Minnesota election administration procedures and ethics/supervisory rules.

Who would be affected

  • Presidential candidates seeking Minnesota ballot access or nomination

    • Would bear the duty to provide certification of constitutional eligibility.

  • Political party chairs (Minnesota)

    • Would bear the duty to certify that their party’s presidential nominee satisfies constitutional eligibility.

  • Election officials and state election administration

    • Responsible for accepting, verifying, and enforcing the certification requirements.
    • Potentially responsible for adjudicating disputes or challenges related to eligibility certification.

  • Voters and the public

    • Benefit from an additional layer of assurance regarding constitutional eligibility before ballot access and campaigning proceed.

Procedural and timeline considerations

  • Introduced and referred (as of 2026-03-16)

    • Introduced and assigned to the Elections Finance and Government Operations committee.
    • Co-sponsor: Bianca Virnig.

  • Next steps (typical)

    • Committee hearings to consider, amend, and possibly pass the bill.
    • If advanced, floor considerations by the Minnesota House; potential reconciliation with the Senate version.
    • Timelines would depend on the legislative calendar and subsequent committee actions.

Notes

  • The summary reflects the bill’s stated purpose to require certification of eligibility but does not include all text details (e.g., exact certification wording, penalties, or procedural timelines), which would be in the bill’s language.
  • For complete understanding, consult the official bill draft, any fiscal notes, and committee testimony if available.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.