News-Record.com

I've been writing an evergreen (a story without a hard and fast time peg that can be held in an editor's hip pocket until needed) on the Electoral College and was surprised to find an old rumor kicking about.

The Electoral College, for those who don't know, are the people in each state who get to cast those electoral votes for president. On Election Day, voters are really selecting electors rather than directly voting for president.

In interviews with an elector and Sec. of State Elaine Marshall I learned that questions about President-elect Barack Obama's citizenship are still being asked by some folks. And those people are not shy about voicing their opinions and saying that the Electoral College should not vote to confirm Obama as president because, they say, he's a foreigner.

If you want to get this argument in full, americamustknow.com is just chock full of lawsuits and other stuff. Basically, the idea is that Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate and was born overseas and whatever documents he has produced are forged or incomplete or whatever.

Personally, I think it's bunk. No, I have not left my post here in Raleigh and traveled to Hawaii to inspect the birth certificate myself. (Boss, if you want to send me, I'm game!) But some very credible folks have looked at this issue. They include:

• * FactCheck.org, a project of Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They write, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."

• * Politifact, which is a project of the CQ St. Petersburg Times family, sounds exasperated in its entry. "And you can’t help but ask: How do you prove something to people who come to the facts believing, out of fear or hatred or maybe just partisanship, that they’re being tricked?"

• * The Chicago Tribune, Obama's hometown newspaper, says the rumor was "debunked" in June.

• * Snopes, another myth debunking project, says the claims are "far fetched."

You get the point.

Of course, there's a logical argument to make here as well. With all the forces of opposing campaigns arrayed against him, with the federal government itself controlled by members of the other party, could Obama really have kept the lid on this? Could he have duped a pair of judges? Could he really have perpetrated a conspiracy so involved, vast and complex that has silenced every possible person in the food chain with direct evidence?

I guess it's possible, but it really strains credulity don't you think?

Still, electors can probably expect that their phones will keep ringing. And I guess now that I've written this post, mine will to. But at a certain point, doesn't the burden of proof shift to those accusing Obama of malfeasance to prove what he has submitted isn't right?

For more on North Carolina's Electoral College process, click here.