Can a state impose additional qualifications for Presidential candidates wishing to appear on the ballot?
<p>Suppose, for example, that Colorado wants to pass a law that bars convicted criminals from appearing on the Presidential ballot (so Colorado voters can't vote for a Presidential candidate who is convicted of a crime)</p>
<p>Would the Presidential Qualifications Clause of the US constitution prohibit Colorado from passing this law?</p>

<p>It would not prohibit Colorado from passing the law, but it could prohibit implementing the law. SCOTUS rulings (Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486; Term Limits, 514 U.S. 779) establish that neither Congress nor the States can require additional qualifications of federal candidates beyond those listed in the Constitution. The relevant question is whether a law imposes an additional &quot;qualification&quot; on a candidate for president. Every state imposes at least one requirement on a person seeking to be a candidate on the ballot in a state: they must somehow &quot;register&quot; as a candidate. So the Qualifications Clause is not interpreted to mean &quot;anybody can run for president as long as age and natural-born&quot;. The <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/the-anderson-burdick-doctrine-balancing-the-benefits-and-burdens-of-voting-restrictions/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anderson-Burdick doctrine</a> allows certain kinds of requirements to be imposed on candidates, namely those that relate to a state's interest on properly managing elections. A no-felon law would clearly go way beyond the accepted state interest (regarding management of elections) reflected in Anderson-Burdick, and would be found to be as unconstitutional as requiring a candidate for president to have a law degree, or prohibiting a candidate from having a law degree.</p>

us-constitution