again, how does it discriminate? if you've answered that then i apologize for missing it, but i don't believe you've ever shown how it is discriminatory. As written it does not appear to exclude anyone and would apply equally across the board to those running for president in california. If trump complied then he'd be allowed on the ballot. but if he chooses not to then that isn't the fault of the state per se, but a choice he would make (much like running for office in the first place).
If it hasn't been tested then we clearly have to look towards other examples that are similar since nothing explicit exists, correct? In this case that would be the fact that other laws governing primary ballot access exist and have been allowed to stand. I cannot directly disprove your argument that it is discriminatory because, as you said, no examples seem to exist that would support or not support your position (or mine). However, there are examples where states have put in place regulations regarding primary ballot access that have not been overruled as discriminatory. Will this one survive? That is tough to say, but on the whole i'd say that the current system would favor the state in terms of established history of being a state issue for setting primary ballot access.
With regards to the 2A issue, well there is caselaw that we can look at in regards to where states can and cannot place restrictions. And that caselaw seems to be ever changing right now. And borrowing laws from other states certainly cuts both ways. Mississippians are a bit concerned because we modeled our enhanced carry law after Florida, which just had parts of its law struck down.
And, as i said, i don't have to say where it ends as i'm not advocating for anything. Maybe the courts will say where it ends, maybe the legislators, maybe the people.
