The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles. See the State Democratic Party of Hawaii certification of nomination forms [embedded below] for the Presidential election years of 2008 for Obama, 2004 for Kerry, and 2000 for Gore.
See this summarizing quote from the Butterdezillion blog post of 10 Sep 2010:
"It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.
But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility."
What did the State Democratic Party officials in Hawaii know about Obama and his now hidden and sealed 1961 original typed long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and subsequent amendments to same, which would cause them to change their normal certification of nomination procedures for presidential candidates?