It is definitely interesting. But as I said, the onus is on the Resp. to bring evidence that he belongs in the particular public office. The Demandant raises the question but does not have to bring evidence himself. At least in the opening stage. There are always back-and-forth briefs filed in court cases. But which court??? That's the puzzle...
As a legal term, it is describe in the link of the post, or, for example, from Cornell Law School:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto
According to this description, it is used "to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office"
This is a way to present evidence that, so far, has only been ignored rather than refuted.
Do legal-pedes agree?
It is definitely interesting. But as I said, the onus is on the Resp. to bring evidence that he belongs in the particular public office. The Demandant raises the question but does not have to bring evidence himself. At least in the opening stage. There are always back-and-forth briefs filed in court cases. But which court??? That's the puzzle...