It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LDragonFire
(CNN)California will send legislation to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk requiring presidential candidates to submit five years' worth of tax returns in order to appear on the ballot, joining 18 other states in a jab at President Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns.
California joins New York, Illinois and Washington, among other states, that have introduced bills requiring all candidates to release their individual tax returns to qualify for the presidential primary ballot. Tax returns have become a key 2020 issue, with Trump refusing to surrender them and Democratic presidential candidates sharing their tax information with varying degrees of timeliness.
CNN
Things are not looking good for the presidents position of refusing to release his tax returns. Seems like he will have too if he wishes to be on the ballot in these 18 states if these bills are signed into law. If we have to show ID to vote presidential candidates should have to show tax returns, most of the Democrats have released theirs, now soon it will be Trumps turn.
originally posted by: TheBoomersRBusted
a reply to: Krakatoa How and why can one be NOT allowed to write in a name on a Federal ballot?
originally posted by: LDragonFire
(CNN)California will send legislation to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk requiring presidential candidates to submit five years' worth of tax returns in order to appear on the ballot, joining 18 other states in a jab at President Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns.
This will never stand when challenged in court.
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Krakatoa
Is this really usurping the constitution though? Even if this passes its not like people won't be able to vote for Trump. You can write in whoever you want.
I'm going to err on the side of more transparency.
Sorry, but States do not have the right/power to dictate Federal Election Policy.
originally posted by: mikell
A national election I don't think they can make up their own rules. But they might put the election off for a year or two while it goes through the courts. That would be rather funny!!.
originally posted by: ownbestenemy
That said, they cannot require more than what is stated for eligibility to be elected president then what is in Article II, Section 1.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: ownbestenemy
That said, they cannot require more than what is stated for eligibility to be elected president then what is in Article II, Section 1.
And... you made my point.
originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Its not really making your point. They arent changing the qualifications for president, they are changing ballot access.
I think its stupid and will get challenged in court though.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
Wrong. They are adding a new qualification - that the candidate provide something that didn't even exist when the Constitution was penned. changing the qualifications (adding a new one.
Not just challenged, it will be quickly ruled unconstitutional bu the Supreme Court.