California sends bill requiring presidential candidates' tax returns to governor's desk

DP

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: 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.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sorry, just as Obama wasn't required to show any of his private papers to obtain a position, neither does President Trump...California law doesn't Trump the Constitution...California may find itself not eligible to cast any votes in the next election...Which would be a good thing...

a reply to: LDragonFire
5 years?

Well, in as far as I can see, the last two years are a cinch, 0 income. So, maybe this is what Trump was waiting for, 50,000(?) pages of his income. It would take 4 years to compile them lol lol.

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?

So, you would be fine if a California suddenly decided to only put Donald Trump on the ballot, and require all others to be write in's? How would that play out with the citizen's of that state, huh? After all, not EVERYONE in California belongs to the Democratic Party.

This is 3rd world banana republic stuff. We are better than that, because we have a master set of laws, that explicitly state the requirements to be in the federal presidential elections. AND, there is a process in place to change those if deemed truly necessary by all parties.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Why do you want to see President Trumps tax returns? Do you suppose you will find some wrongdoing that the IRS missed? By the way you have yet to respond to even one person in this thread.

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: Mach2
No way. States rights are important./quote]
Sorry, but States do not have the right/power to dictate Federal Election Policy.

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.

It isn't quite usurping the Constitution of the United States, but will be challenged and probably a stay in the law if signed due to the timeframe.

In the instance of California, forms to gain access to ballots are due 113 to 88 days prior to the primaries. Primaries are held on March 3rd according to the SoS website for CA. Forms need to be filed as early as November 11, 2019.

The bill makes claim it is for immediate enforcement under Article IV of the United States Constitution which is just an invocation of the State's suffrage to enact legislation.

Regardless, this wouldn't hurt Trump as he would only have to provide 5 years of tax returns. It is also not a determination act or disqualification if there is nefarious information within.

However, limiting ballot access would energize a large contingent of voters that feel disenfranchised already by a ruling class determining who will appear on a ballot.

Sorry, but States do not have the right/power to dictate Federal Election Policy.

They arent affecting "Federal Election Policy". There are no Federal elections, there are State held elections for Federal offices'. States, via Article IV and the 10th Amendment can legislate ballot access (in which they already do) how they see fit.

They will be challenged just as voter ID laws have been though.

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: 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!!.

We don't have national elections, we have state elections for federal office. Each state determines election laws with confines to the Constitution and various amendments.

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: 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.

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: ownbestenemy
Its not really making your point. They arent changing the qualifications for president, they are changing ballot access.

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.

I think its stupid and will get challenged in court though.

Not just challenged, it will be quickly ruled unconstitutional bu the Supreme Court.

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.

California is not saying that a person is not eligible to hold the office, in which Article II lays out, they are determining ballot access. It will and should be challenged, but they are not doing anything Constitutionally wrong.

Not just challenged, it will be quickly ruled unconstitutional bu the Supreme Court.

I think it will be via either State Constitutional grounds particularly Article II Section 4 which reads in part "The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections..."

Also Section 5(c) of the State's Constitution, reading "The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy."

From what I read of Senate Bill 27, I see no amendment to their Constitution and should be struck down on those grounds, not on the US Constitution.

We pretty much are in agreement, just semantics really on what is being violated.

Oh they got him now.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Everyone give yourself a pat on the back.