trump's Tax Returns Required Under New CA. Election Law

[Tennesseer]

trump's tax returns required under new California election law

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Donald Trump will be ineligible for California’s primary ballot next year unless he discloses his tax returns under a state law that immediately took effect Tuesday, an unprecedented mandate that is almost certain to spark a high-profile court fight and might encourage other states to adopt their own unconventional rules for presidential candidates.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on his final day to take action and passed on a strict party-line vote in the Legislature, requires all presidential candidates to submit five years of income tax filings. They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March. State elections officials will post the financial documents online, although certain private information must first be redacted.

“As one of the largest economies in the world and home to one in nine Americans eligible to vote, California has a special responsibility to require this information of presidential and gubernatorial candidates,” Newsom said in a statement that accompanied his signature on the bill approved by the Legislature earlier this month. “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence. The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest.”

Complete article here: trump's tax returns required under new California election law

[phil5185]

They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March.

Why would DT care about 'securing a spot' in CA's primary?   In 2016 Hillary won all 55 votes - but Trump won the presidency.  CA voters will almost certainly have that same result in 2020.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 30, 2019 16:49:50 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March.

Why would DT care about 'securing a spot' in CA's primary?   In 2016 Hillary won all 55 votes - but Trump won the presidency.  CA voters will almost certainly have that same result in 2020.

Ego.

[MN-Investor]

While it's a nice thought, this law will be ruled unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution lays out the requirements for the office of U.S. President. Those requirements do NOT include disclosing your tax return. What if a state added the requirement that you be male? Or Christian? Same difference - unconstitutional.

Actually, I see a way to achieve the same result. On the federal level, they could pass a law stating that the tax returns for presidential candidates would be subject to open records requests, that they would no longer be subject to privacy laws at that point. Individual states could also pass similar laws, although they would only apply to candidates who file returns within their states.

[tallguy]

And how many moderate or independent voters in other states would REALLY start to wonder exactly what he was afraid to show if he wouldn't even do it to get on the ballot in by far the largest state.  Wouldn't take many in quite a few states. 

[tallguy]

Jul 30, 2019 17:10:58 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

While it's a nice thought, this law will be ruled unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution lays out the requirements for the office of U.S. President. Those requirements do NOT include disclosing your tax return. What if a state added the requirement that you be male? Or Christian? Same difference - unconstitutional.

Actually, I see a way to achieve the same result. On the federal level, they could pass a law stating that the tax returns for presidential candidates would be subject to open records requests, that they would no longer be subject to privacy laws at that point. Individual states could also pass similar laws, although they would only apply to candidates who file returns within their states.

Don't know.  This law is not in any way saying that Trump or any other candidate cannot be president.  Only that he must qualify for California's primary ballot should he choose to be on California's ballot.  And unlike the other examples listed, this would not be discriminatory in that everyone has the same choice to disclose or not.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 16:49:50 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March.

Why would DT care about 'securing a spot' in CA's primary?   In 2016 Hillary won all 55 votes - but Trump won the presidency.  CA voters will almost certainly have that same result in 2020.

absolutely correct. and this legislation is unlikely to pass in any state that Trump actually needs.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 17:10:58 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

While it's a nice thought, this law will be ruled unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution lays out the requirements for the office of U.S. President. Those requirements do NOT include disclosing your tax return. What if a state added the requirement that you be male? Or Christian? Same difference - unconstitutional.

Actually, I see a way to achieve the same result. On the federal level, they could pass a law stating that the tax returns for presidential candidates would be subject to open records requests, that they would no longer be subject to privacy laws at that point. Individual states could also pass similar laws, although they would only apply to candidates who file returns within their states.

actually, it might not.

the states have the absolute right to determine eligibility for primaries, provided that the eligibility is not discriminatory.

this isn't.

[billisonboard]

Jul 30, 2019 17:10:58 GMT -5 MN-Investor said:

While it's a nice thought, this law will be ruled unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution lays out the requirements for the office of U.S. President. ...

What does the US Constitution say about the election process?

... He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

State elections elect electors, not Presidents. State Legislatures have control over those elections. The requirements of who can be President determine who the electors can legally vote to put into office.

[djAdvocate]

we are so used to thinking of this stuff in a certain way that it pays to analyze the basis of those ideas.

elections are such an idea. the more scrutiny you give them, the more arcane the details.

[billisonboard]

Jul 30, 2019 19:56:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we are so used to thinking of this stuff in a certain way that it pays to analyze the basis of those ideas.

elections are such an idea. the more scrutiny you give them, the more arcane the details.

And as I have thought about it, the more interesting this becomes. MN-Investor got me headed down the wrong path. Primary elections elect delegates to a national convention of a non-governmental organization. There is no Constitutional provision governing nominations to represent political parties.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 20:17:13 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 30, 2019 19:56:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we are so used to thinking of this stuff in a certain way that it pays to analyze the basis of those ideas.

elections are such an idea. the more scrutiny you give them, the more arcane the details.

And as I have thought about it, the more interesting this becomes. MN-Investor got me headed down the wrong path. Primary elections elect delegates to a national convention of a non-governmental organization. There is no Constitutional provision governing nominations to represent political parties.

exactly. this is entirely a states rights issue.

i would not be so deeply familiar with this were it not for my interest in 3rd parties.

there are lots of weird qualifications for them to be on the ballot. but the one that

trips most of them up is failure to register in time.

it is OFTEN the case that a person has to WRITE IN a 3rd party candidate because of this fact.

[kadee79]

I was told by an Ill. resident that the basically same law had passed in Illinois, but they didn't know if their governor had signed it yet or not.
And I've read that several other states are considering the same thing.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 20:40:00 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

I was told by an Ill. resident that the basically same law had passed in Illinois, but they didn't know if their governor had signed it yet or not.
And I've read that several other states are considering the same thing.

I would rather see "motor voter" laws, but this one kinda has a "fun factor" to it, in terms of 2020.

[OldCoyote]

What California STATE income tax??

If they think that they will get Trumps Fed tax,  I wouldn't bet on it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 22:34:38 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

What California STATE income tax??

If they think that they will get Trumps Fed tax,  I wouldn't bet on it.

uh....I think that is part of the deal, OC.

but as phil RIGHTLY pointed out, he doesn't need to run in CA.

he is going to lose here, anyway.

[kadee79]

But he might need down state Ill.  Democrats are mostly centered up around Chicago...not all, but more than down state.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2019 23:11:34 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

But he might need down state Ill.  Democrats are mostly centered up around Chicago...not all, but more than down state.

nah. he is going to lose IL, too.