Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit Tax Returns

[pknopp]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

so let me get this straight. without reading the whole article does this mean that judicial watch is suing the state of california for wanting their presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns when running for POTUS? that cant be right cause judicial watch has always looked out for the people,that is more in protecting these corrupt candidates is what it sounds like to me.

We all know the point of this law is to make it more difficult for candidates like Trump who aren't professional politicians to run for office. Protecting the voters is the last thing the douchebags behind it had in mind.

Which IMO will likely be Roberts take and without him it doesn't stand.

 

[bripat9643]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

so let me get this straight. without reading the whole article does this mean that judicial watch is suing the state of california for wanting their presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns when running for POTUS? that cant be right cause judicial watch has always looked out for the people,that is more in protecting these corrupt candidates is what it sounds like to me.

We all know the point of this law is to make it more difficult for candidates like Trump who aren't professional politicians to run for office. Protecting the voters is the last thing the douchebags behind it had in mind.

Which IMO will likely be Roberts take and without him it doesn't stand.

The SC is going to strike this law down.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

They could have standing only AFTER a candidate was disqualified. Not before.

That does not seem right. Once the candidate is DQed it would likely be too late to go through the courts before the election

I agree. Whether a candidate was already barred from the ballot would not affect whether a voter has standing. Though it might affect whether the case was ripe. The issue of standing is based on whether voters themselves have a grievance that is within the court's purview to be solved. And I just don't see it here.

 

[pknopp]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

so let me get this straight. without reading the whole article does this mean that judicial watch is suing the state of california for wanting their presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns when running for POTUS? that cant be right cause judicial watch has always looked out for the people,that is more in protecting these corrupt candidates is what it sounds like to me.

We all know the point of this law is to make it more difficult for candidates like Trump who aren't professional politicians to run for office. Protecting the voters is the last thing the douchebags behind it had in mind.

Which IMO will likely be Roberts take and without him it doesn't stand.

The SC is going to strike this law down.

I believe they will also. When I note that right now no one has legal standing IMO does NOT mean I think I'm the end it won't be overturned. I believe it will.

 

[rightwinger]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

 

[Kondor3]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

 

[Kondor3]

...The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

Incorrect.

Voters are harmed because their preferred candidate is not on the ballot because of statutory demands for information protected under Federal law.

It stacks the deck in favor of other candidates.

That's about as un-Constitutional as it gets.

Not to worry, though.

This will be fast-tracked to SCOTUS at the speed of light.

The 5-4 (soon to be 6-3) court will take care of it.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

That has been my argument all along. My reply you quoted here was in reply to the "not unreasonable" argument.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

Incorrect.

Voters are harmed because their preferred candidate is not on the ballot because of statutory demands for information protected under Federal law.

There is no ballot.

 

[candycorn]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

 

[Kondor3]

... There is no ballot.

The Secretary of State website for the State of California says differently.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a public office. You don't have to run for it.

That's not how a Constitutional right to privacy works.

lol. there is no right to privacy in a Public office.

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

 

[Kondor3]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

 

[pknopp]

That's not how a Constitutional right to privacy works.

lol. there is no right to privacy in a Public office.

If you say so.

it is a public office not a private office.

Hold out hope you are right. I do not believe you will be.

based on what? it is not a private office.

I've stated why not more than once.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

Congress has zero reason to subpoena his tax returns. It's not of their business like it's none of yours.

 

[Kondor3]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[candycorn]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

It would force anyone running to do it; not just Trump.

 

[candycorn]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

 

[Kondor3]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

Personally, I'm entirely in-favor of forcing Trump to serve-up his tax returns under Congressional subpoena...

However, I am NOT in favor of forcing Trump to do the same, merely to get on the ballot of a given State...

Congress has zero reason to subpoena his tax returns. It's not of their business like it's none of yours.

Nahhhhh... I'm all for shoving an enforceable Congressional demand down his throat... in Washington.

I just don't want the Fruitloops in Kalipornia doin' it and bypassing Congress.