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

[Lysistrata]

A candidate who refuses to reveal his or her tax returns acts in a suspicious way, as if hiding something. When a person runs for a leadership position, we need to know that this person is honest and trustworthy. Only dishonest people hide. Past presidents have had no trouble observing this tradition. What is wrong with trump?

Should this not apply to every single candidate?

Why not? Just what is trump hiding?

 

[pknopp]

A candidate who refuses to reveal his or her tax returns acts in a suspicious way, as if hiding something. When a person runs for a leadership position, we need to know that this person is honest and trustworthy. Only dishonest people hide. Past presidents have had no trouble observing this tradition. What is wrong with trump?

Should this not apply to every single candidate?

Why not? Just what is trump hiding?

Why not? No one is asking for it. I'm not here to defend Trump.

Why is no one asking for it?

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....

States cannot impose new regulations on Federal Elections like Poll Taxes for voters (Dems Love that Shit) nor asking a Candidate to file anything other than a Federally Required Financial Disclosure Statement.

The California Law is Unconstitutional.

 

[The Original Tree]

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

 

[The Original Tree]

I think it could go either way with the Court....

Thus, it'll be interesting to watch the case work through the courts....

Good arguments on both sides imo.

It's a bullshit move and will likely require a candidate to initiate a suit, but even then it's going to be difficult to reverse as states already institute restrictions beyond the age and natural birth requirements in the Constitution.

It is amusing though to watch the states' rights advocates rally against states' rights.

States do not have The RIght to block a Candidate running for Federal Office and appearing on the ballot based on requesting his tax returns.

The Law was a bullshit move at interfering in Free Elections at The Federal Level.

No one need worry about The Russian Collusion Hoax when you have The Democrats trying to Rig elections themselves.

 

[pknopp]

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

Even if the "state" doesn't publish them once turned over they are no longer private.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

HTF can candidates be affected and not the voters?

A candidate does not have to be harmed by this in order to claim it unconstitutional. Judicial Watch is like the ACLU or NAACP. They file suits all the time on behalf of other people or groups of people.

And suits were thrown out against such 3rd party activists who tried to gain access to Obama's birth certificate and school records -- because they didn't have standing. And those people could actually show harm.

You can't sue on behalf of someone else.

Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.

 

[The Original Tree]

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

Even if the "state" doesn't publish them once turned over they are no longer private.

That's True. At any rate, California does not have a right to a Citizen's Tax Returns in New York, or any other state.
And since it is a Federal Election they don't have the right to set a State Standard on a Federal Election.

Only a corrupt liberal judge will attempt to uphold an Unconstitutional Law. Probably end up in SCOTUS and then get overturned, and the Lawless Activist Liberal Judges will of course say there is nothing wrong with it, despite it being completely Unconstitutional. It will be overturned 5-4.

 

[pknopp]

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

Even if the "state" doesn't publish them once turned over they are no longer private.

That's True. At any rate, California does not have a right to a Citizen's Tax Returns in New York, or any other state.
And since it is a Federal Election they don't have the right to set a State Standard on a Federal Election.

Only a corrupt liberal judge will attempt to uphold an Unconstitutional Law. Probably end up in SCOTUS and then get overturned, and the Lawless Activist Liberal Judges will of course say there is nothing wrong with it, despite it being completely Unconstitutional. It will be overturned 5-4.

We both agree it will be overturned but I would be surprised if it was anything less than 6-3 and I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than 6 for over turning.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

They believe in Voter Suppression, and this is why they register illegals to vote, and fight against Voter ID, and asking how many Liberals are in Libphuckistan California who are Illegal Aliens.

Remember when LibTards had the Poll Taxes, and Flew the Swastika, errrr... Confederate Flag over their State Capitals to Protest Civil Rights being passed for Black Americans?

 

[The Original Tree]

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

Even if the "state" doesn't publish them once turned over they are no longer private.

That's True. At any rate, California does not have a right to a Citizen's Tax Returns in New York, or any other state.
And since it is a Federal Election they don't have the right to set a State Standard on a Federal Election.

Only a corrupt liberal judge will attempt to uphold an Unconstitutional Law. Probably end up in SCOTUS and then get overturned, and the Lawless Activist Liberal Judges will of course say there is nothing wrong with it, despite it being completely Unconstitutional. It will be overturned 5-4.

We both agree it will be overturned but I would be surprised if it was anything less than 6-3 and I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than 6 for over turning.

If The Leftist Scum on SCOTUS actually Loved this Country, and Understood The Constitution instead of trying to shit on it, it should be a 9-0 vote to overturn the Illegal California Law.

 

[pknopp]

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

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

They believe in Voter Suppression, and this is why they register illegals to vote, and fight against Voter ID, and asking how many Liberals are in Libphuckistan California who are Illegal Aliens.

Remember when LibTards had the Poll Taxes, and Flew the Swastika, errrr... Confederate Flag over their State Capitals to Protest Civil Rights being passed for Black Americans?

Everyone must provide an ID to vote.

 

[pknopp]

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

Even if the "state" doesn't publish them once turned over they are no longer private.

That's True. At any rate, California does not have a right to a Citizen's Tax Returns in New York, or any other state.
And since it is a Federal Election they don't have the right to set a State Standard on a Federal Election.

Only a corrupt liberal judge will attempt to uphold an Unconstitutional Law. Probably end up in SCOTUS and then get overturned, and the Lawless Activist Liberal Judges will of course say there is nothing wrong with it, despite it being completely Unconstitutional. It will be overturned 5-4.

We both agree it will be overturned but I would be surprised if it was anything less than 6-3 and I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than 6 for over turning.

If The Leftist Scum on SCOTUS actually Loved this Country, and Understood The Constitution instead of trying to shit on it, it should be a 9-0 vote to overturn the Illegal California Law.

To note, Obama was overturned 9-0 quite a few times.

 

[my2¢]

I would fight this at the state level, not federal:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 5. (a) The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for
partisan offices, 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.
(b) A political party that participated in a primary election for
a partisan office has the right to participate in the general
election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place
on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the
primary election, the highest vote among that party's candidates.

ARTICLE 2 :: VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL​

 

[Cellblock2429]

I would fight this at the state level, not federal:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 5. (a) The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for
partisan offices, 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.
(b) A political party that participated in a primary election for
a partisan office has the right to participate in the general
election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place
on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the
primary election, the highest vote among that party's candidates.

ARTICLE 2 :: VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL​

/---- Nah - one decision by the USSC will wipe out all dem attempt at suppressing the vote.

 

[danielpalos]

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.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Judicial Watch suit has nothing to do with imposing conditions on elections for federal office. This suit claims that the statute has harmed voters' rights. And that's why THIS suit will be tossed.

Maybe the OP one more time:

(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.

it is not "new". it has been Tradition. Why does Your guy want to, "fuck with Tradition"?

 

[danielpalos]

Which specific part of the US Constitution is it non-compliant with?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

How are they unconstitutional?

Please point out the part of the constitution that would prevent this.

This must be the tenth time I've done this.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

It does not apply to a public office.

 

[danielpalos]

I would fight this at the state level, not federal:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 5. (a) The Legislature shall provide for primary elections for
partisan offices, 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.
(b) A political party that participated in a primary election for
a partisan office has the right to participate in the general
election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place
on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the
primary election, the highest vote among that party's candidates.

ARTICLE 2 :: VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL​

/---- Nah - one decision by the USSC will wipe out all dem attempt at suppressing the vote.

It is not, vote suppression on our part. It is a "lack of candor" on Your guy's part.

 

[Dick Foster]

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

I don't its none of my business and i doubt like hell I would understand them and I doubt like hell anyone else here would either. You'd have to be at least an enrolled agent to even get started to have a clue. I damn well know govenor girly man wouldn't have a friggin clue.