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

[Kondor3]

...And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

But none of those others require a candidate to publicly disclose his Federal Tax Returns which are highly sensitive, private information protected by Federal statute.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

While I agree with your reasoning, you did make one error. There is no presidential election in any of the US territories.

 

[Faun]

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.

States already impose regulations beyond those in the Constitution .

 

[Faun]

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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

 

[Faun]

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.

They're not blocking him.

 

[Faun]

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.

Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.

 

[Faun]

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.

Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.

 

[Faun]

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?

California does not register illegal aliens to vote. You Borg collective are merely spoon-fed that lie by those who do your thinking for you.

 

[pknopp]

/——/ 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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

You say it is not about Trump but all that you mention is Trump. I think Trump is ignorant and wouldn't support him under any circumstance but one person is not worth ceding our rights to privacy over.

Trump will be gone and we will wonder where our rights went when it will have been us that foolishly gave them up.

 

[Faun]

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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

You say it is not about Trump but all that you mention is Trump. I think Trump is ignorant and wouldn't support him under any circumstance but one person is not worth ceding our rights to privacy over.

Trump will be gone and we will wonder where our rights went when it will have been us that foolishly gave them up.

Try not to lie so much, will ya? I never said it's not about trump. I said the purpose is not to keep trump off the ballot.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

They're not blocking him.

Of course they are needle dick, this is a state where in some races you only have a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat for house.

The state of California decided for it's residents that it's illegal to vote for Trump.

So much for the land of the free.

.

 

[Faun]

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.

They're not blocking him.

Of course they are needle dick, this is a state where in some races you only have a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat for house.

The state of California decided for it's residents that it's illegal to vote for Trump.

So much for the land of the free.

.

Again, they can't block trump.

 

[pknopp]

/—-/ 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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

You say it is not about Trump but all that you mention is Trump. I think Trump is ignorant and wouldn't support him under any circumstance but one person is not worth ceding our rights to privacy over.

Trump will be gone and we will wonder where our rights went when it will have been us that foolishly gave them up.

Try not to lie so much, will ya? I never said it's not about trump. I said the purpose is not to keep trump off the ballot.

Either way my point that you did not address stands. No one person is worth tossing aside our privacy rights.

 

[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.

They're not blocking him.

Of course they are needle dick, this is a state where in some races you only have a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat for house.

The state of California decided for it's residents that it's illegal to vote for Trump.

So much for the land of the free.

.

Again, they can't block trump.

They have already talked about censoring him.

In fact numerous Conservative Senators and Congressmen are being shadow censored by Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube.

Yet HAMAS & The PLO are allowed to have a Twitter feed. Funny stuff, isn't it?

Now, we all know that as The End times approach, that no matter what good people do, EVIL does prevail and reigns over The Earth for about 7 years.....(probably starts before that) and that people of faith will be hunted down like animals. Kinda like you are doing now.

But for now, while God still has favor upon us, and while we are still here on Earth, it is our duty to fight your lies and hatred.

So, continue on with your antics. Eventually Judgement Day Comes and puts an end to your reign....forever.

Now, don't you have someone to call a sub-human racist, and pin the Scarlet "R" on?

It's easier to round us up later, if you can pin a Star of David on our chest or a Nice Bright Red Scarlet "R" on us.

It's what DemNazis do. It's what they have always done.

From the Trail of Tears, to Slavery, To Poll Taxes, To Segregation,
to Blatant Denial of Black American's Civil Rights, to now High Tech Lynchings and your Violent Mobs.........

Your Swatikas, your Confederate Flags, your Symbols and Tactics change.

But you never change.

You'll never change.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ 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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/------/ "All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on." Blatantly unConstitutional to add more requirements.
"California doesn't care if he's on or not" If they didn't then why is this outrageous bill?
"he has no chance at winning that state anyway." Then why are the Blue states rushing to force Electors to cast their vote with the most popular votes in spite what the state's voters want? With Trump off the ballot in California then it would lower the popular vote totals nationwide.
democRATs know they can't beat Trump in a fair election so they have to lie and cheat.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ 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 sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

 

[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.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

No, what a state like Texas would do is hearing that Candidate A has had a couple abortions in the past, passing a law that requires a candidate to release their medical records.

 

[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.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

No, what a state like Texas would do is hearing that Candidate A has had a couple abortions in the past, passing a law that requires a candidate to release their medical records.

I think Jerry Nadler should release his medical records. So should Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schummer.

 

[Dekster]

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.

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

 

[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.

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.