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

[B. Kidd]

Feds don't require tax returns in a Fed election.
Legally, there should be no way a state can disenfranchise their voters in a Federal election; unless state's rights now supersede Federal law/requirements.
And if that's the case, then Civil War 2.0 is a foregone conclusion.

which federal law and which requirements?

Start with the Constitution and work from there. I believe Judicial Watch says the 1st and 14th amendments are violated.

 

[danielpalos]

Which would be the case in Cali also.

This criteria is not of the same category as "you didn't get the required number of signatures on your application." This is of the nature of "your skin is the wrong color" or "you don't own any property."

That is your opinion. We will see if the courts agree.

I do not agree, I cannot chose to change my skin color, but I could agree to show my taxes

How about if you are a Muslim? You can change your religion.

Goes against the 1st Amendment

Requiring tax returns goes against the 4th Amendment.

Not for public office.

 

[DOTR]

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.​

Liberals like to control ballot access. Especially with items friendly to lifelong public officials. I haven't kept up with the current crop of socialists running but have any of them ever held a job? I know the Democrats haven't run anyone who ever worked outside government since 1976. Is this crop any different r did any of them at all ever hold a real job?
Anyhow..to a liberal who you vote for is up to them and the hoops they set up. Voiceless citizens voting from a curated group.

 

[bripat9643]

This criteria is not of the same category as "you didn't get the required number of signatures on your application." This is of the nature of "your skin is the wrong color" or "you don't own any property."

That is your opinion. We will see if the courts agree.

I do not agree, I cannot chose to change my skin color, but I could agree to show my taxes

How about if you are a Muslim? You can change your religion.

Goes against the 1st Amendment

Requiring tax returns goes against the 4th Amendment.

Not for public office.

Wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

This law will get tossed by the courts state law does not overrule federal law and there is no federal law requiring one to release their tax returns as a requirement to run for President.

The argument they are going to try and make is that it is an application requirement of some sort. The CLEAR political motivation behind the requirement is likely going to be the deciding factor.

.

I think the previous ruling on state imposed term limits will decide this case.

Privacy will. Tax returns have always been considered private.

Not for a Public office.

I know of no office that requires them. If I'm wrong, point it out.

the point is, it cannot be prohibited for a Public office.

 

[pknopp]

The argument they are going to try and make is that it is an application requirement of some sort. The CLEAR political motivation behind the requirement is likely going to be the deciding factor.

.

I think the previous ruling on state imposed term limits will decide this case.

Privacy will. Tax returns have always been considered private.

Not for a Public office.

I know of no office that requires them. If I'm wrong, point it out.

the point is, it cannot be prohibited for a Public office.

My reply to that is Sez you. The next logical question is then can a state demand your personal health records?

 

[bodecea]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

 

[DOTR]

I promise you..without a doubt...whoever the elites select as the Democrat candidate will have never worked a day at a non government job.
Never any tax return problems there though they become multi millionaires on 175000 a year doing it.

 

[bripat9643]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

 

[bodecea]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[pknopp]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

They do and you have already acknowledged that. The question is whether that can require private information become public. I do not think so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Like I said, I think the State will have the burden of proving this requirement is necessary for efficiency purposes, rather than an attempt to advance a political football.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yes, it pretty much does prevent them from running for office. Your belief that a state can be arbitrary in the rules it makes for ballot access is absurd.

 

[my2¢]

With the 9th Circuit Court's tendency to create laws unto itself, this lawsuit may stand a chance at that lower level. In their shoes, my ruling would be the federal court has no standing in this situation. In November's presidential election, states choose their members of the Electoral College. The Constitution doesn’t require their electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, nor for the state to even hold an election as means to select their electors.

To get around this ridiculous law, Republicans just need to place a stand-in on the ballot whose electors are Trump supporters. The stand-in can be any citizen in the country that is willing to meet California's silly ballot requirements. I believe a stand-in would have a better chance than Trump to win California anyway. Not that I'm a Trump backer, but I thoroughly enjoy when either Republican or Democrat politicians get too cute and end up screwing themselves.

 

[iceberg]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

Just remember this when the R states start doing these things to the left. Something tells me you'll get selective about who can do it and not like it when the Ds get slapped with their own idea.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With the 9th Circuit Court's tendency to create laws unto itself, this lawsuit may stand a chance at that lower level. In their shoes, my ruling would be the federal court has no standing in this situation. In November's presidential election, states choose their members of the Electoral College. The Constitution doesn’t require their electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, nor for the state to even hold an election as means to select their electors.

To get around this ridiculous law, Republicans just need to place a stand-in on the ballot whose electors are Trump supporters. The stand-in can be any citizen in the country that is willing to meet California's silly ballot requirements. I believe a stand-in would have a better chance than Trump to win California anyway. Not that I'm a Trump backer, but I thoroughly enjoy when either Republican or Democrat politicians get too cute and end up screwing themselves.

Court's don't have standing. You mean the federal courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on a federal election? I think you are decidedly wrong.

I think the court requires California to demonstrate a need for the tax-return requirement that has some relation to advancing the efficient holding of a federal election withing the state of California.

What will be their reasoning?

.

 

[Care4all]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

 

[bripat9643]

With the 9th Circuit Court's tendency to create laws unto itself, this lawsuit may stand a chance at that lower level. In their shoes, my ruling would be the federal court has no standing in this situation. In November's presidential election, states choose their members of the Electoral College. The Constitution doesn’t require their electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, nor for the state to even hold an election as means to select their electors.

To get around this ridiculous law, Republicans just need to place a stand-in on the ballot whose electors are Trump supporters. The stand-in can be any citizen in the country that is willing to meet California's silly ballot requirements. I believe a stand-in would have a better chance than Trump to win California anyway. Not that I'm a Trump backer, but I thoroughly enjoy when either Republican or Democrat politicians get too cute and end up screwing themselves.

Or they can sue the state of California.

 

[bripat9643]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

 

[my2¢]

With the 9th Circuit Court's tendency to create laws unto itself, this lawsuit may stand a chance at that lower level. In their shoes, my ruling would be the federal court has no standing in this situation. In November's presidential election, states choose their members of the Electoral College. The Constitution doesn’t require their electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, nor for the state to even hold an election as means to select their electors.

To get around this ridiculous law, Republicans just need to place a stand-in on the ballot whose electors are Trump supporters. The stand-in can be any citizen in the country that is willing to meet California's silly ballot requirements. I believe a stand-in would have a better chance than Trump to win California anyway. Not that I'm a Trump backer, but I thoroughly enjoy when either Republican or Democrat politicians get too cute and end up screwing themselves.

Court's don't have standing. You mean the federal courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on a federal election? I think you are decidedly wrong.

I think the court requires California to demonstrate a need for the tax-return requirement that has some relation to advancing the efficient holding of a federal election withing the state of California.

What will be their reasoning?

.

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

But one important word in the thread's title was omitted that was included in post #1. That word being "primary". Heck, next year all the California Republicans need to do is instead hold a caucus.