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

[Siete]

like the link in the opening post says -

it's doubtful the court will uphold the requirement ... but, they have upheld the state in other instances.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

The States can have their electors pick whom they want.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Well said..


.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

not the same thing. States can determine who they have their electors, elect.

 

[Timmy]

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.​

What standing do they have to sue ?

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

not the same thing. States can determine who they have their electors, elect.

Are you a Constitutional lawyer?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

not the same thing. States can determine who they have their electors, elect.

Are you a Constitutional lawyer?

does it matter? all i need is a good argument.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

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

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

 

[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.​

What standing do they have to sue ?

They're voters.

 

[keepitreal]

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 want to see Pelosi’s returns...
She is in the line of succession to become president

 

[pknopp]

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 want to see Pelosi’s returns...
She is in the line of succession to become president

At least with Roberts (which would have to be on board) I believe this would play some role also.

 

[Timmy]

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.​

What standing do they have to sue ?

They're voters.

And ? Who’s stopping them from voting ? Let Trump sue if he doesn’t like it .

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

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.

 

[pknopp]

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

Why should they, when the State provides the healthcare?

Because it's private.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.​

States Rights