You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Gavin Newsom OKs law forcing Trump to release tax returns to get on California's ballot
2019-07-31

[SacBee] California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a bill on Tuesday to force President Donald Trump to release his tax returns in order to get on the state's 2020 primary ballot.

While other states have pursued Trump's taxes, California is the first one in the country to make the disclosure of tax returns a requirement for a ballot spot.

Senate Bill 27, dubbed the "Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act," took effect immediately after Newsom's signed it.

The proposal from Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, requires all candidates president and governor to submit the last five years of their tax returns to the Secretary of State. The information will then be published online for the public to see, with contact information, Social Security numbers and medical information redacted.
Iblis also submitted an article on this subject, commenting:
The Democrats' strategy is starting to come into focus. If they don't allow his name to appear on the ballot in multiple states then the popular vote will skew toward the Democrat, who is then guaranteed a minimum percentage of the electoral college based on states that have adopted a popular vote rule. It probably won't ever change the outcome of an election, but it will prevent a landslide victory and provide evergreen 'stolen election' talking points.
Posted by:Beavis

#25  IAAL and the following are NOT clear to me:

Also, the presidential election is a federal thing, a state cannot except or make appearing on the ballot for a federal office conditional.


States already impose state-specific requirements (signature minimums, filing deadlines, etc.) on federal candidates. I doubt they can force disclosure of federal tax returns but it's not as simple a question as the quote above implies.

The electoral college results can only be based on the votes garnered within that particular state. Other states results are invalid for that state, therefore other states votes doesn't count.


I tend to agree with the later comment asserting that it may be an equal protection violation but that too is not completely clear. But it's easy to imagine well-argued cases creating a split in the circuits.

The fun question is: If states that are part of the national popular vote compact award their electors to the party losing in their state but winning the national popular vote does the 14th Amendment then require those state Congressional delegations to be reduced in proportion to the ratio of votes ignored? (E.g., If Trump were to in CO 55/45 but lose the national popular vote and CO to award their electors to his opponent, would the 14th Amendment then require CO's Congressional delegation to be reduced by 55%? Or 100%?) Hint: yes.
Posted by: Maggie Whaick8235   2019-07-31 21:57  

#24  If Trump releases all his tax returns the Dems will find he made some money and he lost some money and nobody but MSNBC cares. It's a nothing burger a red cape before the bull.
Posted by: ruprecht   2019-07-31 21:34  

#23  ...and thus the obstruction to the citizenship question.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-07-31 18:55  

#22  As I understand it, this only applies to the primary election. Even if it applied to the general election, Trump will never carry California - the Democrats will see to that by registering every citizen of Mexico and Central America if necessary.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia    2019-07-31 14:43  

#21  And while we're at it, how about a birth certificate?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-07-31 13:22  

#20  Yes, crazyhorse, and I can't wait to sign the petition.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-07-31 13:21  

#19  (puts on contrarian hat) - Frankly, I'd support full financial disclosure including tax returns BUT only if it applied to ALL elected AND appointed positions at ALL levels of government.
Posted by: Mercutio   2019-07-31 11:59  

#18  There is a recall effort underway for Givin Gavin.
Posted by: crazyhorse   2019-07-31 11:31  

#17  Murcek - love your suggestion in #6. Also, is this in Gavin's purview?
Posted by: warthogswife   2019-07-31 11:17  

#16  Baraq Obama and Lois Lerner had eight years to do something about Trump's taxes and they failed. So now it's Newsom's turn?

OK, Gavin. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-07-31 10:23  

#15  I seriously doubt this will stand on challenges.

The states shouldn't be able to add more requirements for a federal/national election.

Tax returns are considered private information and covered under those laws. A government forcing them to be made public most likely is illegal.
Posted by: DarthVader   2019-07-31 10:00  

#14  I doubt that Newsom could really do this. Most likely illegal. It will result in a huge lawsuit that would be fast-tracked to the Supremes. Whew, talk about an issue of voter suppression and election rigging.
Posted by: JohnQC   2019-07-31 08:53  

#13  Minnesota - must be able to shovel 16 tons of snow while speaking Norwegian in a Somali accent

great one m!
Posted by: Woodrow   2019-07-31 08:09  

#12  We need a friendly judge to place an injunction on California! Better yet, declare CA to be in a state of insurrection and return them to territory status, install a military governor and clean house.
Posted by: Elmuter Omaviger9094   2019-07-31 07:55  

#11   The electoral college results can only be based on the votes garnered within that particular state. Other states results are invalid for that state, therefore other states votes doesn't count.

It strips the citizens of that state of their meaningful vote and thus their 'equal protection' before the law.

It's also a clear attempt to establish a single party system. They've worked it in CA. Now they're trying to put it to the rest of the country by 'any means necessary'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-07-31 07:31  

#10  Additional regional requirement:

Massachusetts - must be able to drive 80 MPH in the breakdown lane during rush hour while gabbing on your cell phone.
Posted by: Raj   2019-07-31 07:24  

#9  It shouldn't be overly difficult to demonstrate this bill as a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Raj   2019-07-31 07:21  

#8  Supremes already barred states from adding conditions for federal office -- it's why they can't impose term limits on Congresscritters.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2019-07-31 07:20  

#7  The electoral college results can only be based on the votes garnered within that particular state. Other states results are invalid for that state, therefore other states votes doesn't count.

Also, the presidential election is a federal thing, a state cannot except or make appearing on the ballot for a federal office conditional.

IANAL so take this for whatever it's worth.
Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance   2019-07-31 07:12  

#6  How bout you have to show a tax return to vote?
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-07-31 07:06  

#5  ^ This. It's clearly unconstitutional
Posted by: Frank G   2019-07-31 07:05  

#4  Actually an interesting legal question; since the Constitution has set a number of requirements for President, does that preempt the field or can individual States add other requirements? If they can there could be some serious regional disconnects:

Texas - must be able to eat 5-alarm chili
Minnesota - must be able to shovel 16 tons of snow while speaking Norwegian in a Somali accent
Hawai'i - whatevuh, cuz

others?
Posted by: Mercutio   2019-07-31 06:56  

#3  Closer and closer they push it.
Posted by: Uleck Spererong9442   2019-07-31 06:32  

#2  Fine. I guess CA can just sit out the election then.
Posted by: gorb   2019-07-31 03:44  

#1  Fort Sumter?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-07-31 03:15  

00:00