Posted on 08/05/2019 2:46:31 PM PDT by jazusamo
Full title: JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES APPEARING ON PRIMARY BALLOT TO DISCLOSE TAX RETURNS
(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 five 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.
Under the law, known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, candidates who do not publicly disclose their tax returns are barred from having their names printed on California’s primary ballots. Judicial Watch alleges that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution and impermissibly burdens a voters’ expressive constitutional and statutory rights. The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988.
During the 2017-2018 legislative session, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a previous version of this law, which California’s Legislative Counsel concluded “would be unconstitutional if enacted.” In vetoing the 2017-18 tax return law, Brown noted:
First, it may not be constitutional. Second, it sets a “slippery slope” precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.
The Judicial Watch complaint further alleges the political nature of the law, which is totally divorced from the states’ legitimate constitutional role in administering and establishing procedures for conducting federal elections:
None of the interests proffered by the California legislature for requiring the disclosure of candidates’ tax returns is related to election procedure or administration. Rather, the stated interests incorporate particular, substantive judgments about what is most important for voters to know when considering a candidate, how voters should go about “estimate[ing] the risk” of a candidate “engaging in corruption,” and what might assist law enforcement in detecting violations of the Emoluments Clause and crimes “such as insider trading.”
Unless SB 27 is enjoined, states will assume the power to create their own qualifications for national candidates seeking to obtain a party’s nomination for president. This could lead to as many as 50 distinct and possibly inconsistent sets of qualifications regarding the only national election in the United States. Using rationales similar to California’s, states might come to demand medical records, mental health records, sealed juvenile records, driving records, results of intelligence, aptitude, or personality tests, college applications, Amazon purchases, Google search histories, browsing histories, or Facebook friends.
“California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”
No offense to outnumbered conservative Californians, but...California is the lost cause state. I guess New York is in that category as well.
When our side makes laws aimed at Democrat misbehavior, they go to a court and get it quashed usually by the end of the same day the law is passed, end of story.
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
I’ll call you one bill of Attainder and and raise you one ipso facto law.
When does the shooting start?
5.56mm
Love them
Requiring some sort of birth record would actually facilitate ascertaining constitutional “requirements” (scare quotes, because no “requirement” in the constitution is actually required) of age and birth citizenship. There is nothing controversial about demanding that as a condition of appearing on the ballot. Heck, I have to show proof of citizenship just to get certain state and federal ID papers.
I like the health records one.
If CA gets away with this, TX should require health records. The CA whore will have to disclose her Chlamydia or whatever other STDs she has or has had.
I like it, but I think it is the wrong approach.
President Trump should declare this an act of Secession and Declare Martial Law in California, and Appoint a Special Master, preferably a General or Admiral to handle the affairs of the new Territory. We used to HANG those convicted of Treason , see Lincoln.
To guarantee standing a Libertarian candidate (I am sure the Libertarian Party could have primaries in CA) should also file, on the basis that he is running on a personal privacy platform, and handing over tax records to the public would undermine his own morals.
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Or Blockbuster rentals...
But I'm dating myself...
-PJ
None taken.
I'm only staying here right now due to familial obligations. Once those are fulfilled, I won't be able to get out of this state fast enough.
Unconstitutional on it’s face. States have no authority to define, add to, or take away from the Constitutional requirements for the office of President. This is not a State’s Rights or 10th Amendment issue as the Constitution clearly defines the requirements (thus the 10th does not apply)
I agree, even Guv Moonbeam knew it.
It’s hard to imagine that these whack job leaders in CA are so far gone they think this will stand.
Why only the president? Why not every state and federal official?
Man oh man, where would all of us be if it were not for Judaical Watch. They do yeomens work.
“No offense to outnumbered conservative Californians, but...California is the lost cause state.”
Well, I take direct offense to your comment! I guess we can be thankful that “cut and run” RINOs like you weren’t around in 1776, because it’s clear from your comments that you wouldn’t have fought. I get really tired of ding dongs like you who see the “solution” to the problem of creeping Socialism, being to move to where it hasn’t arrived in sufficient amounts to cause a near-term problem. There was an old song “Yellow Stain Blues.” You might want to read the lyrics.
Heard this mentioned once, would like to hear from someone more learned on Constitutional issues than I - would this not amount to a Bill Of Attainder?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.