Article

2019-07-31 Home Front: Politix

Gavin Newsom OKs law forcing Trump to release tax returns to get on California's ballot

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Beavis 2019-07-31 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 Fort Sumter?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2019-07-31 03:15|| 2019-07-31 03:15|| Front Page Top

#2 Fine. I guess CA can just sit out the election then.

Posted by gorb 2019-07-31 03:44|| 2019-07-31 03:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Closer and closer they push it.

Posted by Uleck Spererong9442 2019-07-31 06:32|| 2019-07-31 06:32|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 06:56|| Front Page Top

#5 ^ This. It's clearly unconstitutional

Posted by Frank G 2019-07-31 07:05|| 2019-07-31 07:05|| Front Page Top

#6 How bout you have to show a tax return to vote?

Posted by M. Murcek 2019-07-31 07:06|| 2019-07-31 07:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:12|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:20|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 07:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 08:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 08:53|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 10:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 10:23|| Front Page Top

#17 Murcek - love your suggestion in #6. Also, is this in Gavin's purview?

Posted by warthogswife 2019-07-31 11:17|| 2019-07-31 11:17|| Front Page Top

#18 There is a recall effort underway for Givin Gavin.

Posted by crazyhorse 2019-07-31 11:31|| 2019-07-31 11:31|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 11:59|| Front Page Top

#20 Yes, crazyhorse, and I can't wait to sign the petition.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2019-07-31 13:21|| 2019-07-31 13:21|| Front Page Top

#21 And while we're at it, how about a birth certificate?

Posted by Abu Uluque 2019-07-31 13:22|| 2019-07-31 13:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 14:43|| Front Page Top

#23 ...and thus the obstruction to the citizenship question.

Posted by Procopius2k 2019-07-31 18:55|| 2019-07-31 18:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 21:34|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2019-07-31 21:57|| Front Page Top

22:49 Silentbrick
22:29 trailing wife
22:20 anymouse
22:18 anymouse
21:57 Maggie Whaick8235
21:54 trailing wife
21:46 Procopius2k
21:36 ruprecht
21:34 ruprecht
21:31 ruprecht
21:30 ruprecht
20:59 The peanut gallery
20:38 The peanut gallery
20:20 CrazyFool
20:10 Frank G
19:57 Skidmark
19:54 Skidmark
19:53 Mrs. Davis
19:32 Iblis
19:28 Frank G
19:04 Frank G
18:59 Procopius2k
18:57 Procopius2k
18:55 Procopius2k
Merry-Go-Blog