California Gov Signs Bill To Exclude Trump From 2020 Election Ballot (SP 27)

[Revoltingest]

There are already laws about access.

This is already acknowledged.
We're considering whether this restriction would fly in court.
No one here really knows. We're just opining about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That does not mean a state can do what it wants. See 15, 19, 24 and 26th amendments. It will be thrown out based on existing voting laws and rights as the right to vote is linked with the right to run for office.

Who's right to vote is being denied? Are all requirements to run illegal? What about requirements that are more burdensome? Also, you mentioned the same amendments I did. They expanded the right to vote. However, running for office isn't an inherent right as that is no where written in the Constitution.

 

[SugarOcean]

Political stunt I think. Theater.

Think what other states can do if California gets away with this? Then people can come up with all kinds of reasons to keep various candidates off ballots.

No, actually, it is the Democratic process in action. The people of a representative government have a right to address bills of law proposed in their name because said bills will impact their present and future.

Other states won't try this stunt because it is illegal and entirely unconstitutional. In this particular case it violates the California constitution and the federal Constitution. This bill signed into law was the political stunt.

 

[Nakosis]

Bet you a cookie that the Democratic candidate will release his or her tax returns.

Why shouldn’t the Republican candidate do likewise?

Why should the Democratic candidate release theirs?
Take any Democratic or Republican publically available tax return and tell me what it means about the candidate?

 

[SugarOcean]

This is already acknowledged.
We're considering whether this restriction would fly in court.
No one here really knows. We're just opining about it.

It will never fly in court.
The supremacy clause of the USC guarantees it. In order for this bills proposal to actually work first there would have to be a federal law passed that makes it mandatory for a political candidate for any office to release their tax returns.
That's not going to happen because of the law that insures tax returns are private. This is why the media outlet that released older copies of Trump's tax return violated federal law in the publishing of those forms.

The rest of what would need happen is moot given that. However, spit baling here, then the Federal Constitution would have to be amended to include release of tax returns as part of those conditions necessary in order to run for highest office.

That's not going to happen either because then all those others who want to run for office or are currently in office would have to release their tax returns based on the aforementioned tax law that would have to be passed concerning disclosure. Because the aforementioned tax law on disclosure would cover both branches of government, not just the presidential.
And we know all those Congress people, especially on the Left, that are carping for Trump's tax returns now when it is not a law to release them in order to run for highest office, are the last one's that would want a law that mandates they reciprocate.

 

[SugarOcean]

Just ask Lyndon Larouche. Heh.

There's a name I haven't heard in years. I remember when his supporters set up tables in front of the local post office where I lived at the time so as to get him on the ballot.
LL passed away in February of this year.
God have mercy.

 

[Revoltingest]

It will never fly in court.
The supremacy clause of the USC guarantees it. In order for this bills proposal to actually work first there would have to be a federal law passed that makes it mandatory for a political candidate for any office to release their tax returns.
That's not going to happen because of the law that insures tax returns are private. This is why the media outlet that released older copies of Trump's tax return violated federal law in the publishing of those forms.

The rest of what would need happen is moot given that. However, spit baling here, then the Federal Constitution would have to be amended to include release of tax returns as part of those conditions necessary in order to run for highest office.

That's not going to happen either because then all those others who want to run for office or are currently in office would have to release their tax returns based on the aforementioned tax law that would have to be passed concerning disclosure. Because the aforementioned tax law on disclosure would cover both branches of government, not just the presidential.
And we know all those Congress people, especially on the Left, that are carping for Trump's tax returns now when it is not a law to release them in order to run for highest office, are the last one's that would want a law that mandates they reciprocate.

I tend to agree.
But I also have no certainty about what courts will do.

 

[SugarOcean]

I tend to agree.
But I also have no certainty about what courts will do.

I do. But then again, I'm an eternal optimist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Other states won't try this stunt because it is illegal and entirely unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution is this defined as illegal?

 

[suncowiam]

Is it, or is it not a requirement?

I think you know , but will never admit it.

It is and it isn't?

The law might not require it but I like to see his taxes so it's my requirement. There, it's my law concerning presidential candidates.

If California makes it a law, then the feds can take it to court. That's the American way. Nothing new here.

The fact that past presidents have been disclosing this information has made it into culture acceptable and with precedent to "require" tax return releases. Any candidates that do not release their returns would hold my skepticism to why they would not release versus a candidate that chose to release it.

Now remember, Trump made it a campaign promise to release his taxes knowing this precedence and how it influences voters. Well, we know what came from that. His actions basically support the need for this law.

 

[columbus]

True but in the 26th amendment there is a clause that a state cannot impeded someone over 18 from voting.

A few states, including my home state of Indiana, clearly didn't get that memo.
You must have a government issued picture ID to vote.
Tom

ETA ~It was the heavily Republican dominated legislature that proposed and passed this Unconstitutional bit~

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

True but in the 26th amendment there is a clause that a state cannot impeded someone over 18 from voting. Not allowing a candidate on the ballot is impeding the voter. The law is unconstitutional.

No one is being told they can't vote. There are also requirements in each state to get on the ballot, and restrictions for who can and can't run. Does the age requirements impede on the voting rights of AOC supporters? Of course not. We have the right to vote, not to run. Your person being ineligible doesn't mean you can't vote.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is and it isn't?

The law might not require it but I like to see his taxes so it's my requirement. There, it's my law concerning presidential candidates.

If California makes it a law, then the feds can take it to court. That's the American way. Nothing new here.

The fact that past presidents have been disclosing this information has made it into culture acceptable and with precedent to "require" tax return releases. Any candidates that do not release their returns would hold my skepticism to why they would not release versus a candidate that chose to release it.

Now remember, Trump made it a campaign promise to release his taxes knowing this precedence and how it influences voters. Well, we know what came from that. His actions basically support the need for this law.

A fair answer.

 

[SugarOcean]

A fair answer.

Not really. It is evidence they didn't watch the public debate video on the bill before it became a law.

 

[Enoch07]

A few states, including my home state of Indiana, clearly didn't get that memo.
You must have a government issued picture ID to vote.

That's not impeding people to vote. That is insuring that only citizens will vote.

ETA ~It was the heavily Republican dominated legislature that proposed and passed this Unconstitutional bit~

Good we need it in all states.

 

[Enoch07]

No one is being told they can't vote.

Yes they are. When a candidate, especially one that is the sitting President is not recognized on the ballot, that is impeding people from voting for him.

Your person being ineligible doesn't mean you can't vote.

Cognitive dissonance is so strong here. If a candidate is not recognized even if you wrote them in the vote, it will not count. That is impeding the vote, plain and simple.

 

[columbus]

That's not impeding people to vote. That is insuring that only citizens will vote.


Good we need it in all states.

So, you're OK with people instituting unconstitutional impediments to voting as long as it benefits the Republicans, but you aren't OK with them when Californian democrats do it.

OK. Got it. You're more interested in partisanship than patriotism. I can't say that surprises me. I've noticed that amongst Republicans for many many years.
It's why I don't vote for them any more.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes they are. When a candidate, especially one that is the sitting President is not recognized on the ballot, that is impeding people from voting for him.



Cognitive dissonance is so strong here. If a candidate is not recognized even if you wrote them in the vote, it will not count. That is impeding the vote, plain and simple.

Poll taxes and literacy tests are impediments. No one ever getting to vote for Ohmar for president because she's ineligible isn't. And hell be on the general election ballot.

 

[74x12]

This bill signed into law was the political stunt.

That's what I meant ...

 

[Enoch07]

So, you're OK with people instituting unconstitutional impediments to voting as long as it benefits the Republicans, but you aren't OK with them when Californian democrats do it.

Nothing unconstitutional about allowing only citizens to vote. Show me where it says non-citizens have the right to vote.

OK. Got it. You're more interested in partisanship than patriotism. I can't say that surprises me. I've noticed that amongst Republicans for many many years.
It's why I don't vote for them any more.

Considering I'm Libertarian I am far more a patriot.