HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » CA lawmakers pass bill re...

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 11:55 PM

CA lawmakers pass bill requiring Trump, presidential candidates to release tax returns

Source: ABC News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California legislation that would require presidential and state gubernatorial candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the state's ballot cleared a significant hurdle, passing the State Assembly with an overwhelming majority vote.

SB 27, co-authored by Senators Mike McGuire and Scott Wiener, was approved by the State Assembly Monday with a 57-17 vote, according to McGuire's office. It will be heard again in the State Senate this week, and if approved, will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

"Presidential candidates need to put their own interests aside in the name of transparency," McGuire's office said in a written statement. "So far, our current President has done the opposite and it's time that President Trump steps up, stops with the obstruction, and follows through with 40 years of time-honored tradition that has made this nation's democracy stronger. This commonsense legislation applies equally to all candidates, from all political parties, including the Governor of California."

In May, McGuire and Wiener amended the legislation to extend the transparency rules to the office of the Governor of California, as well as presidential candidates.

Read more: https://abc7news.com/politics/ca-lawmakers-pass-bill-requiring-trump-to-release-tax-returns/5389210/



California has 55 Electoral Votes. That's huge.

49 replies, 2149 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply CA lawmakers pass bill requiring Trump, presidential candidates to release tax returns (Original post)
George II Thursday OP
msongs Thursday #1
stopbush Friday #3
SHRED Friday #7
Polybius Friday #45
AlexSFCA Friday #22
Yavin4 Friday #30
Retrograde Friday #38
Angleae Friday #23
SHRED Friday #2
RockRaven Friday #4
SHRED Friday #5
sandensea Friday #12
Thekaspervote Friday #6
Kind of Blue Friday #8
Scurrilous Friday #9
Jake Stern Friday #10
PSPS Friday #16
tandem5 Friday #21
PSPS Friday #41
tandem5 Friday #42
Retrograde Friday #39
PSPS Friday #40
Retrograde Friday #43
dlk Friday #11
Qutzupalotl Friday #13
More_Cowbell Friday #14
onecaliberal Friday #15
Kind of Blue Friday #18
mr_lebowski Friday #17
NBachers Friday #19
tandem5 Friday #20
ripcord Friday #29
NCjack Friday #24
thesquanderer Friday #25
Jake Stern Friday #35
watoos Friday #26
pecosbob Friday #28
hlthe2b Friday #27
George II Friday #32
Yavin4 Friday #31
24601 Friday #33
Brother Buzz Friday #34
Jake Stern Friday #36
DVRacer Saturday #46
lindysalsagal Friday #37
Polybius Friday #44
George II Saturday #47
jgmiller Saturday #48
onenote Monday #49

Response to George II (Original post)

Thu Jul 11, 2019, 11:58 PM

1. not a requirement for prez in the us constitution nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:03 AM

3. Doesn't matter. Each state runs its own election to select the POTUS.

tRump will not be allowed on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:33 AM

7. Bingo!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:16 PM

45. What will it matter?

He has no chance in CA anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 02:50 AM

22. yes and will likely be blocked by SC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSFCA (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 11:50 AM

30. How? They just let gerrymandering continue because they don't want to interfere in

elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yavin4 (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 05:20 PM

38. But that ruling benefited Republicans

Funny how States' Rights arguments and rulings always seem to benefit the right wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 06:07 AM

23. Neither is requiring signatures to get on the ballot.

But yet the state can make you do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:03 AM

2. So proud to be a Californian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:07 AM

4. On one hand it's no biggie b/c he was never going to win CA in 2020, but...

he is likely to be quite the whining man-baby over this, and Repukes down-ballot are going to be super-sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:11 AM

5. It's freaking awesome

So happy right now.

I think the west coast needs to break away.
Form our own alliance.

The rest of the country hates us it seems.

Glad and thankful I live here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:24 AM

12. Hear, hear.

And doesn't this apply to next year's CA primary as well?

If so, that could give most of CA's GOP delegates to Bill Weld - plus those of all the other states that have passed similar requirements (or will soon).

This could get interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:17 AM

6. Yes, it's a big deal!! And no, he will never win CA but as mentioned it may hurt the down ballot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:37 AM

8. Love my state! Maybe this will catch on in some others.

Thanks for posting!
I think Maryland has done this, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:48 AM

9. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:01 AM

10. While this is a fantastic concept

I Just donít see it surviving SCOTUS, at least for the part concerning candidates for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake Stern (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:34 AM

16. It's purely a state matter as per the constitution. The SC has no say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 02:49 AM

21. We're suffering multiple Constitutional crises. Just because the Supreme

Court has no jurisdiction doesn't mean a corrupt majority won't interject just like Florida 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 05:27 PM

41. "Florida 2000" had nothing in common with what is being discussed here: Ballot eligibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 05:52 PM

42. The thread topic is about that, yes, however I wasn't

talking about the specifics of ballot eligibility or Bush v. Gore. I was speaking to the fact that we have countless examples where people are ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law without any repercussions. Garland was ignored by the Republicans in the Senate, citing a non-existent "Biden Rule" while subverting their Constitutional duty to confirm a presidential nomination only to turn around and seat Kavanaugh instantly. So, yes, by the rule of law, by all the ways our government is structured and guided by founding principles, a state alone may determine who is eligible to be on its ballot. And further the state may appoint the electoral delegation however it sees fit even if it's not based on the plurality decision of the state's populous, but given the current climate and the extreme impropriety of the Supreme Court's involvement in Bush v. Gore I don't have the same faith as you that a corrupt majority on the bench will respect the explicit limitations of its jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 05:22 PM

39. Remember Bush v Gore in 2000?

The Supremes had no problem stepping into a purely state matter then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 05:26 PM

40. Sorry, but that had nothing to do with ballot eligibility, which is what this thread is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 06:29 PM

43. See post #42

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:12 AM

11. Are Any Other States Passing Similar Bills?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:27 AM

13. This could have downballot implications in CA.

Trump was never going to win in CA, but if heís not on the ballot it might depress R turnout a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:28 AM

14. They did this in 2017 but Jerry Brown vetoed it

I assume that Gavin Newsome will sign it.

While there may be hurdles, that doesn't mean states shouldn't try to make candidates accountable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:31 AM

15. I'm so happy to live in California. No other place I'd rather be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:48 AM

18. +10,000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 01:48 AM

17. Way to go my homies!!!

My heart will always be in the Bay Area (as is most of my family) even though I'm physically only there every few months ...

GO CALI!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 02:15 AM

19. Thank you, California - Now, let's get some more states on board. States Rights! States Rights!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 02:37 AM

20. I got a bad feeling about these kind of laws...

Trump could refuse to release his returns and be left off the ballot and then sue. As the lawsuit works its way to the Supreme Court he loses the election. The Supreme Court's "conservatives" who have promoted themselves as the guardians of state sovereignty quote some equal protections bullshit and order that California's electoral delegation not be counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:09 AM

29. I have serious doubts that this will be in place for 2020

This might not work it's way through the court system in time to affect 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 07:51 AM

24. I believe that Trump will be on the California ballot.

Trump will sue in Federal district court to be on the ballot. He will lose, but will be granted a pause while the issue works it way through appeal and on to the Supreme Court, i.e., Trump will be on the California ballot. The Supreme Court will either not receive it before the election or will delay in deciding until after the election. Trump will make his complete his run. Finally, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case or will decide in favor of California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:06 AM

25. re: "California has 55 Electoral Votes. That's huge."

No chance at those 55 EV anyway. But I worry about other implications... that the government can ever compel the public release of anyone's private tax returns (outside of perhaps a criminal matter?), since it has always been the case that tax returns are supposed to be kind of "walled off" from being used for other government purposes; and also that the party in power can come up with requirements for candidates that are essentially targeted at hurting the other party. So I'm ambivalent about this.

Sure, it's nice to poke at Trump in this way, but it doesn't really hurt him, because no state that he has a prayer of winning is going to make this a requirement for 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:23 PM

35. This right here

Especially the part about "also that the party in power can come up with requirements for candidates that are essentially targeted at hurting the other party."

I remember the whole kerluffle over Obama's school records and birth certificate. If this is upheld then what is to stop a Republican state from requiring a candidate to produce an original long form birth certificate and school records?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:31 AM

26. I mean according to Lawrence Tribe,

the SC just opened the door to allowing states to draw districts based on voter eligibility. So the SC is allowing states free rein to gerrymander districts but then they will turn around and say that states are forbidden to require tax returns? If the SC is going to be lenient with how states run their elections and draw up their districts then the SC needs to bug off California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:29 AM

28. In fact, such a ruling would open the door for federal intervention in state-run federal elections

You can't rule it's okay to intervene to disallow the California amendment and then rule it's not okay for the government to demand motor-voter in all fifty states, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 09:06 AM

27. Passed through the assembly only, but hopefully the Senate will pass. Newsome almost sure to sign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #27)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 11:55 AM

32. Yes, I noticed that but also read elsewhere that it's sure to pass the Senate, Newsome will sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 11:52 AM

31. This could be big for the Dems. Without Trump on the ballot, Republican turnout will be suppressed.

Which will make it more difficult for congressional Republicans to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 11:57 AM

33. What if Florida passes a bill prohibiting a Presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot if

they do release their tax returns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:21 PM

34. Gov Jerry Brown vetoed the last bill so there may be some blowback we're not aware of

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 12:43 PM

36. Be careful what you wish for

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2019, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

A successful defense of this law by California at SCOTUS would be a birther's dream come true. That will open the door for Republican led states to require all kinds of records for ballot access.

Just wait until Republican controlled purple states start requiring long form birth certificates and school records or proof that a candidate's parents were lawfully present in the country at the time of their birth.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jake Stern (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 08:49 AM

46. This right here

Reminds me of when I spoke out about Harry Reid and his nuclear option for judges. I was lambasted at the time. Now we have seen how that was twisted in so many ways to bludgeon us and allowed the cons to pack the courts.
This too will be twisted in ways we havenít even considered yet and ways such as you listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 02:00 PM

37. Between my & ca, we might just survive this nightmare.

Reason to hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Fri Jul 12, 2019, 10:14 PM

44. "California has 55 Electoral Votes. That's huge"

But none of them go to Republicans anyway, so they won't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:45 PM

47. The bill passed the State Senate, awaiting Newsome's (expected) signature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 06:23 PM

48. This can swing both ways

On the surface it's great but as others have said it can open a can of worms.

On the bright side if he chooses to challenge this he can't use the DOJ. He's a potential candidate in this case not a president so he would need to use his own lawyers and not rely on Barr. Also while of course any judge (including SCOTUS) can come up with any reason to strike this down I think it would be a bit hard to do. Different states have different deadlines, signature requirements etc to appear on a ballot and if they struck this down they would be opening holes there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2019, 12:11 PM

49. This will have no impact on Trump or the 2020 election

It only applies to the primary not the general election. It isn't even clear that the repubs will have a primary in California and even if they do, Trump could simply choose to sit it out since he'll have the nomination secured long before that primary (as was the case in 2016).

Whether he's on the ballot for the primary has no impact on his presence on the general election ballot: per California election law, the nominees of the national parties get to be on the ballot.

In short, it is a meaningless, symbolic action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread