Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PBC_Democrat

(403 posts)
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:38 PM Nov 2019

California Supreme Court says law requiring presidential candidates to turn over tax returns is inva

Source: CNN

"The California Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled the state's new law that requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns for the previous five years to get on the ballot is invalid."



Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/california-tax-returns-trump/index.html



If we can't get this done in CA, it doesn't look promising for the rest of the country.
Of course, I expected it to be upheld and Trump would simply ignore the state since he had no chance of winning it.

I really didn't expect a unanimous ruling on this.

Any ideas on how they can amend this to pass scrutiny?
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California Supreme Court says law requiring presidential candidates to turn over tax returns is inva (Original Post) PBC_Democrat Nov 2019 OP
I don't understand this at all (the ruling). What about the overriding concern of conflicts of ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2019 #1
State Constitutional Amendment perhaps Raven123 Nov 2019 #2
Have no details on the rationale but if it was unanimous, then Goodwin Liu agreed. CincyDem Nov 2019 #3
My Opinion On This Is BirdandSquirrel Nov 2019 #4
Exactly. Not surprised at this at all. I thought it was stupid for the governor to push it. You still_one Nov 2019 #7
Supremacy Cause... LovingA2andMI Nov 2019 #5
Legal Basis BirdandSquirrel Nov 2019 #6
What we need is a transparency law over who provides the money to anyone that cstanleytech Nov 2019 #8
We did until Citizens United ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #14
Expected DetroitLegalBeagle Nov 2019 #9
I don't disagree with you - do you anything about that court's discussions ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #12
The requirements are pretty simple DetroitLegalBeagle Nov 2019 #18
Thanks! ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #29
I think we all knew this stood no chance anywhere. BlueTsunami2018 Nov 2019 #10
They would be right in regards to the general election. LiberalFighter Nov 2019 #11
Final presidential candidates need to have security clearance !! TryLogic Nov 2019 #13
Except that the authority for issuing a clearance is the executive. Igel Nov 2019 #28
Apparently there needs to be some sort of structural change. TryLogic Nov 2019 #31
It's a essentially a First Amendment issue djg21 Nov 2019 #15
Here is what the judges decided ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #16
Associate Justice Josh Groban?! n/t TheRickles Nov 2019 #22
That's what it said ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #23
Yes, I was just joking about the similar name. Thanks for this info on the "other" JG. n/t TheRickles Nov 2019 #25
So much for states' rights bucolic_frolic Nov 2019 #17
Vehicle inspections aren't in the Constitution Polybius Nov 2019 #32
Dude, it's the Constitution. The Law of the Land. The Court had no choice in the matter. Nitram Nov 2019 #33
The constitution provides the requirements, not the states Cicada Nov 2019 #19
Trump has been mucking with the 9th OneCrazyDiamond Nov 2019 #20
Supreme Court has ruled on this. Twice. Doormouse Nov 2019 #21
it will probably require an amended constitution to include such a requirement. nt yaesu Nov 2019 #24
Bad News. zentrum Nov 2019 #26
Should have listened to Jerry Brown Jake Stern Nov 2019 #27
Good ruling Polybius Nov 2019 #30

SWBTATTReg

(24,178 posts)
1. I don't understand this at all (the ruling). What about the overriding concern of conflicts of ...
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:41 PM
Nov 2019

interest? It's looking more and more like rump does his foreign policy based upon the businesses that he has in foreign countries, and the rest of them, if he doesn't have any properties or plans to develop one, well, there are a sh**hole country.

Conflict of interest is a big big big concern. Rump is pure evidence of this.

CincyDem

(6,951 posts)
3. Have no details on the rationale but if it was unanimous, then Goodwin Liu agreed.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:43 PM
Nov 2019


His reputation is that of a liberal GIANT when it comes to legal thinking. I was disappointed that BHO didn't reach out to him for SCOTUS, although he probably wouldn't have gotten a vote in McConnell's Senate.

If he agreed with this ruling, it leads me to the conclusion that there's a flaw in the law or its underlying premise. He's no stooge. (IMHO)
 

BirdandSquirrel

(36 posts)
4. My Opinion On This Is
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:47 PM
Nov 2019

My opinion on this matter is that no State Government can override the Federal Government.

I understand that States run their elections by their own laws and rules. However, they do not choose the Candidates for Federal office outside of their primaries or caucuses. These candidates are chosen by the Political Parties, and they are not bound by any particular State law or rule.

Were there to be a Federal Law in place, that would be a completely different situation. I know that this is not a popular point of view, but I see it as the legal basis for this decision.

still_one

(96,648 posts)
7. Exactly. Not surprised at this at all. I thought it was stupid for the governor to push it. You
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:58 PM
Nov 2019

cannot change the requirements to run for President at the state level, and that is essentially what they were doing by this

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
5. Supremacy Cause...
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 02:49 PM
Nov 2019

"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause"

cstanleytech

(27,058 posts)
8. What we need is a transparency law over who provides the money to anyone that
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:06 PM
Nov 2019

runs ads that are political and or issues ads.

ArizonaLib

(1,265 posts)
12. I don't disagree with you - do you anything about that court's discussions
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:32 PM
Nov 2019

about who is/is not allowed on a ballot? I am interested in knowing more about that - I know nothing about CA laws and am far from ever even knowing someone who practices constitutional law. I understand that the constitution says 35 years, naturalized citizen, etc. but nothing else.

DetroitLegalBeagle

(2,187 posts)
18. The requirements are pretty simple
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:08 PM
Nov 2019

The Constitution lays out 3 main requirements, at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. Technically there are 3 disqualifiers as well. The original disqualifier is that the candidate has not been impeached and disqualified from holding office. The other 2 come from Amendments, the first one is a relic of Reconstruction, which barred former Confederate politicians and military who had originally swore an oath to the US and then joined the Confederates. The other is term limits, you can't run if your election would violate Presidential term limits.

I have not yet read through the courts opinion yet though, so I don't know the exact grounds they invalidated it with.

BlueTsunami2018

(4,026 posts)
10. I think we all knew this stood no chance anywhere.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:12 PM
Nov 2019

It stood a slight chance for state primaries but zero chance for federal Presidential elections.

LiberalFighter

(53,487 posts)
11. They would be right in regards to the general election.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:12 PM
Nov 2019

But not the primary. The primaries are a political party function. The constitution and federal government does not have sway over the operation of a political party operation.

TryLogic

(1,898 posts)
13. Final presidential candidates need to have security clearance !!
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:33 PM
Nov 2019

This would be a national issue rather than a state issue.

It is crazy that any clown or foreign agent or mobster can become president if he or she can con the public into voting for him/her. We have now seen why this is a humongous problem.

Igel

(36,164 posts)
28. Except that the authority for issuing a clearance is the executive.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 08:04 PM
Nov 2019

I don't see how you'd bind the EC (or voters) from electing somebody without a clearance, and once elected I don't think a small dept of the executive branch should be gatekeeper and say, "Sorry, voters, you'll just have to try again--may we suggest you pick a better choice, one that we'll easily grant a clearance to?"

TryLogic

(1,898 posts)
31. Apparently there needs to be some sort of structural change.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 11:33 PM
Nov 2019

I'm not buying that it can't be done.

 

djg21

(1,803 posts)
15. It's a essentially a First Amendment issue
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 03:47 PM
Nov 2019

Voters have a right to vote for a candidate of their choosing, and may penalize a candidate for not disclosing tax information by declining to vote for the candidate. The disclosure of tax returns always has been customary, but not a legal requirement.

I know this was addressed under the State Constitution rather than the US Constitution, but the rationale is analogous. And it’s probably not wrong, despite the fact that we would have preferred a different result.

aggiesal

(9,480 posts)
16. Here is what the judges decided ...
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:01 PM
Nov 2019
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, joined by Associate Justices Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Carol Corrigan, Leondra Kruger, Ming Chin, and Joshua Groban, wrote the following in the court's opinion:

"The Legislature may well be correct that a presidential candidate's income tax returns could provide California voters with important information. But article II, section 5(c) embeds in the state Constitution the principle that, ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a 'recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States' to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box."


I disagree with this decision, because it's tell us voters that we have to reject a candidate or accept a candidate without acquiring all the pertinent information to make our decisions.

... to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.

Well duh!
If the candidate has a conflict of interest, we should be able to know that and of course it could have consequences at the ballot box.

aggiesal

(9,480 posts)
23. That's what it said ...
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:27 PM
Nov 2019

it was unanimous.

Joshua Paul Groban is an American attorney and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California. He was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Jerry Brown on November 14, 2018, to replace Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar, who retired on August 31, 2017.

Are you thinking about the singer?

bucolic_frolic

(47,115 posts)
17. So much for states' rights
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:02 PM
Nov 2019

California sets rules on many things Californian. One state, TN or KY, doesn't even require vehicle inspections, but most do. So I'm not understanding it.

States have lots of requirements to get on a ballot. Number of signatures, verified, for example. States can run referendums in a manner that they choose, if they choose. There are state laws or state Constitutions that empower them to do this. Feds have nothing to do with it.

I think they should have approached this tax return requirement as part of the commerce clause. Lots of hoops to do business in California, and what is more business than running the world's largest economy?

Polybius

(17,980 posts)
32. Vehicle inspections aren't in the Constitution
Fri Nov 22, 2019, 10:46 AM
Nov 2019

The requirements for being President are. This decision was unanimous by a liberal CA Supreme Court. They had no choice to strike it down.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
19. The constitution provides the requirements, not the states
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:10 PM
Nov 2019

I always assumed this California law would be struck down.

 

Doormouse

(20 posts)
21. Supreme Court has ruled on this. Twice.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:15 PM
Nov 2019

"U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states."

"Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly-elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause. "

This also applies to President/VP.

And Supreme Court rulings on Ballot Eligibility pretty much pertain to proof of support.

zentrum

(9,866 posts)
26. Bad News.
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 06:05 PM
Nov 2019

Of course eventually it would have been appealed to the Supreme Court and we all know what would happen there.


Jake Stern

(3,145 posts)
27. Should have listened to Jerry Brown
Thu Nov 21, 2019, 08:03 PM
Nov 2019

He had the good sense to veto an earlier incarnation of this bill when it came before him because he knew it would be struck down.

“While I recognize the political attractiveness – even the merits – of getting President Trump’s tax returns, I worry about the political perils of individual states seeking to regulate presidential elections in this manner,” Brown wrote in a veto message. “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?”


More: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/jerry-brown-trump-tax-returns-bill-243799
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»California Supreme Court ...