Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blue states move to keep Trump off 2020 ballot over tax returns
The Washington Times ^ | April 30, 2019 | Valerie Richardson

Posted on 04/30/2019 5:08:50 PM PDT by jazusamo

Democrats have redoubled their efforts to force President Trump to release his federal tax returns by threatening to keep him off the 2020 ballot in deep-blue states, to which he might say: So what?

Seventeen states have seen bills introduced this year that would require presidential candidates to turn over their tax returns as a condition for ballot access, and such measures have cleared one legislative chamber in at least four states.

For the Trump campaign, however, there may be worse fates than being left off the ballot in liberal enclaves like California, Hawaii and Illinois, where the mandatory tax-return bills are making headway, given that no Republican presidential contender is likely to prevail there.

“In theory, he [Trump] could really push this, and he could be disqualified from the state ballots, and it wouldn’t necessarily affect the Electoral College vote at all,” said University of Denver political science professor Seth Masket. “Because those were states he wasn’t going to win anyway.”

~snip~

Josh Blackman, associate professor at the South Texas College of Law, said the bills “are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.’

“As a general matter, states cannot impose additional requirements for federal officers,” Mr. Blackman said. “For example, states cannot impose term limits on members of Congress. Or require that the President be 40 years old, instead of 35, as the Constitution requires.”

The only way to mandate tax returns would be through a constitutional amendment to Article II, requiring ratification of three-fourths of the states, said Jenna Ellis, a fellow in constitutional law at the Centennial Institute.

“Neither Congress nor the state legislature can unilaterally add a requirement and bind the Electoral College,” said Ms. Ellis, a member of the Trump 2020 advisory board.

(Excerpt) Read more at outline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2020election; bluestates; democrats; electoralvote; presidenttrump; taxreturns; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Jim Noble

“They are changing the methods by which their State Legislatures appoint their Electors for President and Vice President.

It is perfectly legal and perfectly Constitutional.”

I believe you are mistaken as you are mixing up TWO separate initiatives. The first is choosing electors based off of popular vote which may be constitutional other than the fact that it is entering into a “compact” which would be unconstitutional. This is in a grey area and would likely end up in SCOTUS.

This article concerns the out and out elimination of Trump from the ballot which is blatantly unconstitutional as they have no authority to deny any candidate for Federal office that has met Federal criteria to be included.


41 posted on 04/30/2019 5:42:03 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shanover

Yes. There is nothing serious in the nation anymore.


42 posted on 04/30/2019 5:42:06 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

I’d think with some states giving electoral based on popular vote that he’d have to be on the ballot even it only counted toward pop vote total.


43 posted on 04/30/2019 5:42:26 PM PDT by teevolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Correction:

“The first is choosing electors based off of (NATIONAL) popular vote.”


44 posted on 04/30/2019 5:44:19 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

I thought of that, but the dems are so darn he!! bent on getting POTUS that they would probably AGREE TO GIVE THEIR TAX RETURNS.

That’s why I thought of the business angle. We know they can’t satisfy requirement.


45 posted on 04/30/2019 5:45:03 PM PDT by Maris Crane (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I guess you all know that the Constitution establishes the requirements for a president. States don’t establish crap.


46 posted on 04/30/2019 5:47:23 PM PDT by bingoplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Insanity continues


47 posted on 04/30/2019 5:49:57 PM PDT by LoveMyFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bwest

“This is important in those states that now award electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote.”

OMG, you are totally right, but there’s no way that’ll ever stand.


48 posted on 04/30/2019 5:53:17 PM PDT by MNDude (Liberty, Guns, Bible, Trump, and Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Do we need any more evidence the Democrats want dictatorship?


49 posted on 04/30/2019 5:53:22 PM PDT by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a broad provision that prohibits states from enacting voting processes that prevent minorities from exercising their right to vote.

This means any minority that is prohibited from voting for a constitutionally eligible presidential candidate under one of these stupid laws has all the legal standing he or she needs to have the law overturned.

Heck — the Voting Rights Act gives very broad powers to the DOJ to enforce this.

50 posted on 04/30/2019 5:53:47 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Out on the road today I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Maris Crane

Pelosi already refused to release her tax returns. Democrats are scum.


51 posted on 04/30/2019 5:54:37 PM PDT by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

the states control their state ballots but cannot keep candidates for federal offices off, and they know it


Of course they can—and do. Last two Senate elections in California featured no Republicans on the ballot—and write-in votes are prohibited.


52 posted on 04/30/2019 5:55:24 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maris Crane

No, I said they should be barred if they DO. So it would be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” If our candidate can’t be on their ballots, their candidates can’t be on ours.


53 posted on 04/30/2019 5:56:33 PM PDT by A_perfect_lady ( Political correctness forbids discussing any negative outcomes of Left-wing ideology. -PMcL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

I disagree. Unlike the NPV which is stupid but within the powers given to states in the Constitution, I don’t see how these efforts would be deemed Constitutional.

Seems to be almost like a bill of attendee, or adding a requirement that has nothing to do with getting votes. In fact, it seems to be an effort to deny votes.


54 posted on 04/30/2019 5:58:16 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Williams

But, if she thought it would harm POTUS...what do you wanna bet...…..


55 posted on 04/30/2019 5:58:31 PM PDT by Maris Crane (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: bwest

This is important in those states that now award electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote.


No state is awarding electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote. Several states have promised to when states representing 270 electoral votes agree to the “compact”.

This, in my opinion undermines the ‘popular-vote’ winner concept. If sates ban a candidate from the ballot, the national popular vote winner idea is pointless.


56 posted on 04/30/2019 5:59:12 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Do we need any more evidence the Democrats want dictatorship?

I sure don't, the RATs just kinda make stuff up as they go along for their own benefit and they've about exhausted peoples patience.

57 posted on 04/30/2019 6:00:19 PM PDT by jazusamo (Have You Donated to Keep Free Republic Up and Running?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

No...however, this could cause us to lose a lot of winnable House and legislative seats


Or it could have the opposite effect. A lot of people would be well and truly pissed off at not being able to cast a vote for President Trump and might take vengeance on those Dems who are on the ballot.


58 posted on 04/30/2019 6:01:51 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

“I have a better idea. Require the Republican candidate be on all 52 state ballots or the Democrat candidate will not be recognized.”

I thought there were 57 states?


59 posted on 04/30/2019 6:09:39 PM PDT by Deepeasttx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Maris Crane

There is stuff in the constitution regarding being a natural born citizen.

And Kamala mala ain’t a natural born citizen.


60 posted on 04/30/2019 6:11:58 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson