Skip to comments.Blue states move to keep Trump off 2020 ballot over tax returns
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 wouldnt necessarily affect the Electoral College vote at all, said University of Denver political science professor Seth Masket. Because those were states he wasnt going to win anyway.
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 ...
“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.
Yes. There is nothing serious in the nation anymore.
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.
“The first is choosing electors based off of (NATIONAL) popular vote.”
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.
I guess you all know that the Constitution establishes the requirements for a president. States don’t establish crap.
“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.
Do we need any more evidence the Democrats want dictatorship?
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.
Pelosi already refused to release her tax returns. Democrats are scum.
the states control their state ballots but cannot keep candidates for federal offices off, and they know it
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.
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.
But, if she thought it would harm POTUS...what do you wanna bet... ..
This is important in those states that now award electoral votes on the basis of the popular vote.
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.
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.
No...however, this could cause us to lose a lot of winnable House and legislative seats
“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?
There is stuff in the constitution regarding being a natural born citizen.
And Kamala mala ain’t a natural born citizen.
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.