Posted on 08/05/2019 2:46:31 PM PDT by jazusamo
Full title: JUDICIAL WATCH SUES OVER CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES APPEARING ON PRIMARY BALLOT TO DISCLOSE TAX RETURNS
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past five years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.
Under the law, known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, candidates who do not publicly disclose their tax returns are barred from having their names printed on California’s primary ballots. Judicial Watch alleges that SB 27 imposes candidate qualifications beyond those allowed by the U.S. Constitution and impermissibly burdens a voters’ expressive constitutional and statutory rights. The lawsuit claims violations of the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1988.
During the 2017-2018 legislative session, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a previous version of this law, which California’s Legislative Counsel concluded “would be unconstitutional if enacted.” In vetoing the 2017-18 tax return law, Brown noted:
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? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.
The Judicial Watch complaint further alleges the political nature of the law, which is totally divorced from the states’ legitimate constitutional role in administering and establishing procedures for conducting federal elections:
None of the interests proffered by the California legislature for requiring the disclosure of candidates’ tax returns is related to election procedure or administration. Rather, the stated interests incorporate particular, substantive judgments about what is most important for voters to know when considering a candidate, how voters should go about “estimate[ing] the risk” of a candidate “engaging in corruption,” and what might assist law enforcement in detecting violations of the Emoluments Clause and crimes “such as insider trading.”
Unless SB 27 is enjoined, states will assume the power to create their own qualifications for national candidates seeking to obtain a party’s nomination for president. This could lead to as many as 50 distinct and possibly inconsistent sets of qualifications regarding the only national election in the United States. Using rationales similar to California’s, states might come to demand medical records, mental health records, sealed juvenile records, driving records, results of intelligence, aptitude, or personality tests, college applications, Amazon purchases, Google search histories, browsing histories, or Facebook friends.
“California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president. The courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”
CA & New York are certainly NOT the only two states with wacko Liberals in charge. No state is safe as long as voter fraud isn’t exposed and stopped. President Trump received 3-1/2 million dollars recently from CA. There are a lot of Trump supporters in CA being held hostage.
It sure would be interesting if Tulsi Gabbard took a dive into Kamala Harris’ handling of the charity filings by various high profile charities.
Are the Epstein charities or the Clinton charities in compliance with California law. (hint — be skeptical of the online response and double-check)
more hints...check out CrowdSourceTheTruth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSf-JPXlQ-o
SNITCH
Sunday with Charles – SNITCH on Aug 04, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi Gabbard
ML/NJ
“No offense to outnumbered conservative Californians, but...California is the lost cause state.”
A lost cause state that was never even seriously fought for by “our side”.
Does no one remember the CA of the not so distant past? We were not always this way.
Does anyone remember the GOP fighting tooth and nail for CA over the years of decline? Almost like they wanted the Dems to have it. I mean 55 electoral votes alone, says every party should, theoretically, be tripping all over themselves to win CA.
CA may very well be a lost cause, but no war was ever won from behind the front lines.
CA is a wonderful state, rich in natural resources and deep water ports. To leave CA and the rest of the west coast to the enemy is to do a great injustice to America as a whole.
Once again JW doing ALL the heavy lifting for the GOL, MSM, et al
Well, you shouldn’t be so easily offended as we’ve talked several times before. It ain’t your fault and it ain’t mine. But I wouldn’t expect any major shift in California politics for at least a decade if at all in my remaining lifetime. Just the reality.
I don’t disagree, but the same libs continue to get elected decade after decade.
Massive unchecked voter fraud.
“Well, you shouldn’t be so easily offended as we’ve talked several times before.”
Yeah, well all of the people here on FR trashing the place where I was born, and have lived all of my nearly 79 years life gets kind of old. We understand what has happened here. We had the misfortune of electing that worthless dick licker, Ahnold Shickelgrubber, and coupling his sorry-a$$ed administration with the feckless GOP here did the trick. The funny thing was we elected him as the replacement for Gray Davis (who was Jerry The Fairy Brown’s COS) whom we recalled. I wouldn’t urinate on the GOP here if it caught fire!
The warning CA and a few other wayward states are sending the rest of the country should be heeded, lest you find yourself in the same predicament. I see any number of states that could flip quite easily, including Texas. But to hear the Texans talk, they have “no fear.” We didn’t either, and back before we flipped, we were the number ONE conservative state in the union.
During the 2017-2018 legislative session, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a previous version of this law, which California’s Legislative Counsel concluded “would be unconstitutional if enacted.” In vetoing the 2017-18 tax return law, Brown noted: 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? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.
Thanks jazusamo.
where is the RNC lawsuit?
maybe a president
I would be in favor of a certified birth certificate. Interesting that Moonbeam put that in his list of “what’s next.”
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.