Posted on 09/01/2019 11:11:32 PM PDT by knighthawk
Republicans in California are crying foul over a new law that requires gubernatorial and presidential candidates to disclose tax returns in order to appear on 2020 primary ballots -- worried about voter turnout implications for their party in numerous races, even though the law is largely aimed at President Trump.
The Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act signed in late July by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom was an obvious bid to compel Trump to make public his financial records if he wants his name on the ballot. But the president is unlikely to cave to the laws provisos given his previous resistance to making tax returns public.
Republican leaders in the Golden State, however, argue that if the law actually keeps Trump off the March primary ballot, it would all but assure a depressed Republican turnout statewide -- hurting down-ballot candidates in congressional and other races and locking many out of the general election due to the state's unique primary system.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Once a State gets to one-party status, its all over, just as is the case in the Dem controlled cities. The typical response, as we have seen with the cities, is that as the Dems raise taxes, people of means and businesses simply leave and the end result is Detroit/Baltimore.
California Republicans need to focus on how to present their great issues to Californians not on garbage like this. How about telling Californians why their utility Bill’s are so high? Why homelessness is rampant? Why there is a shortage of water? Why middle income people can’t afford to live thete?
It will be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.
True that. Plus it does not account for the 24th Amendment of Presidential succession. Do all cabinet member nominees have to supply tax returns as well? As well as the House Speaker.
[[[Republican leaders in the Golden State, however, argue that if the law actually keeps Trump off the March primary ballot, it would all but assure a depressed Republican turnout statewide]]]
The true intent of the legislation.
[[[Once a State gets to one-party status, its all over, just as is the case in the Dem controlled cities. The typical response, as we have seen with the cities, is that as the Dems raise taxes, people of means and businesses simply leave and the end result is Detroit/Baltimore.]]]
NYS just got there last year. Its the beginning of the end. You will have a wealthy class (that takes steps to mitigate their exposure) and working poor who service them and a destitute class. The middle class is typically destroyed. People are leaving in droves. Upstate is being depopulated. NYC is losing 300 people a day. (Who are moving upstate until they get a load of rents and taxes.) Anybody I know who is retiring, is leaving within a year. All of them.
I’m fascinated that a “law” from a state was created to force a candidate to do something previously not against the law to stop the candidate from being elected with forced withdrawal from the privilege of running for office.
Under the XIV amendment within the equal protection clause it states that although one may have no right to be elected or appointed to an office, all persons do have a federal constitutional right to be considered for public service without the burden of invidiously discriminatory disqualification. And since there is no requirement for a person to disclose his/her taxes, this qualifies. The action by the states is unconstitutional. No state can over rule the Constitution.
rwood
Give us a reason to show up, idiots!!!
“Once a State gets to one-party status......”
For all intents and purposes, they already have this. In their local elections, only the top two winners of the primary, which contains all parties, go on to the general election. This means that they could have two of one party in the competition unless there are write ins. The state is ultra liberal and has had situations where there were only liberals on the final ballot for offices. This basically is how California has remained so liberal over 50 plus years. And with a system like this, it is easy to foul voting results or actions for state or federal elections. Can’t trust them.
rwood
He doesn't have standing to oppose this unconstitutional provision.
I’m not so worried about this law. The one I’m worried about is, “No candidate who goes by the name ‘Donald Trump’, or any variation thereof, shall appear on the 2020 Presidential Ballot in California. “
Where are the strategists for the Republican party?
Why aren't we putting our issues on ballots to pull out our voters? We don't even suit up for the game. The only thing I hear from Republicans is pleas for cash... more money ... and for what? I don't see them doing crap ... Republicans need to come up with interesting poll results that the MSM can't ignore - but to do that they have to HIRE pollsters and come up with interesting results. Then put questions on ballots about STOPPING illegals. That'll bring out voters.
Come on Pubbies - DO SOMETHING.
And what about its applicability if any towards write in candidates?
It will be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.
California Republicans need to use this law against the Rats by proving the dems filed fraudulent tax returns. Should be easy to do since almost every Rat is a crook.
I thought Trump was gauche, and would depress turnout?
The law applies to gubernatorial and presidential candidates, who must meet the criteria for becoming governor or president as spelled out in the state constitution and Federal Constitution
They would have to ammend those for this Banana Republic law to have any effect and then it would be redundant
Cali is a statewide single party disaster zone. Illinois is getting closer. So is NY.
I don’t know why people think it is going to be struck down.
Presidential primaries are entirely voluntary by the state (they aren’t required to hold them under the Constitution or any federal statute) and by the parties (they aren’t required to use their results in deciding delegates, and no party in no state solely relies upon the primary to choose their delegates). Many states have NO Presidential primary at all for some or all parties, who have opted for caucuses.
States are always free to add additional ballot access requirements beyond those of the Constitutional qualification for the office, and often do, include all variety of registration requirements.
The President isn’t elected at all, electors are elected, and no one is proposing to limit ballot access of proposed members of the Electoral College to those who disclose their taxes.
The Constitutionally penurious way for the Courts to deal with is to say “California can put whatever facially neutral requirements on ballot access it wants, and the California Republican Party can opt to choose its delegates by caucus or meeting of the State Executive Board of the Party if it feels the primary isn’t going to be an accurate means of ascertaining support for Presidential candidates.”
Tell me again, how many electoral votes did Trump get from California in 2016?
In calif state we get to choose betweem dem ass clown one and dem ass clown two!? Whoopee!!
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.