While the Democratic party is planning its primaries, it should also agree on a requirement

[pnwmom]

for anyone running in its primaries to release 5 -10 years of tax returns before they begin their run; and to release any additional returns that they file while running.

That way there won't be any surprises.

The US constitution doesn't include that as a requirement, but that doesn't matter. Anyone can run for President, but the Democratic party can control who runs under its banner, and limit its endorsement to people who are willing to be transparent about their finances. (Even if they're extra-specially busy people.)

[manor321]

1. Yes, tax returns are a must

And I want the details public before I vote in the primary.

[Angry Dragon]

2. good idea

[Towlie]

88. Is it really an option? The GOP clearly had no control, else Trump wouldn't have won the nomination.

The OP says "the Democratic party can control who runs under its banner", but can they?

[Midwestern Democrat]

91. Well, we couldn't even keep Lyndon LaRouche off the Democratic primary ballot in 1992 when

he was actually in prison at that time, so I kind of doubt it.

[Gothmog]

121. New DNC rule-Every Democratic Candidate must be a Democrat

This rule was also adopted today https://www.politicususa.com/2018/08/25/democrats-slash-superdelegate-influence-and-force-all-presidential-candidates-to-be-members-of-the-party.html

There will be no more Independents running for the Democratic nomination. Consider this the Bernie Sanders rule. If a candidate wants to be the Democratic nominee, they must be a Democrat. This is a change that rank and file Democrats have been demanding since the 2016 primary because it is only reasonable for members of the Democratic Party to want their candidates to members of the party. The same day party switching rule doesn’t get rid of closed primaries but emphasizes allowing voters who want to switch over to vote for Democratic candidates.

Here is the wording of the rule

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

154. I think that this is to prevent what Sanders does in Vermont every time he runs for Senate.

Run as a Democrat to use the party resources to get elected, then decide that they will not serve as a Democrat.

Working well in groups is not something that Sanders is known for. He wants to be in charge, making all decisions.

[Gothmog]

156. This is a good rule

[SCantiGOP]

3. Not actually

Until forced to change by the federal government in the 60s, Democratic primaries in the South only allowed white citizens to vote.
There would be no way to make releasing tax returns a requirement to run. Although I agree this should be a requirement, it needs to be enacted by Congress.

[pnwmom]

7. Congress doesn't enact requirements for a Democratic party run. Barring black people

violated civil rights laws. Requiring financial transparency discriminates against no one.

Anyone who wants to can run for President, as long as they meet the constitutional requirements. But the Democratic party is free to add their own requirement for a party ENDORSEMENT, as long as they don't violate any laws in doing so.

And it should. We don't need candidates railing against Trump's corruption while refusing to be open about their own finances.

[SCantiGOP]

37. Don't want to argue the point, but

I have a friend that teaches Constitutional Law at a major university. We were discussing just this subject recently. He said there were many SCOTUS decisions that say that states - and parties - can not enact addditional restrictions on Presidential candidates appearing on the ballot for federal office.
He said that more than 20 states have looked at this but the consensus of the experts is that it would be struck down by the courts.

[pnwmom]

38. I would like to ask him if they've looked at this particular restriction,

which as you know is nothing like barring people because of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

[SCantiGOP]

42. His opinion was

That for the past 50 years the courts - recognizing that parties are not mentioned in the Constitution but that we have evolved to a 2 party system - will not allow a party or state to put restrictions on running for President that don’t apply to the general election. So 35 year old native-born citizen is about it.
He did think the federal government might be able to put requirements on, and it could certainly be done by Constitutional
Amendment, but he said any restrictions would have to apply across the board for every state and party.

[EffieBlack]

79. This is not correct

The parties certainly can set prerequisites that candidates must meet before they can run under their banner. A minimum number of signatures is an example.

Requiring people to meet certain procedures is not discriminatory and doesn't violate civil rights laws. Requiring a candidate to release tax returns is not a "restriction." Anyone can do it and refusal/failure to do it is purely by choice and completely unrelated to any constututionally-impermissible distinction based on membership in a protected class.

[Gothmog]

123. Candidates who won't disclose taxes shouldn't be on the ballot

Prof. Tribe disagrees with your analysis https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opinions/state-laws-requiring-tax-return-disclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office.

As a result, we believe these laws comport fully with the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike prohibited qualifications, these laws do not impose substantive requirements on candidates beyond those imposed by the Constitution itself; that is, these laws do not limit which candidates may run for office based on any particular information in their tax return. Thus, they do not create an insurmountable barrier in advance to any set of individuals otherwise qualified under Article II of our Constitution. Instead, these laws require federally qualified candidates to comply with a relatively minor process of tax disclosure. That is something competing candidates can and should readily do in order to allow voters to make more informed judgments about those contenders' characters or backgrounds.

Maryland has such a ballot access law in place now. New Jersey and Mass are soon to follow. California will probably adopt such a law after Brown is no longer in office.

I trust Prof. Tribe on this.

As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters

[SCantiGOP]

130. Hard to argue with that

I think we can ageee that this will end up at SCOTUS. Maryland was first state to pass such a bill earlier this year, and even its sponsors admit it will face a serious constitutional challenge.
I would love to see the requirement. Just discussing whether it can/will happen.
At a minimum the Dems should put this in their platform. Contrast it to the repubs and Trump.

[Gothmog]

160. I have no trouble with this being added to the party rules

I think that Prof Tribe is correct here

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. No, it doesn't. Parties can make requirements for the candidates they support and endorse.

People who don't want to release their tax returns despite a party's requirement to do so are still free to run for president; they would just have to do it under the aegis of different party. The former policy of Southern Democrats was racial discrimination but releasing tax returns isn't any kind of discrimination.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. I would like a law that if any candidate for fed office takes contributions

... from anywhere or anyone, in kind or money, then they have to release five years of returns.

Otherwise, they are free to spend their own money and entirely fund their campaign that way.

[pnwmom]

8. Then billionaires don't have to be financially transparent. Trump has shown us why that won't work.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Even billionaires don't fully fund their campaigns, despite promises.

It would mean no money from Republican National Committee Senate Campaign PAC, for example (whatever name is). No PACs.

Would mean no in-kind donations. So all expenses and consulting and meals and accommodations would have to be paid on their own tab.

Not even Ross Perot did that.

The thing is, based on Citizens United ruling kind of reasoning, spending one's own money is protected "free speech", as far as I can tell. But as soon as there are contributions, then there is a "public interest" (hence disclosure rules on donations). Releasing tax returns would simply be a form of public disclosure.

I think a blanket requirement in law could be successfully challenged.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and have never been asked to write legislation.

[Cha]

5. YES! Tom Pezez needs Feedback on that. Click on the tweets and tweet your replies!

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2018, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://twitter.com/tomperez?lang=en

[WhiteTara]

6. Let's add that only democrats can seek office

under the democratic party banner.

[Frances]

10. Agree

Democrats are free to vote for whoever they want in the general, but the primary should be for Democrats only. If a person switches to be a Democrat x number of days before filing, that’s ok with me, but the winner of the primary should be a Democrat
Also, there should be as many primaries as possible because caucuses by their very nature do not reflect the choice of as many people as the primary

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

15. COMPLETELY AGREE+10

And if you post Ops on DU that somehow encourages split ticket voting...you can't. Heh heh. It feels passive-agressive as it stands even now when they come rolling in.

[grantcart]

17. Absolutely

[SkyDancer]

65. Define what is a "Democrat" please?

Is simply having a (D) the definition? Or does ones voting record matter?

[WhiteTara]

69. A registered Democrat is a Democrat.

someone who is not previously registered as a democrat isn't one. i.e., says they are Independent and then want to be coddled by Democrats. One who wears our mantle and then throws it to the ground and says, no no no, I'm Independent is not a Democrat and should not have our help, our wear our name or use our resources to say they aren't a democrat.

[sl8]

83. What about residents of states that don't register with party affiliations?

If they're already an office holder in the state, you could go by that. What about the rest?

[WhiteTara]

86. Then oops for them?

Is there really any state that doesn't allow party affiliation? You are allowed to decline to state, but I don't think there's a mandate against party registration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[sl8]

87. According to this, 31 states with, 19 states without:

From http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_rhodes_cook/registering_by_party_where_the_democrats_and_republicans_are_ahead



Now, that's just from a brief search; perhaps I'm overlooking something.

I know the VA and VT registration forms have nowhere on them where you could indicate a party.

[WhiteTara]

89. Thanks sl8 for that

I'm gobsmacked.

[George II]

106. That map has nothing to do with candidate registration, just voter registration...

....which are two entirely different things.

[George II]

104. That applies to VOTER registration, not CANDIDATE registration.

[sl8]

108. Who does this prospective candidate register his affiliation with?

I was responding to the proposal that the DNC only accept registered Democrats as candidates.

Let's say that a Vermonter that has never before run for or held elected office would like to become Democratic candidate for President. With whom would he or she register as a Democrat before the DNC would find them acceptable? How would one become registered as Democratic candidate before the DNC would allow you to become a Democratic candidate?

On a related note, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html

...
DECLARING YOURSELF DEMOCRAT: Candidates seeking the party's presidential nomination will now have to declare themselves as Democrats in writing to the DNC, a change pointed at Sanders, who is technically an Independent senator that caucuses with the Democrats.
...

Why do you think the DNC went the route of requiring a written declaration, rather than checking a registration?

[George II]

113. In Vermont (as with most if not all states) prospective candidates register with the Secy of State..

...for both Primaries and General Elections.

As we've seen, the "party" affiliation isn't always the same for the Primary and General Election in the same year.

[sl8]

122. Okay, but if you go by that, I don't see how that changes anything.

In Sanders' case, he did submit his petitions to the VT Secy of State, presumably to all the other states as well, as a Democratic candidate for President. I'm guessing that this happened long after the DNC had already given their blessing, as the VT submission deadline was January, 2016.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that our future hypothetical candidate submit their candidacy petitons or register with one or more states as a Democratic candidate before the DNC accepts them as a Democratic candidate?

Assuming that the DNC would accept that and ignoring potential timeline issues, I don't see how how that would change anything, in practice. Sanders would have have met those criteria and, presumably, our previously unaffilated hypothetical candidate would, too.

[George II]

129. It remains to be seen how the Democratic Party implements their new rule. We don't know yet, but...

...there obviously are details to be worked out.

[NCTraveler]

148. They would simply register for the Democratic Primary. Really simple stuff. nt

[George II]

102. That is only with respect to VOTING. Assuming you're referring to Vermont (correct me if I'm wrong):

They still register with a party to run in a primary.

This link lists the candidates for the Primary in Vermont in 2018.

Each and every one is listed as affiliated with a party. The link is from the Vermont Secretary of State website, and opens as an Excel spreadsheet:

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/914034/2018-general-election-candidate-listing.xlsx

Almost all of them subsequently run in the general election. Patrick Leahy has been on the Vermont ballot as a DEMOCRAT in each of his seven Senate election campaigns.

[SkyDancer]

90. Being a Democrat

is a lot more than just a name, it's a firm belief, it's for what you stand for and for what you believe in.

You say One who wears our mantle and then throws it to the ground and says, no no no, I'm Independent is not a Democrat yet are you going to complain when Bernie is voting along with Democrats, running all across the country supporting our candidates who are running in this years midterms and brought more young voters into our party than Trump or Hillary COMBINED?

It's time to stop shitting on the heads of allies and biting the hand which feeds you.

[WhiteTara]

92. and I guess you told me

the is no bow down to master emoji, but you can imagine.

We will debate your bernie argument some other time, but don't you think that you dropped the mantle of civility on your post to me? Your last sentence is rather grating and you might want to rethink your strategy of working with other democrats on the DU board. Just saying.

[SkyDancer]

94. Don't you think

you dropped your civility by trashing Bernie and offending all of us Democrats who support him and appreciate what he does for those of us, especially those of us who may be sick, poor, needy and elderly?

Maybe you should re-think your strategy of working together with those of us, the majority of Democrats, who have a favorable opinion of Bernie Sanders.

[WhiteTara]

95. You are going to double down?

Go away.

[ehrnst]

152. Are you a Vermont resident?

Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2018, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not, so can you list for the rest of us non-Vermonters what Sanders has "done" for the sick, poor and elderly?

And having a 'favorable opinion' of Sanders doesn't = people wanting him representing them.

As we have seen demonstrated.

[George II]

100. Two questions:

Why did you mention trump in your second to last sentence?
Who has brought more young voters into our Party than (trump) or Hillary COMBINED?

[sheshe2]

133. No answer yet?

Hmmm.

[Cha]

117. Then why does BS throw insults at the Democratic

Party?

[Cha]

118. And, Thankfully BS/AOC didn't bring "enough" voters

in to defeat Sharice Davids, Gretchen Whitmer, or Lacy Clay.

[George II]

128. Those were considered the three most visible Midwestern Democratic primaries, and...

....all three prevailed.

As Tammy Duckworth said in response to a question from Jake Tapper (not bringing the issue up herself), "I think it's the future of the party in the Bronx, where she is,” and “I think that you can’t win the White House without the Midwest and I don’t think you can go too far to the left and still win the Midwest.”

She got bashed for that, but as we've seen Senator Duckworth was correct.

[Cha]

138. Yes, Senator Tammy Duckworth was bashed for

speaking the truth. She is owed an apology that unfortunately will never be forthcoming.

Sharice, Gretchen, and Lacy Clay are all excellent Dems.. I'm so glad they won!!

And, this guy didn't know what the hell he was talking about.. as usual..

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

139. Yet it is not about "you" or "me"

It should be about all of us.

Independent. Definition.

not connected with another or with each other; separate.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=independent+meaning&qs=SC&pq=independ+meaning&sc=4-16&cvid=BDE37170EAE84CB2857A9158AFA1BC21&FORM=QBRE&sp=1

[ehrnst]

150. "It's time to stop shitting on the heads of allies and biting the hand which feeds you."

That's precisely what many Democrats want to say to non-Democratic politicians who do exactly that.

Thank you for putting it so concisely.

[Cary]

107. First and foremost a Democrat considers themself a Democrat

Don't you think?

[sheshe2]

131. No.

Not simply a D. The whole word is meaningful. Democrat and a Democratic voter.

When I was a kid...new voter, because I wanted to be free and declare my independence I registered as such. Comes from living in a turmoiled house and felt the need to be independent. Didn't take me long to call myself a Democrat. They speak for me. Period.

[ehrnst]

151. The fact you need to ask says so much about you.

Nothing we haven't known for awhile.

[R B Garr]

72. Amen!

[Gothmog]

124. You will like this new DNC rule

The DNC is adopting a new rule that should keep sanders from running unless he becomes a real democrat https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/dnc-rule-change-sanders-supporters-634998

Democratic National Committee officials on Friday moved forward with a proposal to force the party’s presidential candidates to identify as Democrats, a move that drew immediate criticism from a top official in Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

The prospective rule change, approved by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, would not necessarily impact Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who ran for president as a Democrat.

Sources familiar with the discussion said officials believed the rule change could help garner support for a separate bid to reduce the influence of superdelegates in the party’s presidential nomination process — a priority of Sanders’ supporters after the 2016 election. Both proposals are scheduled to be considered by the full DNC in August.

Sanders would have to drop the stunt of claiming that he is not a member of the party is he wants to run under this new rule.

This rule has already been adopted and is appropriate

[WhiteTara]

132. You're right. I do like that rule.

I hate being used and I feel that is what he did to all of us Democrats.

[Gothmog]

135. I was a Clinton delegate to the National Convention

I have stories

[WhiteTara]

137. 2016 or 2012?

If it was this last one, I'm sure you have some interesting stories.

[Gothmog]

145. 2016

[WhiteTara]

149. Oooh. That could be a book or column

or essay or opinion piece somewhere. But do tell more!

[Gothmog]

159. Yep

At the Convention, I saw:

1. A bunch of sanders delegate march into the Texas delegation breakfast locked arm in arm to demand that we condemned Hillary Clinton and vote for bernie

2. There wad a planned stunt of booing Congressman John Lewis by the Sanders delegation on the first night of the convention. The Clinton campaign warned her delegates of the stunt well in advance and I was told that sanders refused to try to stop this stunt.

3. A group of sanders delegates screamed obscenities at my daughter at our hotel and called her the C word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. My daughter was my guest at the convention and she was not impressed with these "progressives".

4. A sanders delegate wearing a large cross stood outside of the Jewish caucus and yelled that we were bad Jews for not supporting sanders. The idiot was afraid to come in or get too close to the members of the Jewish caucus for some reason.

In a normal campaign, delegates are vetted. This is partly because even pledged delegates can change their votes. The vetting is also done to make sure that these delegates reflect the values of the party. If the sanders delegates who I observed represent the values of the "progressives", then we are in trouble

[sheshe2]

127. Yep.

[mysteryowl]

11. Has this ever been a problem for Democrats?

[pnwmom]

20. Only one of the Democrats who ran in the primaries in 2015 released her tax returns. n/t

[mysteryowl]

21. Hmmm. I thought everyone did.

Thanks for the info.

[pnwmom]

22. One of the others released the first two pages of a single tax return,

but no complete returns, and no state returns.

[George II]

109. That release was for 2014, not 2015, and did not include any Schedules. It was just two pages....

...but I think some pages might have been added months later.

[George II]

103. In the last Presidential cycle, only two declared candidates didn't release their tax returns.

[oberliner]

25. That's not true

O'Malley released five years worth of his tax returns.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Good for O'Malley... five is enough.

[oberliner]

27. WaPo ran this article after he released them: "Martin O'Malley: Little in savings, lots of debt"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/16/omalley-discloses-heavy-debt-paid-speeches-as-he-runs-for-president/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Yeah, that's the flip side of the same coin... maybe better to make it voluntary?

[pnwmom]

40. Why? It's already voluntary. And that meant that if someone won our primary

who hadn't released his, he would have no basis for criticizing Trump for not releasing.

[pnwmom]

39. Thanks. So Bernie was the exception then, in being too "busy" to release his. n/t

[oberliner]

43. There was no reason for him not to release his full tax returns

That was definitely not a good look for him.

[pnwmom]

45. He also didn't submit a final FEC report. That wasn't the greatest look either.

From the Center for Public Integrity:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/18/20074/how-bernie-sanders-beat-clock-and-avoided-disclosure

But when federal law required Sanders to reveal, by mid-May, current details of his personal finances, his campaign lawyer asked the Federal Election Commission for a 45-day extension.

Request granted.

On June 30, Sanders’ campaign requested a second 45-day extension, saying the senator had “good cause” to delay because of his “current campaign schedule and officeholder duties.”

Again, regulators approved Sanders’ punt.

Now that Sanders’ second extension has expired, spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the senator won’t file a presidential campaign personal financial disclosure after all.

SNIP

Sanders expertly exploited a system that effectively allowed him to delay, delay, delay — all while he chided Clinton receipt of six-figure paydays for delivering closed-door speeches to officials at investment bank Goldman Sachs and other powerful special interests. (Both Clinton and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump filed their personal financial disclosures on time in mid-May without asking for extensions.)

Therefore, in the teeth of a Democratic primary where Sanders posed a bona fide threat to Clinton, voters couldn’t definitively know whether Sanders — historically one of the Senate’s least wealthy members — suddenly parlayed his political fame into personal profit. Or, for that matter, whether he sustained financial distress.

[oberliner]

46. Agreed

[R B Garr]

71. This hypocrisy and double standards about transparency

is shameful and completely strips his attacks on others. So glad to see this being exposed more. Thanks for this OP.

[George II]

134. I remember Jane being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell under the Brooklyn Bridge....

...the day of the April Brooklyn debate. Mitchell asked her point blank if they planned on releasing their 2016 (for tax year 2015) returns, and Jane said they would "when they were due", which for them was April 29, 2016.

That never happened.

[Gothmog]

125. Yep

[QC]

52. No, but this topic is a way to rehash the primary

without being too obvious about it.

[xmas74]

55. Not really ,

Considering some states have discussed making a candidate release their returns before they are placed on the ballot.

[melman]

57. Posting history

It's a thing.

[xmas74]

58. I know it.

I've been here for over a decade.

It is still a relevant discussion because states have discussed it.

[JCanete]

13. No disagreement. By all means. nt

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

14. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I'm on board with that n/t

[dembotoz]

18. Now how the hell u gonna do that

To get on a ballot u file some paperwork with the gov
You collect x number of signatures to get on the ballot.
Bisco bango u get on the ballot.
Party has no say as to who runs.

[pnwmom]

19. The party has control over who gets the party's nomination. Anyone can run outside of the party.

The party could control rules for who runs under the Democratic party banner.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_New_Hampshire#Party_nomination_processes

The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, the governing bodies of the nation's two major parties, establish their own guidelines for the presidential nomination process. State-level affiliates of the parties also have some say in determining rules and provisions in their own states. Individuals interested in learning more about the nomination process should contact the political parties themselves for full details.

[dembotoz]

47. Lol no they don't. We just ran local primary

Or more accurately we watched.
How do u think 🤡 like David Clarke got on the ballot.
Clarke won his primary each time and the Dem party was stuck with him

[pnwmom]

48. What rule did they have in place that David Clarke didn't follow?

Here are the rules in my state. Why couldn't they add a "D" requiring the filing and release of legally-required tax returns?

https://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/RulesForNominations.pdf

Threshold demonstration of Party support required. Any registered voter in the State of Washington is eligible for selection as a candidate or nominee of the Democratic Party for any public office provided:

A. The voter must publicly attest his or her support of the Democratic Party and his or her desire to be publicly known as a Democrat; and
B. The voter must be otherwise eligible under state law for election to the office sought; and
C. The voter must not have been registered as a member of any political party other than the Democratic Party for at least one (1) year immediately preceding filing for office.

[dembotoz]

63. Don't think c happens where I am from

If the paperwork says Dem
He/she gets on the Dem ballot.
Just that simple. No veto by the Dem party exists.
If trump wanted to run as a Dem in an election, if he got the signatures he is on the ballot
If he wins the primary or is uncontested in the primary.he is the nominee
Standards are nice but I don't see how you enforce them

[pnwmom]

119. You enforce them by not endorsing a non-Democrat and by endorsing a Democrat.

Simple enough

[dembotoz]

143. We follow the law. Simple enough

Indulge ur fantasies where they are practical and understand when they are not

[pnwmom]

144. You should familiarize yourself with the law in your state regarding party endorsements.

We had a lawsuit about that in WA when the voters approved a referendum for a primary -- but the party wanted to keep its caucuses. The party won. The court ruled that the party gets to choose its candidates in the way it sees fit.

[dembotoz]

155. the gop does endorse before primaries in wisconsin...folks find it distasteful

[Jim Lane]

105. Washington state is unusual -- it's one of the few states that don't hold partisan primaries

For every office except President, there is no Democratic primary in Washington. It holds a "top-two" nonpartisan primary. If no Democrat finishes in the top two, then, for that office, there is no Democrat on the ballot in the general election. This has happened.

In most states, though, there IS a Democratic primary. The rules for access to the primary ballot are set by state law, not by the parties. Typically, anyone who pays the required fee and submits the required number of petition signatures gets on the ballot. National and state party officials can harrumph all they want, and complaint that this would-be nominee doesn't meet their personal standards for representing the party. Too bad. The nominee is chosen by the voters, not the entrenched party dignitaries.

The presidential primary is more complicated because the nominee isn't chosen in any state's primary. Instead, the primary chooses delegates who will attend the national convention. Often those would-be delegates' names aren't even on the ballot. You may see Clinton or Sanders listed on the ballot, but you're actually voting for a slate of delegates pledged to that candidate.

In primary states, which of course is most of them, the DNC's only mechanism for enforcing the OP's suggestion would be refuse to seat duly elected delegates who were pledge to a candidate who did not meet the DNC's criteria.

That's a great look, isn't it? "Yes, Mr. or Ms. Candidate, we know you got more votes in the primaries than all the other candidates combined, and that you have a majority of the delegates, but we geniuses at the DNC disagree with those millions of people who voted for you. You don't meet OUR criteria. Therefore, we're going to override the popular vote and lock out your elected delegates."

Call me crazy but I can see problems with that.

[pnwmom]

126. In that aspect it's unusual. But it's not the only state that has a Democratic party

that can choose who it endorses for the Democratic party label.

For example, in NY the initial choice isn't made in the primary -- it's made in the state Democratic party convention.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/conventions-how-parties-choose-candidates-months-primary.html

May, known for flowers, Cinco de Mayo and Star Wars Day, is also one of the most exciting months for New York politics. It’s convention time in New York, and this year’s state primary races are as dramatic as ever.

The Working Families Party, the Green Party and the Reform Party each held their conventions over the weekend. The Republican and Democratic parties are set to designate their candidates for statewide office this week.

Yes, you read that correctly. A party can choose its candidates months before the primary ballots are cast. But that doesn’t mean the voters have no opportunity to push back on what party leaders decide; any qualified voter registered with a party and residing in the state can collect 15,000 petitions to get on the ballot for the September primaries.

To do so when the party apparatus has settled on someone else, though, is extremely difficult for anyone less wealthy than Michael Bloomberg.

SNIP

[Jim Lane]

141. Your own link proves my point.

It's misleading to say that, in New York, "A party can choose its candidates months before the primary ballots are cast." The party designation is different from the nomination.

The designation at the convention spares the favored candidate from having to collect petition signatures. As the linked article states, a non-designated candidate can still qualify for the primary ballot by getting 25% of the vote at the convention, or, failing that, by submitting signatures.

Now, how does this New York rule apply to national politics? Well, basically, it doesn't. You'll note that inherent in the above description is that the party convention is held before the primary. At the national level, it's the other way around.

The Democratic Party currently has a rule requiring the DNC and its officers to remain neutral in the race for the presidential nomination. That's an internal rule and the party could change it. If the DNC agreed with the OP, it could promulgate a new rule that neutrality is not required if there's a candidate for the nomination who hasn't released tax returns (or who hasn't been a registered Democrat for a certain number of years, or who's ever received a campaign contribution from Donald Trump, or whatever else the DNC members regarded with horror).

But the OP called for "a requirement" that anyone running in the primaries jump through the DNC's hoops. There is no comparable party-imposed requirement in the New York rules you cite. For example, Congressmember Joe Crowley was (and is) the Chair of the Queens Democratic Party, was as wired-in as you can get, but he and his allies had no power to impose requirements on primary opponents beyond those imposed by state law. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met the state's requirements, got on the ballot, and beat him.

That's why the DNC's only way to enforce any requirement for candidate qualification would be to refuse to seat duly elected convention delegates.

The lesser step of abandoning or modifying the neutrality rule wouldn't guarantee that the DNC's favored candidate would win. It might well prove to be a disadvantage by tainting that candidate with the aura of bossism. It would also be harmful in the general election. If the party wants everyone to unite behind the nominee, then it's essential that the supporters of defeated candidates feel that they at least got a fair shake. If the party machinery were openly employed in influencing the race for the nomination, then it would be harder to get everyone on board for November.

[pnwmom]

142. It won't "taint" the party with "bossism" if what the party does is require financial transparency

on the part of any candidate who wants the party's endorsement. Especially in the era of DT.

It would make the party's endorsement more meaningful.

[Skidmore]

23. Plus

they must be a member of the Democratic Party and remain in the party if elected for the duration of holding office.

[oberliner]

24. What's the point of that?

[Skidmore]

29. Because

a candidate using the party 's power structure should be invested in the party he or she wants to be the standard bearer for. Period. We need reliability after all the chaos.

[Squinch]

35. Also, carpetbaggers dilute the vote.

By encouraging their followers to do things like boo at the convention.

[SkyDancer]

64. Are they capetbaggers

when they vote with Democrats? Maybe you should write those "carpetbaggers" a letter and tell them to knock it off! I'm sure that will work great! After all, it isn't like their votes are important or anything, right?

C'mon now, let's be real.

[Cha]

114. Yes "carpetbaggers".. you read it right.

you get "real".

[ehrnst]

157. Well, if they condone or participating in booing lifelong progressive activists like John Lewis

who went straight to where the battles for progress were being fought, instead of moving far, far away from them, one has to wonder how they define "progress."

I certainly have no use for "progressives" who boo a black civil rights leader, or silently condone them doing so in one's name. Any "revolution" that rejects black leaders can't really be called a 'revolution' can it?

They belong over with the Trump supporters.

[Cha]

158. Exactly, ehrnst. I'm not interested in

their definition of "progress".

[GulfCoast66]

140. Oh, but if it was just booing. I could take that.

They booed John Lewis. They Fucking booed John Lewis. The man who was beaten near to death marching over the Edmond Pettus Bridge.

And the whole time Bernie sat there grinning.

I seldom weigh in in Bernie threads because his followers are are beyond reason. But he, and they were dead to me that day.

His followers at the Democratic Convention on National Television booed the honorable John Lewis.

And yet they claim they did not effect the outcome of the election.

No good democrat should ever forget that and I guarantee you most African Americans will not.

[justhanginon]

31. Eliminate "temps".

[Squinch]

32. Did you notice that they changed the rules that you have to have been in the

Democratic Party for 4 years in order to run in the primary as a Democrat.

I like your addition to that, but we have made a start.

[Skidmore]

34. Thanks for that update.

Am a little behind on somethings. Good.

[sl8]

53. Where did you see the 4 year requirement?

CNN had this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html

...
DECLARING YOURSELF DEMOCRAT: Candidates seeking the party's presidential nomination will now have to declare themselves as Democrats in writing to the DNC, a change pointed at Sanders, who is technically an Independent senator that caucuses with the Democrats.
...

[Squinch]

30. Kick!

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. I think 15 - 20 years should be the range. Hillary released 30. 20 years would catch anomalies...

that might otherwise be hidden from the public.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. 20 years?! Yeah, let's unilaterally disarm ourselves against the Rethugs... makes no sense!!

No thanks.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. If a candidate has nothing to hide, I don't see the problem. We're dealing with someone in the WH,

who could very well have run on the Democratic ticket, whose CFO has now been given immunity, and we have no idea what shoes are about to drop. I don't want a potential Democratic president to be in that predicament. There were only two candidates who refused to release their tax returns, and I'm guessing there's a damned good reason they didn't want us to know what's in them. "No thanks".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. So if a candidate doesn't release 20 years of tax returns, they must be hiding something?

Why not require 30, 40, 50 years of tax returns by that logic? Why not release all divorce proceedings and all emails, text messages, speeches, articles ever written? Rethugs don't demand that kind of transparency... 5 years of tax returns is plenty.

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. The more the better. And, FWIW, I want us to be better than "Rethugs". For people who ran around..

screeching about transparency a couple of years ago, I would think they would be all in favor. Five years is not nearly enough to know if someone is a crook or not. Although five years would work for certain individuals who ran last time, and have had time to fix their latest returns, but I want to know what was in the returns they should have disclosed leading up to 2016.

[George II]

36. There was a debate here on DU about that the other day. One said the Constitution....

....doesn't allow that. But the Constitution details the minimum requirements to run for President, not necessarily all the requirements that can be imposed.

That person was a lawyer!

[former9thward]

51. No its not the "minimum" requirements.

Its the requirements period. If you meet those you can be President. If you think there should be other requirements the work for a Constitutional amendment.

[pnwmom]

60. Anyone can run for President who meets those requirements.

But who says anyone can run under the Democratic party label?

For example, my state has a requirement that the person has to be a Democrat and can't have been a member of another party for a year. That's not in the Constitution. It's a Democratic party rule.

[former9thward]

82. Yes, the Party can impose whatever restrictions it wants to secure its nomination.

But it is state laws which apply to all parties and indies that have been either passed or proposed.

[George II]

68. The Constitution doesn't say "only requirements" or "no other requirements can be added".

It also doesn't say anything about political parties, primaries, caucuses, etc.

To be the Democratic nominee for the presidency, the Democratic Party can impose any requirements the members of the Party agree upon.

[NurseJackie]

50. I'd just be happy with a requirement of party membership. ACTUAL long-term and committed membership...

I'd just be happy with a requirement of party membership. ACTUAL long-term and committed membership… more than the "rules" require now, which are unenforceable and easily abused. I'm always suspicious of anyone who engages in on-again/off-again fickle commitment to the Democratic party.

[proglib217]

70. Agreed. Similar requirement to run for the Senate

To run for the Senate, I feel the candidate must have been a resident of the state in question for at least five years, as opposed to conveniently targeting a state and moving there for the sole purpose of seeking one of that state's Senate seats.

[George II]

73. Who has done that?

[lapucelle]

76. I hope it's not an RFK reference.

We were proud to have Bobby as our senator.

[George II]

77. So was I.

[lapucelle]

84. I remember the hub bub when RFK ran for a NYS senate seat,

but New York embraced him with both arms wide open. RFK was an icon and a champion, not unlike many others who land in my wonderful state to start a new life or open their next chapter in life, including life in public service.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160823134229/http://history.buffalonews.com/2014/09/01/sep-1-1964-robert-kennedy-run-senate-first-stop-buffalo/

[pnwmom]

97. It's an attack on Hillary. Because she was living in the WH she couldn't establish

a residency quickly in some other states, but NY's laws allowed her to.

[Jim Lane]

101. Here's a hint: Chappaqua is not in Arkansas. (n/t)

[lapucelle]

146. What do Chappaqua and Arkansas have to do with RFK?

Bobby was born and lived much of his life in Massachusetts and moved to New York after his tenure as Attorney General in Washington D.C. (He had been living in Virginia.) He and his family settled in Glen Cove, LI.

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/08/25/archives/kennedy-takes-lease-on-house-in-glen-cove-li-he-will-announce.html

[lapucelle]

75. Who has ever "conveniently targeted a state

and moved there for the sole purpose of seeking one of that state's Senate seats."? I hope you're not referencing Bobby Kennedy. I live in NY, and we are proud of his service as our senator.

[pnwmom]

98. Hillary, who was a VERY popular Senator in New York, even though

her previous residence had been in Washington, D.C.

[lapucelle]

112. Illinois to Massachusetts to Connecticut (stops in California and Texas),

back to Massachusetts to D.C. to Arkansas (as first lady) back to D.C. (as first lady) and then to New York before becoming an honorary citizen of the world following her tenure as SOS.

We New Yorkers are proud to call her a favorite daughter.

[Hekate]

85. You mean like Bobby Kennedy? Tsk.

[pnwmom]

99. First the poster said s/he would never support Kamala Harris, because of Al Franken,

though s/he "might" vote for her if she were the nominee.

Now s/he's making an obvious attack on Hillary, who was able to run for Senate in New York after leaving the White House.

[pnwmom]

96. This is a transparent attack on Hillary, which makes me wonder yet again what you're doing here. nt

[JHan]

59. Agreed. K&R

[Jamaal510]

61. K&R

[oasis]

62. Transparency. Why would any candidate not want this?

[Cha]

110. Exactly, oasis.. and why would their fans not want it,

either?

[oasis]

115. For those who insist on privacy, there's always the PRIVATE SECTOR.

And that's the name of that tune

[Cha]

116. Yeah, they're Not so special that

exceptions will be made for them in the public domain.

[brer cat]

66. I agree. K&R

[aikoaiko]

67. I can live with 3 - 5 years.

[librechik]

74. definitely

[AZmikey]

80. Absolutely!

Should be required by law for ALL candidates.

[crazycatlady]

81. Is this just at the presidential level?

If not, what level of office? Statewide candidates? Should congressional candidates? State leg candidates? Local candidates?

[Cha]

93. KICK!

[Gothmog]

120. Several blue states will have ballot access laws in place to require release of tax returns

Maryland has such a law in place and other states will follow. Under these laws, a candidate cannot get onto the ballot without releasing tax returns

[workinclasszero]

136. Sounds good to me

We see the horrendous effects of a pResident that to this day keeps his tax info hidden.

Never again! And it should be made into law.

[NCTraveler]

147. Can there be a "blame your wife" exception? nt

[ehrnst]

153. Any candidate who balks at this requirement has no business running as a Democrat. (nt)