Trump could be left off some states' ballots in 2020 if these bills become law

[yortsed snacilbuper]

In refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump bucked decades of tradition and set off a Democrat hunt to obtain them. Now several statehouses are looking at making their release a condition of the 2020 presidential election: Show us your tax returns, or you can’t be on the ballot.

Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm” of candidates releasing their financial records.

But Democratic lawmakers behind some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyper partisan climate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-could-be-left-off-some-states-ballots-in-2020-if-these-bills-become-law/ar-BBV0qVE?ocid=spartanntp

[Pachamama]

1. I think this is a good law requiring candidates for President to submit their taxes or not be on a

....ballot....

So if Trump or anyone else doesn't submit their tax returns, then they aren't on ballot....

[msongs]

2. presidential eligibility is determined by the federal constitution, not states nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The Constitution sets *minimum* requirements- you have to be at least 35

and a natural born citizen. There’s nothing in the Constitution, which leaves the regulation of elections almost entirely to the states, that prevents states from requiring certain conditions to be met for a person to appear on their ballots. There are already certain time limits; if you miss a deadline you can’t be on the ballot. That isn’t in the Constitution either.

[MichMan]

18. So states could rule "no republicans" or " only white males" ?

Dont think that would be allowed

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. That would violate other laws and constitutional principles.

A neutral requirement that applied equally to all candidates that they meet certain deadlines or disclose certain information, e.g. tax returns, would not.

[tritsofme]

22. US Term Limits vs Thornton said that states cannot have stricter eligibility requirements

than are defined in the Constitution, in ruling state imposed term limits for federal candidates unconstitutional.

The question in these cases, is if the courts will view these restrictions as more similar to signatures or other ballot access laws, which are permissible, or more like the term limit laws which are not. This question is not settled.

Regardless, if a state does manage to pass one of these laws, I would expect it to be a non-factor for the 2020 cycle, as they will likely be under injunction as the cases move through the courts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. Many of those cases had to do with unduly burdensome signature requirements.

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2019, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It's pretty hard to claim that disclosing tax returns would be unduly burdensome to anyone (I could turn over mine tomorrow). I think the Thornton case can be distinguished because in that case the court regarded term limits as imposing a hard qualification (not a ballot access requirement) - that is, a candidate for Congress (not the presidency, which wasn't addressed) who'd already served two terms couldn't run again, period. If, however, a candidate can get on the ballot simply by producing his tax returns, that's just a question of ballot access, like getting a certain number of signatures, meeting time deadlines or paying a filing fee. It's not a qualification in the same sense as being a natural-born citizen, which can't be fixed; it's an easily-curable matter of meeting ballot access requirements. I look at it as the difference between being something (e.g., 35, a natural-born citizen, or someone who's already had two terms) and doing something (e.g., collecting a certain number of signatures or releasing your tax returns).

[tritsofme]

26. It's interesting to note as well, that it was the conservatives who dissented in Thornton.

It was a 5-4 decision with Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia all dissenting. So theoretically, this court should be more open to arguments in favor of these sorts of requirements.

I think yours is a good analysis, but I have no idea how these courts will rule, or if they will even rule in time for the election.

[MiniMe]

3. They never needed this legislation before because almost every Presidential candidate released taxes

I'm not sure Mitt Romney released his complete return, but everybody else did

[Historic NY]

4. Trumpers will have a hard time doing write in's since they can't spell...

Donld Trump

[alwaysinasnit]

5. Maybe they should require all candidates running for federal office (House and Senate too) to

post their federal returns as a requirement to be on the ballot. Seems like Congress critters have been enriching themselves while in office. There are more millionaires in Congress than ever before. Politics nowadays seems to be a rich person's game.

[MichMan]

13. Should apply to all federal, state & local ?

Not only president and VP .

[alwaysinasnit]

14. You're right.

[beachbum bob]

6. most likely any and all such laws will be ruled as unconstitutional, including giving electoral vote

to popular vote winner.

Any change to the process of federal elections is going to need constitutional fixes

[NYC Liberal]

9. Nope. States have complete control over how their electors are awarded.

They’re not even required to hold a popular vote.

The choosing of electors is a state process, not a federal one. The federal part is those electors then voting as the Electoral College.

[MichMan]

15. I'm not sure that is true

Seriously doubt a state could rule that only Democrats, property holders, or white males were eligible for the ballot for president.

[NYC Liberal]

20. There are no restrictions:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Also, the candidates are not on the ballot. The electors are. You don’t vote for candidates, the electors do. Take a look at your ballot and you’ll see it says “ELECTORS FOR (candidate)”.

[MichMan]

24. So the ones who need to supply tax returns are the electors...

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2019, 08:32 PM - Edit history (2)

and not the candidates.... ?

Why would we be interested in seeing those ?

[Blue Owl]

7. Man that would be so awesome

n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Bernie too

unless he releases his. They are mostly being proposed in blue states he would need.

[Polybius]

10. Aren't these Blue states where he has no chance to win anyway?

Still, it would be great to leave him off.

[BlueFlorida]

11. If only solid blue states pass it

the laws won't hurt Trump and may actually inflame his base enough to come out more strongly in purple states.

Trump will play the victim again and that gets his stupid base going. They don't even buy the Russian collusion story with a mountain of evidence. They are deluded and mesmerized and angry that their god is being persecuted.

[shanny]

17. Good news is, his stupid base isn't big enough.

Ours is, plus independents who now know how much smoke tRump was blowing up their asses last time around.

[shanny]

16. Blue states, I assume.

States he would lose regardless. What we need is purple/swing states to check in--then we might actually see the returns, or tRump might simply bow out out of his instinct for self-preservation (I've already Made America Great Again he claims, as he tucks his tail and runs off back to NY, thinking that will End the Investigations)(it won't).

[Tarc]

21. This is a waste of time, and will likely fail a Supreme Court challenge

People getting giddy over this inanity would be advised to review Powell v. McCormack, for starters, and U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, for examples of people trying to subvert the will of the voters.

This is not the method to beat Donald Trump in 2020, by adopting tactics similar to Republican gerrymandering and limiting polling places.

[MichMan]

25. Term limits are a great analogy

Courts ruled that states have no right to impose them on a federal office holder

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

27. Kick