General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump could be left off some states' ballots in 2020 if these bills become law
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 cant 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 the 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 hyperpartisan climate.
Trump has long insisted that he wont release his returns because they are under audit, though that would not preclude him from doing so. The documents have become something of a liberal white whale, and Democrats at the federal level have been pursuing laws or legal maneuvers aimed at obtaining them.
In addition to Washington, several other states, including California, Hawaii and New Jersey are considering similar bills. Many, though not all, of the legislatures considering the bills are controlled by Democrats, but even in Republican-controlled states, Democrats have put forth such legislation. Measures failed earlier this year in Mississippi, New Mexico and New Hampshire.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/20/trump-could-be-left-off-some-states-ballots-if-these-bills-become-law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d63a64af27ec
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Of course he will sue them and play the victim, but I believe that it is a legitimate issue and as we have 50 state elections and not a federal one, this could be an interesting development.
DinahMoeHum
(21,806 posts)bearsfootball516
(6,377 posts)All of those states with 0 votes for Trump
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Trump isn't going to lose electoral votes to the states listed. Red voters in those states won't bother going to the polls. Why would you if the Dem is running unopposed?
The unintended consequences is that with many states essentially recusing themselves from red voters, is that the popular vote will become so EXTREMELY lopsided it will give power to those folks who say it's irrelevant.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Any state that would do this would be blue enough that Trump wouldn't carry it anyway.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Especially the current court.
The constitution outlines the requirements for Presidency. I just don't see the SC forgetting about that.
In any event. He won't lose a single electoral vote over this. Looking at the list of states, it's only states that wouldn't support him anyway.