Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on November 22, 2019, 12:51:42 AM
-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/21/california-law-aimed-at-acquiring-trumps-tax-returns-ruled-unconstitutional/
California's highest court has struck down the law requiring candidates to give up their tax returns. (Like it would matter if Trump were on the ballot there, anyway.)
-
Nice.
True it's somewhat irrelevant in CA, but it is good for other states. Or if an R organization tried to force a dem candidate to release records to get on the CA ballot. It's a good and constitutional ruling across the political spectrum.
-
Besides, if I wanted their financial records made public, I would likely want to see a lot more than tax returns. I would want disclosure of all their assets among other things. And I would want it for all candidates for federal office, not just Presidential candidates.
-
Nice.
True it's somewhat irrelevant in CA, but it is good for other states. Or if an R organization tried to force a dem candidate to release records to get on the CA ballot. It's a good and constitutional ruling across the political spectrum.
It's also a unanimous ruling (a rare thing for the CA Supremes).
-
True it's somewhat irrelevant in CA, but it is good for other states.
Isn't this ruling pretty specific to California though?
The California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law Thursday ruling it a direct violation of the state constitution which mandates the state government to operate an “open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the secretary of state to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California.”
The state’s highest court found that the new legislation passed by Democrats flew “in conflict with the [state] constitution’s specification of an inclusive open presidential primary ballot.”
-
I'm sure that California will appeal it to the 9th circuit and they, in their infinite wisdom, will uphold the law.
-
Isn't this ruling pretty specific to California though?
It is. What I meant (and I assume fistful meant as well) is that Trump would never have a chance to win CA anyway, whether he's on or off the ballot.
-
It is. What I meant (and I assume fistful meant as well) is that Trump would never have a chance to win CA anyway, whether he's on or off the ballot.
I get that, I don't understand the "good for other states" part.
Unless those states have that same specification in their state constitution then this ruling wouldn't have any bearing would it?
-
I get that, I don't understand the "good for other states" part.
Unless those states have that same specification in their state constitution then this ruling wouldn't have any bearing would it?
My understanding, IIRC, when this first started coming up was that some other states do have something similar, as some wanted to copy CA with the "no tax return, non name on ballot" thing. WA maybe?
-
I'm sure that California will appeal it to the 9th circuit and they, in their infinite wisdom, will uphold the law.
They can't appeal to the 9th Circuit. It's a case under California state law.
-
My understanding, IIRC, when this first started coming up was that some other states do have something similar, as some wanted to copy CA with the "no tax return, non name on ballot" thing. WA maybe?
Yes, WA had a similar bill but I don't recall if it went into law or not. Either way, my point is that this was struck down because of the specification in CA's state constitution for "an inclusive open presidential primary ballot" and if that specification does not exist in WA's state constitution then this ruling has no relevance to WA's law.
-
They can't appeal to the 9th Circuit. It's a case under California state law.
Court cases that apply only to the specific state in which they are decided generally can't be appealed to the circuit level, as in those cases the state's highest court is the "court of last resort."
But, given that this case involves the conduct of Federal elections AND similar laws have been put forward in other left-leaning states I'm betting that a solid case could be made to bring an appeal to the 9th Circuit.