California moves to keep Trump off 2020 primary ballot
Washington Times,
by
Adam Bearn
Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx,
5/3/2019 12:29:37 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Legislature is trying again to force presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns, hoping a new Democratic governor known for his clashes with President Donald Trump won’t block them this time.The state Senate voted 27-10 on Thursday to require anyone appearing on the state’s presidential primary ballot to publicly release five years’ worth of income tax returns. The proposal is in response to Trump, who bucked 40 years of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns prior to his election in 2016. California’s presidential primary is scheduled for March 3. If the bill becomes
Reply 1 - Posted by:
hisself 5/3/2019 12:37:20 PM (No. 76137)
Since Lalifornia´s electoral votes go to the demoncrat anyway, how would this hurt Trump??
23 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Highlander 5/3/2019 12:39:11 PM (No. 76113)
Cal dems are behaving like a bunch of Maduros. Free elections? We don’t need no steenkin’ free elections!
19 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
seamusm 5/3/2019 12:40:42 PM (No. 76140)
A state cannot set conditions for federal office. Not that libs give a flip about the constitution.
41 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
PageTurner 5/3/2019 12:46:16 PM (No. 76122)
I thought they had nothing to worry about, they´re a solid blue state...
18 people like this.
Likely unconstitutional, as there is no law that states any presidential candidate MUST present their tax returns.
And, if your tax returns are under audit, how can you release them?
21 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
chance_232 5/3/2019 12:56:28 PM (No. 76136)
Read the article. They are requiring it for the PRIMARY election. Not the GENERAL election.
That said, what COMPELLING reason does any state have to require tax fillings for non-residents?
What remedies are in place WHEN those tax returns are leaked?
If the political parties were smart, and they arent, they would go back to choosing a candidate at the convention.
12 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
lazlototh 5/3/2019 1:00:54 PM (No. 76117)
I´m pretty sure that this is unconstitutional because it adds a requirement to becoming president that isn´t in the Constitution - they could just as arbitrarily add a provision that says all candidates must have manicured nails or brown shoes and the issue would be the same.
18 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 5/3/2019 1:02:33 PM (No. 76115)
Psst! Don´t tell Taxifornia that Trump won without them in 2016.
22 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
subal 5/3/2019 1:05:04 PM (No. 76134)
Just prohibit CA ballots in any federal election!
28 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
kono 5/3/2019 1:12:02 PM (No. 76111)
California has seceded from the U.S. They just have neither the cojones, nor the integrity, to officially declare it.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
padiva 5/3/2019 1:14:09 PM (No. 76112)
Federal law trumps state law. (I love that verb.)
13 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Jim Whittaker 5/3/2019 1:27:42 PM (No. 76133)
Fine. If they do, then their 55 Electoral College votes will not count. Period. Take those votes away in 2016, and Waddles loses her three million so-called Popular Vote win.
These idiots just keep throwing exploding cigars at themselves.
16 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
chance_232 5/3/2019 1:32:41 PM (No. 76130)
Sigh...... a PRIMARY is a STATE election. The primary determines that states delegates at the convention.
The GENERAL election is Federal.
California is requiring tax returns to appear on the Primary ballot. Unless Federal law prohibits it, California MAY get away with it for the primary. Remember, primary elections are a recent thing.
7 people like this.
Dems cannot win elections, so they change the rules. Here´s yet another example.
29 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 5/3/2019 1:53:24 PM (No. 76118)
This has nothing to do with the formal election of POTUS, it only affects the primaries. This is important because California can argue that Trump would still be on the national ballot in November, just not the primary ballot in the spring.
Why this could matter is all about a challenger to split the republican party and prevent a clear candidate prior to the RNC Convention. California controls a LOT of delegates in the primary race. If all of those delegates could be assigned to a non trump candidate, and that candidate picks up a couple other deep blue states like New York and all of New England then it is possible the conventio is thrown into turmoil and a non-trump candidate walks out with the nomination.
If Trump capitulates they get his Tax returns. There really is no way for the left to lose on this one even though the contested convention theory is a pretty long shot.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
lakerman1 5/3/2019 2:16:07 PM (No. 76141)
The presidential election law passed in 1881, (I think) was used by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore.
A state may not change the rules in an election cycle. That would apply to primary elections as well as the actual presidential election.
If California succeeds, they will puff up the popular vote for the Dimocrt. Nothing more.
5 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Scout Finch 5/3/2019 2:19:43 PM (No. 76131)
Not that it matters, the whole point is moot. A Presidential election is a Federal election. A particular state can´t change the goalposts (Democrats LOVE to change goalposts in their favor). The Constitution (oooh, there´s that word again) says nothing about a requirement to make your personal tax filings public in order to appear on a ballot. But nice try, California. Trump won without your hapless state.
8 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
curious1 5/3/2019 2:21:01 PM (No. 76110)
#19, but that popular vote inflation means those states who have claimed all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner are affected.
7 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Eagle4ever 5/3/2019 2:25:56 PM (No. 76109)
#18, He can always run as a third party candidate. What a shock that would be when he wins.
7 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Deepthinker 5/3/2019 2:30:47 PM (No. 76124)
The way they lose (other than even more virtue signalling) is for a Trumpite alternate candidate to run in the CA primary to oppose any primary challenge to the President and who will drop out at the convention.
7 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
caljeepgirl 5/3/2019 2:31:54 PM (No. 76128)
Sometimes, #8, even that word isn´t enough!
5 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Saryden 5/3/2019 3:07:33 PM (No. 76123)
Many anti-Americans have been infiltrated/allowed/invited into our country. They have been allowed to vote. It isn´t only California that is a problem. American Patriots (like Trump) must step up to save our freedom and future.
6 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
jorgecito 5/3/2019 3:12:32 PM (No. 76121)
#18, candidates would not be able to have their names printed on the November ballot, if they hadn´t previously won in the state´s primary.
Voters could still write in the candidate´s name. But it is notoriously hard to win an election with write-in votes –though amazingly, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska was able to pull that off.
6 people like this.
We are not the united states of Kookafornia...
Calif....GFY....signed America
We WIN....YOU LOSE...again
9 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/3/2019 4:31:47 PM (No. 76119)
California has not seceded from anything. We’re still here. All you hear about is the mischief involving the Democrats. They don’t even have a simple majority of voter registrations the last time I looked. If they had, they wouldn’t have to worry about this, would they….
/s/Native Californian, glad to be
13 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/3/2019 4:36:25 PM (No. 76139)
Politicians may ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold, but courts do not have that luxury. If any of these bills become laws, they will face immediate court challenges, and rightfully so. What these legislators are proposing is fairly revolutionary: they think they have the right to change the qualifications for the office of the presidency. The Hill quotes Professor Richard L. Hasen, who says on his election law blog that whether such laws pass constitutional muster is still “an open question.” In fact, any reasonable look at the law and precedents shows that these efforts are doomed to fail.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/10/no-states-dont-get-make-presidential-candidates-release-tax-returns/
It’s about the Constitution, stupid!
9 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
qr4j 5/3/2019 5:19:15 PM (No. 76120)
So . . . someone running for POTUS has to release tax records, but members of the House of Representatives and the Senate do not. That "consistent" application principles makes perfect sense . . . in another universe!
Where´s San Fran Nan´s tax returns for the last 150 years she´s been in office???
13 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
stablemoney 5/3/2019 8:56:25 PM (No. 76126)
I never thought I would live to the day I liked Russia better than California. Very sad as there are some wonderful people in Ca., but they don´t run the place.
8 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "JoniTx"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)