General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAll states should require presidential candidates tax returns
for at least 10 years in order to qualify for the ballot. That would knock out Trump and lots of other 1% ers right off the bat.
How many states can we get the requirement enacted before 2020?
SunSeeker
(51,728 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)duforsure
(11,885 posts)tritsofme
(17,403 posts)There is a case, US Term Limits v Thornton, where SCOTUS held states cannot impose eligibility requirements for federal candidates that are stricter than what the Constitution provides.
These cases would turn on whether it was considered an extra-constitutional eligibility requirement or if it was more similar to signatures for ballot access.
Regardless, I would expect these laws to be under injunction for the 2020 cycle, and after Trump is gone, the matter becomes mostly moot.
Gothmog
(145,626 posts)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
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.
New Jersey has such a ballot access law in place now. Other states 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
tritsofme
(17,403 posts)The matter is unsettled, though Tribe makes some compelling arguments.
It still would seem to me that these laws would be under injunction for the 2020 cycle as challenges work their way through the courts.
I would note that unless something happened very recently, that New Jersey bill did not become law, and only passed one house of the legislature.
Gothmog
(145,626 posts)I volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection issues and have been in war rooms the last five or so elections. Prof. Hasen has a good blog on election law and he believes that these laws are constitutional. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950
The answer lies in another part of Article IIthe part that received some important attention in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that Democrats love to hate. Famously, the 2000 case between Republican nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore effectively handed the election to Bush when it ended the Florida recount.
Article II provides that the state legislature may direct the manner for choosing presidential electors. In Bush v. Gore, the Court stated that this Article II power given to state legislatures was plenary, meaning that the states have a broad power when it comes to presidential elections. Indeed, the Court wrote that even though state legislators have given each states voters the right to vote for presidential electors, at any time a state legislature can take back the power to appoint electors. In other words, if the California or Texas state legislature wanted to directly choose the states presidential electors in 2020, the state could do so. As Dean Vik Amar notes, the Constitution does not necessarily include a right of Americans to vote for president at all (and American citizens in U.S. territories do not have this right).
The logic then goes like this: If a state legislature can take back from the voters the right to vote at all for president, it may be able to use ballot-access laws to limit the candidate choices presented to voters. And doing so would not impinge on the Qualifications Clause in Article II because Congress ultimately counts the Electoral College votes and can police that Clause. If a state legislature, for example, chose electors supporting a candidate under the age of 35, the U.S. House of Representatives, which counts the Electoral College votes, could disregard those votes after deeming the underage candidate unqualified.
Prof. Hasen has some concerns about the wisdom of these laws and possible GOP retaliation if blue states adopt these laws. I also believe that these laws are valid
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)citizens of a state should be able to decide if they need that information to trust a candidate.