I supported this law - until I found out it only applied to the Primary. TT doesn't need to be on ANY Primary ballot anywhere as he won't have any challengers able to generate GOP votes. So this law won't have any practical effect. Too bad.
Oh, about the so-called "conspiracy" to oust TT? There's no conspiracy, just millions of Americans who want to throw him and his enablers in Congress onto the trash-heap of shame they have created.
The law may not be constitutional, but it should be. After all, ordinary people are required to provide their tax returns if they apply for a mortgage or a home loan.
If you're applying for the job of President of the United States, it only stands to reason that you should want a complete review of your finances. Otherwise, you look like a crook.
This law is not punitive -- it is a disinfectant. It rids the body politic of crooks and conmen.
2
The article speaks of the primary. There may not be a challenger to Tromp.
Does the law cover the general election?
I love this idea. Why not extend it to electoral college votes? No disclosure, no elector votes. If Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania did the same it would be bye bye Trump.
Scotus has already ruled that the U.S. Constitution sets the exclusive qualifications running for federal office (including age and citizenship requirements), and that states do not have the authority to alter or add to the terms contained in them.
Next...
1
"Blair Ellis, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, accused California officials of 'trying to deny voting rights to the millions of Californians who support President Trump and wish to vote for him in the primary.'"
That's ironic considering the RNC's continued championing of Supreme Court decisions that gut the Voting Rights Act and other related voting rights laws. No question that the RNC would endorse this law if a Democrat were in the White House.
1
Why can't all the states do this?
2
We are talking about a national election, not a state election. Fine for CA to dictate requirements to be in a state office, but not right for a national election. Perhaps what they really want, the next step will be only the candidate that CA chooses can be on the ballot. Skip the tax returns and scuttle butt, just pick the winner.
1
Voter suppression, pure and simple.
5
“What other kinds of regulations can one imagine that states might impose on presidential candidates to get onto the ballot?”
Um... well, how about being able to SPELL?!!
3
California is called the land of fruits and nuts for reasons like this.
4
@Louis Samuels Yep, it's true:In 2017, California's farms and ranches received over $50 billion in cash receipts for their output. This represents an increase of almost 6 percent compared to 2016 1.
California's agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California. California is the leading US state for cash farm receipts, accounting for over 13 percent of the nation's total agricultural value.
We are so fruity and nutty on the left coast, hard to see how we get any work done at all.
1
No, I think Florida really has the crown. This is a sensible position to protect voters from fraudsters. Can the same be said of the State of Florida’s official position that global warming is against God’s will, even as Miami sinks into the Atlantic? Or how about the complete lack of gun control even after Parkland? It takes some nerve for a Floridian to criticize California.
1
The emergence of any number of open and transparent candidates would never trigger any sort of special legislation aimed to curb their activities. The current potus is not them. He has openly mocked transparency. He refuses to produce any documentation, such as tax returns, that could implicate him in criminal or questionable activities. He is the catalyst for the legislation. One could reasonably say that, someone had to do it. Well, it appears that he's it. This isn't a reaction against trump. It's a reaction against what he has done.
3
Its sounds like this is a contrived law. Though, perhaps a judge in the 9th district court could justify this law.
3
How low politics has gotten that now they are requiring something that isn't fair game just so they can target President Trump? If this is so important, why wasn't it required 16 years ago? What's next, medical records? Birth certificate? Please, let's just stop wasting time with nonsense and get on with governing.
3
@George: Here, here, right on the button. This is a clearly unconstitutional law that was vetoed once already by Gov. Brown. The fact our state legislature would waste precious time passing it again - and then have Gov. Newsome sign it - shows you just how out of touch the politicians are here. You would think that with glaring problems like homelessness, housing and most importantly the shameful condition of our K-12 school system, the legislature would spend their time addressing real issues. Shame on the Democrat legislature (which has had a super-majority for years) and our new governor.
Who is going to be on the California primary ballot opposing him and does it matter? Another meaningless law.
1
There is no political low to which Democrats will not stoop to get their own way. This is the same group that asserts "voter suppression" or "the Russians" explain the loss of close elections by their own candidates. But in California, those same Democrats think nothing of prohibiting ALL Reublicans from even casting a primary vote for the sitting President of the US because they can't get their grasping fingers on his tax returns to turn them into another polical smear. That makes sense. Keep people with whom you disagree from voting for their preferred candidate. No irony there, right?
4
Millions of people want to vote (again) for Trump, a pathological liar and wannabe dictator, and some are worried about his tax returns? Ish Kabibble.
If Trump had a half a brain he would see that releasing his taxes would only reassure his base. All those enthralled by The Donald would say, "Look! The man's a genius! he has never paid taxes, has bankrupted countless businesses, has cheated thousands of workers, has made deals with foreign governments to enrich himself and his family, and yet he is still rich and famous and president!"
2
This could backfire. The Republicans probably never expected to get California's 38 electoral votes. Trump doesn't even have to spend money in the California media, since he can't get anything for it. It would be just great if some of the swing states, like PA, Michigan, Ohio, Fla were to demand those tax returns as a price for being on the ballot. (Don't forget the down ballot). Would be interested in reading other views.
2
Controversy on whether to require a presidential candidate to release his tax returns is understandable. And I can see Governor Brown's veto on the requirement having to do with a fear as to how this might escalate in the future.
And yet, since the advent of Trump, I am finding myself more in favor of some sort of vetting process for offices of high command, and especially the presidency. I hope to never see this travesty of a presidency, again in my life time, and if requiring a tax return is one kind of vetting required of a potential president, then it's better than nothing.
3
Thank goodness for California. It is our best hope to save this nation in so many ways--environmental standards, election standards, and more.
This is only common sense, and it should be federal law that all candidates must release at least the previous five years' worth of tax returns.
It's clearly inspired by Donald Trump's failure to comply with the normal practice, but it isn't targeting Trump. Trump isn't likely to face a primary anyway.
This good law simply moves toward protecting our democracy from a threat that is abundantly clear now.
First, I question the constitutionality of a measure restricting the ability of a political party to select candidates for office.
However, even if it passes, Mr. Trump has no serious challengers for the GOP nomination, so not being on the primary ballot in California will not affect his presidential chances one whit.
1
I'm not a US citizen, so my immediate wonder is would Trump sidestep California's law by avoiding that primary? Is that even possible or realistic?
I say so because this Cal. law would clearly have an impact on the entire Union.
2
@DW
In a serious primary contest, no candidate could sidestep California, as it awards more delegates (those who ultimately choose the candidate at the party's convention) than any other state.
2
Will this "Presidential harassment" ever come to an end?
1
@VambomadeSAHB when has there been presidential harassment?
1
New York, are you watching?
1
This legislation is a step in the right direction. NO one is telling a political party whom to choose. It is saying that people need to know what conflicts of interest, if any, a candidate brings to the office. There is no suppression of free speech either. Disclosure requirements including extensive financial disclosures are required for federal employment so why not extend it to elected officials?
4
Another clown move by democrats in California who think they are the beginning and end of all things. As the state crumbles around them, they continue their attack on the rest of the nation.
5
@Warrantone
If CA is crumbling around you, why don't you follow Trump's advice and go back to where you came from.
2
California has the largest economy in the union, by far, it hosts industries that other states would give their eye teeth to have a tenth of. The state government runs a substantial surplus and uses that cash to invest in infrastructure and education. If that is crumbling, let the rest of the nation crumble too. You could be so lucky.
2
It's a nice gesture, may have some relevance a few election cycles down the road, but Trump would never win California and evidently doesn't need to.
2
Good luck, California. It's worth a try.
2
Happy enough with this, but as a long-time observer of US politics (my first US election was 1960 as a 10 year-old), I'd be even happier with candidates having to pass a basic test on politics, governance and the constitution before getting on the ballot paper.
6
Sure. Maybe forced attendance at a few "struggle sessions" over in Berkley too, so that any potential candidates can be pre-approved as having the "correct" political views before being "allowed" to run for any office in CA. Why stop there? Why not just outlaw any political party or candidate that dosen't fit the currently preferred politics of those already in power?
1
I actually have not lived in California just 20 years now....I always said California thought and STILL thinks it is a COUNTRY not a state....AND of course we know that hasn’t change but only gotten worst
3
I would say gotten better. California and New York have been the catalyst of nationwide change many times throughout history, being the first to implement new positive processes that the rest of the nation eventually followed.
5
I find it amazing, a galactic dose of hypocrisy, that Republicans are carping about the "undemocratic" thrust of California's requirement to have candidates release their tax returns when the GOP has been involved in blatant, undemocratic, and deeply immoral voter suppression efforts across the country -from the wildest gerrymandering, to baseless voter ID laws, to robo-calls filled with lies and even going as far as to provide false election day and polling place information. And let's not forget that the GOP's two top leaders are fine with Russian interference in our elections.
It's true that the Constitution and only the Constitution sets forth the qualifications for president. But the Constitution hallows no ground for political parties, which have a legal status more akin to private clubs than public institutions, despite rhetoric to the contrary, and primaries are not, by definition, general elections. Primaries are apparati of parties. And guess what? States have final say on both how those primaries get conducted and the certification of winners and losers.
Of course, former Governor Brown's concerns should not be gainsaid. Still, there is something to be learned from seeing how this plays out in the courts. As I've told my fellow progressive friends for decades, "states' rights" is not merely one of the dark slogans of the Jim Crow era. States, under our form of political community, have an important function in checking the reckless power of federal officers.
7
If he was smart he would just ignore this and not react because there is no way California is voting Trump. If Ohio or Florida passed a law like this, then he might be in trouble.
2
Need a swing state to do the same. That will have some effect. Trump was never going to win CA's electoral votes. Need WI, MI, PA to do the same.
Requiring all candidates to supply tax info give voters more information when they head to the polls. Makes no one a martyr.
2
Maybe not constitutional, but such a legislative move brings great focus on Trump’s shadowy financials, whether the returns are released or not.
If and when this law is fought in the courts prior to election night 2020, the timing is right to cast a strong spotlight on Trump’s refusal around disclosing his tax returns.
4
Not a great change. This is a "law" only in California, a state which for all practical purposes has already broke away from the Union. In any event, it will be overturned --- soon.
Besides, Ca is so blue it is actually pink. Write it off as a lost cause, and still win re-election.
3
Need to pass a law that requires a Presidential candidate to pass a background check, including a lie detector test, just like many other government and Civil Service jobs! After all, a president will have access to top secret information.
Perhaps this would eliminate the con artists, the racists, the mafiosos, the tax evaders, the habitual liars, the incompetent, and the dysfunctional candidates. Just like our current president!
3
And the last and the 10 before him.
1
@Robert maybe the Bushes and Nixon.
If Trump skips putting his name on the ballot in California just to avoid releasing his tax returns, how bad are his tax returns? Good lord, how bad can they be...
3
Could be CA made itself irrelevant.
2
McConnell would not hesitate to use ploy rational or irrational to advance his agenda for single-party government, yet critics of California Democrats are queasy to stand up for a rule applicable to all presidential candidates to ensure that an uncompromised individual will hold the highest, most responsible offices in America. This option is not about age, color, orientation, or political affiliation. It ensures, as much as possible, that powerful officeholders are not working for the interests of a hostile foreign government.
1
A tactical blunder.
Trump loves campaignomg against liberal California. This law just gives him another tool come the general election to energize his base in those states where he will be competitive. Whether or not the courts toss the law, he will use it to his advantage.
Perversely, the law allows Trump to take an arguably principled stance by refusing to release his tax returns.
3
This is just silly. California does not realize how risible they appear to the rest of the nation.
2
Trumps’s not laughing.
3
"Mr. Newsom sent mixed messages on whether he would sign the law, but finally did so on the final day before the bill would become law without his signature."
Gavin is weak. He knew what the right thing to do was, but he didn't have the will. I thought he might be a good candidate for president, but not anymore.
2
This is a feel good solution to a real problem that should not be solved at the state level. I understand why some states want someone like Trump to release his tax returns but this sort of piecemeal legislation will cause problems. What if another candidate refuses to release his/her tax returns until s/he is the actual nominee? What will California do at the conventions when it comes to delegates especially if they happen to hold the controlling votes?
In this reader's opinion releasing one's tax returns should not be a tradition. It ought to be required if one is running for statewide or national office, i.e. governor, senator, or on the presidential ticket. Unfortunately that means we need federal legislation to accomplish it and that leads to our favorite senate majority obstructionist, Mitch McConnell. Whether the GOP likes it or not, it is in everyone's best interests to be able to see a potential president's tax returns. We need to be certain that a president's economic interests do not get confused with our national interests. Trump is a prime example of why.
We can't change what happened but we can improve the process moving forward. What bothers me more than anything else is how much the GOP has supported Trump to date even as he continues to ramp up the racism and bigotry in America.
3
This sort of legislation is utterly overdue on a national basis!
Any "candidate" who's unwilling or unable to reveal to the US public how he / she made money and how much tax (if any!) paid is clearly unworthy of the people's trust as president! Or really for any important elective office.
What are they trying to hide? Sharp-dealing, blatant tax evasion, fraud?
5
Maybe the Supreme Court will disqualify the California electoral votes from being certified...that would be hilarious.
6
@Charlie based on what, exactly?
Trump does not expect to win California. He will withhold his returns, not appear on any ballots in California, and not care.
3
It seems that the current official position on state power versus federal power is very much decided by which side favors the republican's preferred outcome.
They don't want the fed helping states with more election security but they have no problem telling the states how to vet candidate applications.
2
The smart thing for Trump to do is to avoid disclosure by stying off the CA ballot. He ain’t going to win it, so why bother? Odds on him doing the smart thing, anyone?
2
@Stuart. But what if some purple states follow suit? Or even just other blue ones?
1
What is the difference if the president is on the ballot or not? There is no difference. CA has no role in the presidential election other than robotically voting democratic.
3
40 lawsuits are not enough. Trump’s criminality is a daily occurrence.
7
Those of us who live in Oregon are spoiled when it comes to voting: our ballots are mailed to us in a timely fashion with accompanying information about each candidate, issue, referendum .... and when we don’t see a candidate’s name on the ballot, there’s plenty of space to write it in.
If Mr. Trump’s name were left off my primary ballot (although, as a registered Democrat, I wouldn’t be getting that ballot) I could write it in. What’s the problem? Mr. Trump’s California supporters should be willing to pick up their pens at their voting venue, or, better yet, demand to see his tax returns.
3
@Anj
Yes, many times California has led our country.
Preserving natural beauty against over-development, working for affordable education of our citizens, avoiding unnecessary pollution when autos can be improved, are just a few of the ways California has illustratedits willingness to be a leader among us.
Now many other states can step up and show willingness to, by following the lead of a brave state.
6
Good. The GOP is defending McConnell's ignoring all election security bills because it would "undermine state determination of election protocols."
I'm fine with that as long as California gets to set its election protocols....like demanding the tax records Trump promised 3 years ago.
10
What a sad attempt to thwart the will of The People. This is California, so no one should be surprised.
6
So,the “will of the people” that put Trump in office the last election. Unsurprisingly, your (Trump boosting) evaluation of California’s initiative is absurd on it’s face.
6
@Mark but gerrymandering and voter suppression are cool, right?
This law would not stand in court against Trump for the simple fact that he is already the current President and would automatically be grandfathered in. The new law would only be enforced for new candidates.
2
I certainly expect this to be challenged in federal court … we'll see if this is judged on state's rights or "un" Constitutional?
1
Three cheers for California! And then three more! Of course Trump won’t care. He’s lost California anyway.
6
This should apply to all who hold public office including Mr Newsom and his Hearst friends
2
@RLS
Wrong.
Almost all presidential candidates, to this date, have voluntarily informed our voting American public of their tax returns.
We, the American public, have a right to know as much as possible about the man or woman we are placing into the most powerful position on this Earth.
Things change. In 2019, we communicate across the globe in a few seconds. We can accept millions of dollars from other countries, hidden as condo purchases, real estate purchases, etc. These should remain hidden, as we elect the leader of the Free World ?
This is not the 18th century when our Constitution was written. When a couple of bucks equaled influence. Things change. Functions might remain valuable.
We, the People, are still the People, as back then when men decided how the system should work. Those men were concerned about Function, not locking themselves in on words.
Your comment implies that you are concerned about exacting wordings, of our past rules, instead of about Function which is to have a government representative of The People.
California did not pass legislation about one candidate. They passed legislation about function, which is to move the election of the President of the United States into a position where we, the Electorate, knows a lot about the man or woman we are electing. Then that man, or woman, actually REPRESENTS US. Instead of representing undue influence from other countries.
We certainly don't deserve less.
7
I suspect trump will skip the California republican primary rather than disclose his tax returns. It won't affect his nomination or whether he is elected. Even he knows California will not be in his column.
This law only makes sense if it is the first of many, enacted is states he thinks he (and the Russians) will win.
7
Tax Returns often tell us a great deal about an individual. They are full of useful information - such as: "Has this person paid their fare share of taxes in the past?" Are they a cheater? If they are a cheater, do they qualify to rule over the land - rule over us? Everyone knows Donald Trump is a cheater, so it is only natural to assume there is a VERY, VERY high chance his tax returns reflect this. As an independent, I love this idea for all people running for public office. Show me you are not a cheat.
9
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits from doing states. States have pretty much rights to do anything as long as it is NOT discriminating. Having ALL candidates allows California. Additionally, Amendment 10 gives rights to states
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
2
I am not a big trump supporter but if I were him I wouldn’t even fight this. Don’t get on the ballot. He is not going to get any electoral votes out of California anyway. Let the next person running who doesn’t want his private documents turned over to he state and leaked to the media fight it. It will probably be a Democratic Party candidate.
3
@CHRIS it’ll be all of them. Did you even read the article?
Every critic of this law is forgetting one thing: California isn’t denying anyone from the ballot. Its just saying that since decency and transparency is no longer a given, we must legislate it. As they say, “This is why we can’t have nuce things.”
8
Or you can just let the people decide who to vote for. If they want to see tax returns then don’t vote for candidates who withhold them.
9
God, I'm dying of laughter!
"'Instead of trying to beat President Trump at the ballot box next November, he said, Democrats are resorting to gimmicky tactics that are unconstitutional, undemocratic and just plain dumb.”
Oh, does he mean things like gerrymandering and closing down polling stations as the Reps are doing?
18
States Rights plain and simple. Since the California Primary is... a CALIFORNIA PRIMARY... it's WELL within our legal right to conduct it in any way we see fit. This has NOTHING to do with the General Election. Everyone who is whining about how the Constitution spells out who can run for President... um, this isn't about that, so get over yourselves. We need to know if someone has been financially compromised by a foreign power or otherwise BEFORE they are allowed to be listed on OUR primary ballot. Trump is CLEARLY a prime example of probable fraud and treason revealed on his tax returns. In a democracy, the People have a right to know.
13
Trump spokesman calls this a "new qualification" for office and anything beyond the requirements as set forth in the Constitution are thus not allowed. The Constitution doesn't speak to the various state primary types - open vs party-line either. That could easily be construed as an additional requirement. Or that primaries are even required.....i.e. "I'm a candidate who wants to appear on the ballot in the General because the Constitution doesn't require primaries...." See how that "logic" flies in court.
2
What a joke. Trump did not win the electoral vote in California and most likely he will not in the next election either.
I also seriously doubt that by releasing his taxes will turn his base against him.
7
What is so wrong with requiring full disclosure and transparency from all of our elected officials? If you have nothing to hide, be transparent.
By the way, people knew what they were voting for with Trump. Tax returns or not, compromised, morally abhorrent or a choir boy... people voted for him because they knew who and what he is. Democrats playing games to get Hillary the nomination certainly pushed things in Trump's favor also. In my opinion.
Let's do better in 2020, please people.
2
The same could be said for the federal government collecting cell phone data. If you have nothing to hide.....
3
@CHRIS, Nothing to hide here. My son lived in NYC during the Boston Marathon bombing when those brothers wanted to do a repeat in Times Square. The authorities stopped them before they could inflict more carnage. Nothing to hide here.
Well, Trump doesn't need to be on the CA. ballot anyway. It would spare him the embarrassment of losing the state by 5 million votes.
4
It's good that states pass legislation like this. Trump and McConnell have shown us that we can no longer rely on the moral character of our politicians nor their respect for the rule of law. Keep these laws coming, because Trump and McConnell have shown that you can get away with just about anything.
7
Remember that it applies to all primaries for all offices. Republicans just run a token Democrat that would never win and cause a primary challenge. Then both candidates must reveal their taxes. Republicans look for incriminating evidence about the real Democrat candidate. Republicans run a candidate that is unopposed so needs no primary.
2
i have to wonder what the Federal Courts and government will do is the states behave like Trump and ignore court orders? if the courts rule the California and NY laws unconstitutional, and the States adhere to their laws and don't include non-compliant politicians on the primary ballots, what can anyone honestly do? Trump has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of court orders if one doesn't care about legalities. Trump ignores legal laws he doesn't like, yet the expects others to comply. It's time the criminal-in-chief understand that he cannot have his cake and eat out too. I'm for pushing this issue to the limit.
4
It's very disappointing that former Gov. Jerry Brown would trot out the fallacious "slippery slope" argument to veto the bill. Would he veto a bill requiring car insurance, saying "If we go down this path, the next thing you know the state will require you to obey speed limits. Where will it all end?"
1
Even without this law, how many electoral votes would Trump get? How many from any blue state?
Where this would make a difference is TEXAS.
4
Thank you California! All of the Blue States need to pass this same law. Let's rid our country of the conman and Moscow Mitch and all of their greedy,unethical sycophants.He who shall not be named, has already publicly stated he will welcome help from Russia in 2020. Time to Make America Great Again,time for our Environment to be protected again,time for our healthcare to be reformed,time for the corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, time for us the working and middle classes to reclaim our country,for us,for our children and our grandchildren.
4
Trump sues and wins; once again, a waste of precious taxpayer's money and time.
California always votes Blue, which Newsom obviously knows; this little fit of his accomplishes nothing.
3
Good law. Should have been on there all along in every state. Yeah!!!
7
Does Newsom know about the U.S.Constitution? Another political stunt from a guy who seems to have nothing better to do. How about cleaning up your streets?
4
@J. G. Smith You are wrong. Every state has its own court ratified ballot qualification laws. This is just one more, and Moscow Mitch is on record for fiercely protecting "States' rights" in this fight.
9
it's not that simple. The other State laws on ballot qualifications don't come close to conflicting with the Constitution, as this one does
1
Beto will need to show his allowance from his father-in law if he lasts until the California primary.
7
China, if you are reading this, get your friends in APT 10 to acquire Trump's tax returns ahead of the CA deadline. Heck, ya'll are such financial wizards, I bet you could come up with some fake tax returns for Trump, forcing him to release his own tax returns.
Unless, China, you'd like to see Trump have a second term...
2
A lot has happened since the US Constitution was written, including giving women and people of color the right to vote. Time to update qualifications for a person to be eligible to run for president. To qualify: Number one, must submit a minimum of 5 years of tax returns. Number 2, must take a written exam about the Constitution including sections on government and the history of the US. Number 3, must take a psychological evaluation test to determine their mental acuity to even be considered a candidate for POTUS. Number 4, one cannot have any connections to any transactions that could lead to profiting from, including businesses they personally own while in the White House. If the candidate fails any one of the 4 parts, they are immediately removed and not eligible to run for the office.
We found out what happen in 2016 when an incompetent, mentally disturbed liar became eligible to run for president and should have never been placed on the ballot.
6
Surprise surprise! Democrats are on exactly the same side of the argument they were on with the Mississippi Voter Application & Literacy Test.
2
If what you are saying is true I love it (paraphrasing)
1
This is a great idea! It’s the best thing since the Civil Rights Act of 1964! Turning over your taxes for the perusal of the voters should be a prerequisite for running for president, as should divesting yourself of your businesses! What? There’s already a law for that? Who’d have thunk it?
1
Can my fellow readers imagine a red state requiring a hard copy of a birth certificate or college transcripts in order to be on the ballot 11 years ago? Didn’t think so.
4
I am a reluctant Trump supporter, mostly due to the insane delusions the Dems have assumed of late. I recall the utter contempt they spat at those who were interested in why President Obama's college transcripts were relegated to Fort Knox. Why would we want to see them? We are racists obviously.
It is getting more than old. Tip: Well-adjusted voters find their aversion to Trump eclipsed by the revulsion of 24/7 Democrat hypocrisy and flat-out rattlesnake meanness as exhibited in 97% of these comments.
5
Can the federal government sue California lawmakers for costs associated with overturning this nonsense?
4
Alaska's Lisa Murkowski won her write-in campaign without having to sue the state.
No one owed Lisa anything and she won anyway.
Ultimately, having your name printed on a ballot is a privilege, not a right, and one which is at the discretion of state government to fulfill as they please.
Whether or not you have your name printed on a ballot, lack of a printed name does not prevent you from running for office or — as Alaska proved — prevent voters from writing your name in.
At this juncture, the only thing that bails out the corrupt president is a corrupt Supreme Court — which he has in his pocket, admittedly.
But hopefully this long-overdue act will draw enough attention to his violation of public trust, such that other states will exercise their own states' rights and enact similar obligations on candidates for public office.
4
California, once again, may lead the rest of the states out of the dark ages part II.
4
retired federal attorney F/70
"release their tax returns in order to be placed on the ballot for the primary next year." The "primary" qualifier may be CA's ticket to escape getting whacked by SCOTUS.
Hide and watch?
Right now, attorneys like me are paying attention to a quiet capable NY State AG who is preparing to land on the man in TWH and his kids and cronies within hours of swearing in the person who will pick up the debris left by Moscow Mitch and his malignant narcissist ally. No drama. Just bulletproof competence.
5
Bravo, brvo, Gov. Newsom. To catch a con man, some creativity is needed. I hope other states soon follow California's lead.
4
Gavin Newsom did wonders for San Francisco (sarcasm). Can’t wait to see what he does with the sanctuary state of California.
6
As a San Franciscan I can assure you that our pretty boy was really just an alcoholic womanizer while mayor.
4
Why would Biden be kept off of the California primary ballot. Has he refused to release his tax returns?
3
Whenever I accepted a contract job with a DOD project I had to undergo a deep security investigation and a drug test. Why are politician exempted from this?
13
Interesting -- trying to, as a single state, eliminate a candidate for a national election. Newsom must think that the remainder of the states will follow suit and keep Trump off the ballot.
Naïve at best, duped by the party, a delusion of grandeur... desperation maybe??
2
@Samuel. Go back and read the article again. It would not eliminate a candidate from a national election. It wouldn’t even eliminate a candidate from a state election; it just wouldn’t print the name on a ballot. Plenty of room to write in “Trump”.
Excellent requirement. If Trump is shameless enough to want to run again for 2020, his tax returns so jealously guarded thus far, will most likely reveal that he is a crook and that he has been cheating on his taxes for years. This revelation ought to make Trump incompatible as a candidate...although quite eligible to pay up for his 'crimes'. Justice, however long it's arc, may come to fruition after all. Sweet!
4
Did you ever go through the process of casting a write-in vote. It requires a lot more effort than a lever.
People have lives to attend to.
I don’t see the point. President trump has repeatedly said he has absolutely nothing to hide, which is why he will release his tax returns once the IRS is done auditing them, why he complies with all Congressional subpoenas, why he met for hours with special counsel Mueller to answer questions truthfully, and ... oh, sorry. Forgot where I was for a moment.
7
@Religionistherootofallevil He can release his returns while under audit. My boyfriend was an auditor. He would have to release them for a loan. This is a tired argument and a lie by Trump.
3
@Sharon. Although, why isn’t anyone concerned that he’s been “under audit” for more than 3 years?
1
Since we have a political party that supports and defends presidential behavior that flagrantly and repeatedly violates the constitution with demonstrable emoluments and not only accepting but soliciting aid from hostile foreign powers, with a refusal to listen to our intelligence, our law enforcement, and other agencies meant to defend our rights under the Constitution, and the candidate is eligible to run but simply not have their name in a position on the ballot, it seems reasonable to be able to run for election as a write-in. Nothing prohibits our president from running as a write-in candidate. I read nothing in the new law about votes for write-in candidates not being duly counted. Where is the unconstitutional part, please?
1
This is delicious! Particularly since California pays 40% (!!!!) of the entire USA budget which means we Californians also pay 40% of Trump's salary.
12
I don’t think Trump has ever accept a salary while POTUS...it all gets donated.
5
What is the difference, Trump is going to lose California anyway.
1
@G.S.: This new law only applies to primaries, not the general election.
1
What's next? Mandatory disclosure by candidates of (i) results of DNA tests, (ii) family history of mental and other illnesses and (iii) traffic tickets.
4
Sure, why not.
3
Yeah, who would want to know if your candidate is lying, in debt to a foreign country, or otherwise compromised? Golly! That would be like demanding someone’s long-form birth certificate! Oh, my! Rules dOn’t apply to the GOP.
6
@John Horvath a tax return reveals none of those things. The only reason tax returns became a thing was to prove the politicians were paying their taxes.
1
It doesn’t matter to trump or the campaign, they know they won’t win California.
@Traisea: This new law doesn't apply to the general election, just the primaries.
1
@retnavybrat which means its pointless. Political parties are not beholden to the results of a primary.
1
Trump has no hope of winning California. Therefor he will not release his tax information. The matter can they be litigated to SCOTUS where Trump’s judicial puppets will protect their master.
2
Surely the audits from 2015 and earlier are finished. Trump supporters need to admit he lied to them about releasing those returns.
Just as he lied to them that Mexico will pay for a Wall!
5
Thus suppressing the vote of those who wanted to vote Republican.
Democrats are voter suppressors now.
Not like it matters. that state will vote for Marylin Manson if he runs as a Democrat.
3
@AutumnLeaf really? You realize we are the home of such GOP stars as Devin Nunes, Duncan Hunter, and Darryl Issa - three real republican gems..The entire central valley is red. And how in the world would it be voter suppression to have knowledge of tax returns is totally beyond me.
6
@AutumnLeaf: Only suppressing the vote of those who wanted to vote for Trump in California's Republican primary. Going on the (sadly) forgone conclusion that Trump will be the Republican party's nominee regardless, people will still be able to vote for him in the general election.
@AutumnLeaf You make it sound like Republicans know what they want. From where I stand looking in, they appear happy to be told how to vote.
4
This is a pathetic and undemocratic action by my home State. I absolutely despise Trump, but a horrendously partisan State Government acting to limit the options of an opposing political party is a deal with the devil. Trump should absolutely release his tax returns. He should have in 2015. But if people still wish to vote for a con man who will not disclose the source of his wealth and financial entanglements (that so obviously affect his decision and policy making) then that is their choice to make, not Governor Newsom's. Shame on him and the State of California.
5
Great one, California!!
5
Hip hip hooray! Three cheers for democracy!
5
I don’t know if adding roadblocks the democratic process and requiring that individuals turn over their private documents is something to celebrate.
3
Thank you, California !
6
So California is pushing for illegal aliens to vote and to block the President for running for reelection. Quite a place.
5
Illegal. Will be fun to see Trump stick it to Cali. Again.
2
I love our governor!
4
Ok, remaining 49 states: Let's go for it!
7
LOL, very clever!
3
Hurrah, this is one small step in the right direction. Cheats, bigots, racists. beware.... California is the 6th largest economy in the WORLD.
5
Not to worry. A committee in Moscow is strategizing on disinformation responses to this challenge to their main man in Washington.
5
California: 1 Trump: 0
4
Yeah, that's really gonna happen to the Liar-In-Chief! You know he'll find some way to weasel out of it, with the help of his boot licking friends in the Senate! Our democracy is crumbling around us and those that should be protecting it are all missing in action. God help us!
2
Huge congratulations to California for leading the nation by codifying this recently-trampled precedent. We the voters need to know if our President is corrupt or has foreign entanglements and this is the best way to do it.
This requirement would not prevent anyone from voting for their candidate of choice. A voter can always write in their candidate. The law would only stop the state from pre-printing of non-compliant candidates names in the state ballot.
In addition, here are a few of the numerous reasons why this requirement is on sound legal foundation.
1) The core justification for such a law is provided by the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 ) of the US. constitution. The clause states “No Person holding any Office of…Trust, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument…from any …foreign State.”
2) This requirement is likely constitutional (according to at least one AG and numerous legal scholars) as it is merely an extension of the existing 1978 Ethics in Government Act that requires financial disclosure and which was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1988.
3) Presidential tax returns transparency is not novel or unduly-burdensome – Presidents have been required to release financial disclosure files since the 1978 Ethics in Gov’t Act, which was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1988.
Visit presidentialtransparency.org to assist in the passage of this and other similar state laws.
3
Great! The State of New York needs to do the same!
5
Kudos for California’s attempt to be pro-active. I think the DNC should have a nationwide contest for people to think up constructive legal barriers to Trump’s candidacy.
3
GOP loves to talk about state's rights until they don't like the outcome. They are all for state's rights as long as those policies ensure racial, gender and sexual discrimination, but as soon as those "rights" are applied elsewhere, they have a fit.
2
Someone's tax returns will tell you more about a candidate than 20 months of campaigning.
It's the law we all need.
They want us to vote and they want us to be informed. This law will do that.
Call it a candidate's resume. And if they want the job, then submit the proper paperwork.
It wasn't in the Constitution because very few people even had tax returns.
4
Passing legislation to attack just one candidate is going to be another thing that blows up in Demo’s faces. Why oh why make this clown a martyr? This smacks of Demo desperation, and that’s not good.
21
@RLS: Reading comprehension fail: this law requires all candidates for POTUS to release their tax returns.
40
@RLS
What makes you think this targets only one person? After all, it requires ALL candidates who wish to be on the primary ballot to release their tax returns. Oh! That's right! Silly me, I sometimes forget that Trump is a lying thief who has everything to hide.
Trump doesn't have to be on California's primary ballot if he is too scared to release his tax returns.
29
@RLS
READ the article. ALL candidates, not just Triump.
23
Well, since the California law is only about primaries and the Constitution delegates the election of a president to the Electoral College, what's the problem?
2
Get serious. States can't dream up their own requirements for federal offices.
5
They can do this for State-run primaries. Just ask Moscow Mitch McConnell. This is the basis for his blocking voter security laws. In fact there are a whole raft of different state regulations on primaries and ballot access that have been regularly held up in court.
4
Yeah. Get real. Just because Congress didn’t authorize money for the military to be used to build a wall doesn’t mean a person named Trump can’t just steal it from the people. Get real! Like Moscow Mitch!
This is a mistake. Trump will lose California anyway, so this move will not force him to release his taxes. However, now the state's vote total will be meaningless. In case Trump wins again, we won't know what the popular voter total differential really is, which would be important to argue to eliminate the electoral college. More likely, I believe Trump will lose and he should be beaten with all states participating to remove the possibility of him claiming the results are not valid.
1
"California Requires Trump Tax Returns Under New Election Law"
This headline is somewhat misleading.
It should read "California Requires Trump Tax Returns Under New Election Law, if he wants his name PRINTED on the ballot, otherwise he can run as a write-in"
2
Doesn't Moscow Mich maintain that the Feds should not meddle in States voting.
3
Does Trump need to run in CA? He cares nothing for the down ballot and certainly isn't planning on garnering many CA votes in the presidential election. He can just thumb his nose at the state.
4
What's the point? California will go to the Democratic candidate anyway. Trump doesn't need California anymore than it needs my state (Oregon) or many of the other blue states. Our votes simply don't count in a presidential elections.
3
@RD As it stands, the measure is a requirement for the primary election, *not* the general. That makes it relevant for Republicans... in theory. In practice, there's not usually much of a primary to speak of for incumbent presidents seeking a second term, so Trump is, ironically, the one person that this uniquely doesn't affect.
3
Welcome to reality
1
Why this law will fail, and be repealed:
1) The Republicans will simply forego a California primary and they will get no delegates to the convention, not just 2020, but for as long as it takes.
2) The Democrats will have to reveal theirs, as well. Hmmm...
4
thoughtful
1
Dems already release their tax returns...
2
He wouldn't have won CA anyway, so he won't fight this. Fighting it would only serve to help a future candidate who doesn't want to reveal his taxes and could conceivably win CA. Since Trump has never done anything for another human, ever, he will just yell at the TV but not sue.
Nice :) a taste of their own medicine. I'm looking forward to hearing why a candidate shouldn't have to share their tax return to run for office, all awhile being in favour of every voter having to show their ID to vote
2
Not sure about this one, I think this will end up causing the taxpayers to pay for the lawsuits with a loss to the state of California.
3
@VS
Time, my friend, is not on Trump's side. Ask how long it takes to get on the supreme court's docket. Then ask how many months before the election.
1
The GOP is always touting that the states can do things better than the federal government, except this time no doubt.
2
So the Republican Supreme Court and Moscow Mitch think it is constitutional to permit voter suppression , gerrymander districts, rig elections, allow for elections to be bought by those with deep pockets and ignore the impact of Russian interference in elections, but requiring candidates to release their tax returns to be on the ballot of a primary election is unconstitutional? Only those steeped in Thomistic hair splitting could find this logical. No doubt members of the Federalist Society are experts at this.
4
This is on small baby step to doing what needs to be done nationally. I would hope that every state enacts such legislation. We certainly cannot expect our useless congress to do anything.
Voters should have the right to know from what sources do their representatives get their money.
4
How many electoral college votes does CA have..and does it get split, by party, or is it winner take all - could Trump just consider our state to be an electoral college write-off?
Baby trump will be tweeting away with those small fingers and mind tomorrow in the early hours of the am. He needs to watch Fox tonight for his daily cabinet briefing. What wonderful news!
2
So "Moscow Mitch" is opposed to Federal interference in State election procedures when it comes to protecting the US from foreign interference? Let's see how this one goes.
I kind of wish California had been a little bit more creative, though. Like have a multi-page ballot and put the people who released the most tax returns (up to some maximum) on page 1, fewer on page 2 ... and after a bunch of "this page left intentionally blank", on page 10, the people who didn't release any tax returns. That'd be more amusing, at least.
2
It’s funny/sad that most people see this law through the lens of D or R. But laws like this, targeting one particular candidate, will start to become the norm if this is allowed. Not a Trump fan, but laws like this open Pandora’s box.
2
@Bk2
As opposed to the future of all Republican candidates refusing to show their tax returns since Trump got away will it?
1
@walrus15
If the law is that important, you make it starting in 2022. Laws with one person in mind set a horrible precedent.
1
I'm not confident this will stand up to constitutional muster. I'm reminded of the Arkansas term limits case.
1
I think we should stop making everything that happens in the country about Trump. The Law passed in California doesn't go far enough to make sure we elect the competent candidate who is also loyal to the Country, though this is the first of such steps.
We need additional requirement to run for Congress and the Presidency. Minimum of 15 years of Tax Returns, some kind of test regarding the US Constitution, and the role and responsibilities of the position they are seeking, Birth Certificate (for presidential candidate), Criminal conduct history etc. A person having business dealing with a foreign country, or convicted of any kind of tax or other fraud should automatically be disqualified from running for any public office.
This shouldn't even be a partisan issue.
2
All well and good. However this is California and since he is most likely not being primaried or will be able to use the electoral votes to get to 280. What stops the president from skipping California all together? Great sentiment and great safeguard for 2024. Just not sure it will matter in 2020.
Be careful what you wish for. As much as you might like Trump's tax returns made public to demonstrate he is, in fact, a lousy businessman, do you really want returns compelled to be made public? Today it might just be candidates, but tomorrow it could be anyone.
In reality, most of us have enough trouble figuring out our own taxes. The odds of figuring out Trump's are close to zero. Thus we would be relying on some third party to do it, and in all likelihood everyone would end up believing the spin from whatever echo chamber source they already get their news from.
No one is going to change his or her mind based on Trump's returns. All harping on the issue does is to continue to let him define the electoral narrative.
Taxes should be used to raise revenue, nothing else. Instead of the thousand pages of the current tax code, there should be a couple simple pages treating all income the same and offering no exemptions or credits. Federal policy should be made by Congress through appropriations, where everyone has to go on record. If the desire is to support specific social or economic policies, that should be done through legislation, not a Byzantine tax code that no one understands, that is open to huge lobbying, and that thus garners no respect. A graduated income tax should be the extent of the tax code.
You want the taxing structure to be easy, clear, and fair, so that Americans will not feel they should shun paying taxes because it favors "the other guy."
3
@Steve Fankuchen. No one is asking for the average American to calculate and parse Spanky's taxes! We are asking to see WHERE his alleged money comes FROM, and where it GOES. Presumably the IRS already has this, ribbon and bow. If there are arcane topics, well, that is what forensic accountants are paid well to discover.
We are already "vetted" for jobs on the dubious debits and credits of OUR "credit reports", why should the highest Office in our land be less.scrutinized???
I haven’t read the legislation, but…
I presume this would keep Trump off of California’s ballot, as states can set requirements for candidates to appear on ballots.
I don’t think it would prevent write-in voting for Trump. I’m pretty sure states can’t prohibit voters from picking a presidential candidate of their choice, so long as the Federal requirements for the office are met.
1
@ridgeguy
have you read the story? "legislation requiring that" candidates release their tax returns in order to be placed on the PRIMARY ballot "next year."
So that would include Bill Weld (R) former Governor of MA and R candidate for President and the man in TWH, but only IF he chooses to be on the CA primary ballot.
Anybody who chooses to do so can write whatever they wish on a machine-read ballot. Machines then count the tiny little spaces where the lead pencil mark shows up. Really! That's a fact!!
retired federal attorney F/70
Thank you to my Governor for leading the way. Now let's see other states follow suit. The future of our country is at stake!
3
Thank you, California, for leading once again. All candidates for our highest office, of any party, should be an open book. If they can’t handle that they shouldn’t be POTUS
5
Is the law constitutional? States can certainly set some requirements for candidates, such as that they must have a certain number of signatures in each county and pay a fee and so forth.
Perhaps it is relevant that the state pays for this election. The parties could pay for their own primaries, or caucuses, or convention, or whatever. Then they would have more of a right to set rules.
I do not know where the line must be drawn.
4
This purely political. Trump will never win in California. Having his name on the ballot is merely a formality.
2
You actually mean us President Trump doesn’t need California for another 4 more years...
But in truth California is practicing a form of Voter Suppression because not all eligible voters may not know they can write him in in the ballot.
3
If my contributions to political campaigns must be publicly available information, why are documents detailing the source of income or wealth of candidates for political office not similarly made public? After all, if we disclose campaign donations because we believe candidates are influenced by their donors, shouldn't we also believe the candidates are likely to be influenced by the source of their income/wealth?
16
Oh yes please. First, I have to admit to making a comment prior to reading the entire article. It is unusual for me but the headline is so attention-grabbing that I can't help but simply say about time!
2
God bless you, California! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
4
legislation as a deliberate political weapon again. The constitution rightly forbids legislation deliberately targeting one person. Legislative measures out of spite are a horrific threat to our rule of law. Trump’s buffoonery, “this too shall pass”
Dems destruction of rule of law. Endless chaos may ensue. Awful. Shame on Dem.
5
@Joey The requirement to release tax returns applies to anyone who wishes to run for President. Reading comprehension is tough, I know...
2
Require it all
Medical records
Birth certificate
College transcript
Tax returns
Military record
The American people deserve to know who they are voting for- why not?
8
California would have a better chance trying to secede from the US.
4
Brilliant. Keep the bigot off the ballot in 2020!!!!
Let the law suit begin.
4
This is stupid posturing and needless waste of time. Trump will run unopposed in the primary so he will simply forego getting the CA ballot and still win the nomination.
What we need is a Democrat with enough balls and wits to get into a brawl with him. Come up with a good insulting nickname (Dumb Donald comes to mind, with Slow Donald, Rich Donald, and Lying Donald as good alternatives to spice it up) and use it to refer to him all the time. Never call him "president Trump", if you can't call him Donald then call him Trump. Your crowds would love to chant "Dumb Donald" and "lock him up", believe me. Because the Democratic base is as undiscerning as the Republican base. It is not below the dignity of the office, "believe me".
2
@Groovygeek
It's a bit long but how about, "It's not just his hands that are small!"
Maybe President MiniWanger" would be better. And audiences could chant, "Show us your stuff, if you have any."
Actually "Chicken Little" would be good, and audiences could chant, "Buk buk buk."
Alas, the Democrats seem only adept at forming a circular firing squad, much easier than going after a wimp who'll fight back hard and dirty from behind a protective shield.
1
Note that we don't vote for a presidential candidate, but for electors pledged to a candidate. If the Republicans were to choose electors "pledged to" a popular Democrat they might stand a chance of getting those electors voted in to the Electoral College - a better chance than if the electors were pledged to Donald Trump. And unless the law has changed very recently, there is no penalty for being a "faithless elector" in California.
1
They’re talking about the primary.
No electors.
1
For all those who think this is an extra qualification to run for office - you're conflating different things. A qualification is something that would prohibits someone from running because of who they are (age, citizenship, incumbency).
This law does not purport to bar anyone from running. It simply adds a documentation/paperwork requirement which any US citizen with income will be able to meet.
6
I’d prefer they require a test demonstrating knowledge of domestic and international policy, the US Constitution, and English literacy. And, require all candidates to explain the Schoolhouse Rock video, “How a Bill Becomes a Law”.
12
Or at the very least, pass the citizenship exam.
1
A good college try, but ineffective as it would set a precedent with all sorts of consequences, none good. Best for voters to just say no to candidates who’re not transparent.
4
@Ted That worked so well in 2016. Why not, just say no to candidates who lie 75% of the time their mouths are open. Oh, that would single out one candidate from running, right? Can't think of any downside to the tax return requirement, anxious to hear some. One good consequence, you could not lie and say you can fix things because you are a brilliant, wealthy businessman - who doesn't like those guys? - when your financial record shows failure after dismal failure, overextension of debt, exaggerating assets for loan approvals and hiding the same at tax time, and sources of income from foreigners who just might be in need of a little USA money down the road. Sounds like a good thing to me.
California is a garden of Eden,
A paradise to live in or to see,
But believe it or not,
You won’t find it so hot
If you don’t got (the tax returns showing)
The do-re-me
With parenthetical apologies to Woody Guthrie
3
Trump derangement syndrome going to unprecedented levels. Does anyone think this will make one bit of difference? The governor should focus his energy on affordable housing and other value adding activities.
6
It sends a message. Like Tweeting inanities at dawn because you saw it on Fox. It’s called messaging. Because it involves making a statement. And sending a message. You know, to those who hide their taxes and other financial information important to the electorate. It sends them a message. The message is, when you run for President, you shouldn’t hide your taxes, especially when you say you will reveal them. It’s like that. A message.
1
As others have observed, Trump doesn't need to enter, let alone win, the California Republican primary. He'll be the Republican candidate in the nationals. A nice gesture by my home state, but it's the Democratic primary in California that really matters.
What would make the news would be a viable other Republican candidate being on the ballot in a number of states, all of which adopted the "California" standard. Then at least the Republican slate would be interesting. As things stand, "Love Trump or Leave It!" (another take on the "Go back to where you came from!" admonition) will spell the death knell of the Republican Party as we knew it. Will the Democrats clean up? Probably, but not without some major changes. Like doable big ideas to make life better for the 90% of Americans who aren't billionaires or their hired help.
the end of the GOP has be prophesized before and they keep coming back to the table...
I'm curious as to how all those who are really keen on states' rights for all things handle it when states they don't agree with start to exercise their authority. When you ask for something, you should really prepare yourself for what you're going to get.
179
@Steve: Brilliant! Thank you.
10
@Steve
They even go further: they try to make their state laws to become federal. As in pushing their anti-abortion laws to be decided by GOP Supreme Court.
6
@Steve. I believe the phrase you are looking for is:::
Hoist on their own petard.
4
Let's see how well the GOP's "less government" intrusion mantra works out on this one?
101
@sunburst68
Not a Trump fan, but if this law is allowed there will be more coming and in places you might not like. And this law isn’t actually “less government”. It’s more.
3
If public school teachers must have their income information available to the public, anyone running for the most powerful office in the country should have likewise.
284
@Gustav Aschenbach
In what state are teachers required to make their tax returns public?
9
@Gustav Aschenbach
They have their State pay available. Not their tax return. Not their private income. Trump’s salary is available. I wish he’d release his returns too, but your post isn’t about equivalents.
12
@Gustav Aschenbach all government employees information is publicly available, including President Trump’s. That schoolteacher does not, however, have to disclose their tax return. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
8
The US Constitution describes the criteria to be the US President. The States set criteria for voters not the US President.
90
@smitty: No one is prohibiting anyone from running for president, only from the privilege of having their name printed on the ballot at the EXPENSE OF THE STATE.
Feel free to write Trump's name in, if you like.
64
@smitty there’s also an emoluments clause so maybe the document has been voided
13
@Thomas C.
You are clearly establishing a disadvantage for someone you don't like with this rule and now you are trying to be coy about it.
That is shameful.
3
Once you decide to run for the office of President, you are no longer a private member of society - you are public figure who should disclose critical information to the public. That includes your health and financial records. If you don't want to disclose them, don't run.
268
what does decide to run for public office mean?
1
@BMD
FDR wasn't open about his physical condition, and he did all right. :)
5
What if you are a mayor of a city? Should you be required to turn over your private medical records to the government? A mayor is important. We wouldn’t want someone with a medical disability like clinical depression or HIV running something important. If you were looking to get into public service would you want me going through your medical reports?
5
Though I am a fan of Gavin Newsome, I am not sure about this law. It probably won't stand against constitutional challenges and might even help Trump in the long run. What I would like to see is a requirement that each candidate pass a written, non-essay test. That test to be in a format similar to licensure exams and would be comprised of multiple sections. It would include the current citizenship exam, a history exam, and a section about basic knowledge of the Constitution, particularly about the resonsibilities of the president and the composition of the U.S. government. The test would be proctored by a single, impartial individual. Most likely that would need to be a Buddhist teacher. Such a requirement would narrow the playing field considerably.
77
@Val The Mississippi Voter Application & Literacy Test also narrowed the playing field considerably.
7
@Val Really how are you a fan.... Are you on board with me paying for illegal aliens receiving health care? I am not...
I am not a 'fan' of Newsome...
6
@Val - So submitting basic tax returns, FACTUAL financial info that every previous candidate has done, is against the constitution (based on what?), but your long-winded multi-part, Buddhist administered test is not? LOL. And 4 people actually agree with you. Unreal.
5
I love California! It really should be the law that all candidates show tax returns especially with this global economy. If someone sincerely wants to serve this country by serving in congress or as president than they should be prepared to divest/or put in real blind trusts their companies and concentrate full time on this country and it's concerns. If you don't feel that way then you shouldn't run. It's a privilege to be elected and it is a service to govern. This country has so much government money slushing around it is very easy for an unethical or compromised person to take advantage of us.
159
@sec Witness Mafia Don, who sees the government as his personal ATM.
15
Ideally, every state should pass such a law. After all, Republicans are all in for states rights when it comes to national elections. Surely they are interested in assuring their constituents of the integrity of those who would be national leaders. Right?
235
@PW Republicans, and more importantly conservatives, do not stand for states passing unconstitutional laws. If you want to change the requirement to be President, amend the Constitution.
If you were right, then things like banning gay marriage couldn’t be unconstitutional. But we know what the courts said about that.
@Bill
States have the authority to set their own rules regarding elections, including presidential elections. Your analogy is irrelevant. And you are not the arbiter of constitutionality.
5
@Bill they’re not changing any requirements to be president, they’re changing requirements to be allowed on the ballot.
2
Let’s see. The latest Supreme Court decision allowing states to set “voting districts” infers that states can set the ballot and voting requirements.
So here’s the question: if gerrymandering has been upheld by the Supreme Court using the argument of states rights, then states should be able to set ballot requirements?
Sounds like requiring a candidate to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the ballot is perfectly constitutional.
376
@FDNYMom A very sharp observation!
15
@FDNYMom
Interesting.
4
Once again, be careful what you wish for. The Republicans wanted to rig the election. What will Trump say in the debates when he promises he will release his tax returns?
4
The tax returns would show whether a candidate was bought and paid for. I'd like to know before I vote.
440
@pointofdiscovery no they wouldn’t, as there’s no requirement to disclose sources of income on a tax return. You’d have a big honking income number then everyone would speculate as to where that came from.
@Bill: Actually, all income is documented in tax forms. So no speculation required>
Your point is what is NOT claimed on a tax return.
4
@Bill
Cool. Should be even less an issue than. So what’s holding him up?
2
This requirement (new law) does not preclude the candidate from the write in option. But it does send notice that states like California will not be manipulated by scammers and conmen (like 45*). I'm hoping more US States initiate these type of rules and force the public to acknowledge the serious issues at hand.
6
The law is perfectly constitutional. The Constitution leaves whatever is not printed in the text for the states to decide. Mr. Murtaugh is incorrect.
5
@Anthony the Constitution clearly spells out the requirement to be President. Anything more restrictive than what is written in the Constitution therefore deprives an American of his right to run for that office. It’s clearly unconstitutional.
1
Nice try - but Trump wouldn't give a hoot. There is no Republican contender against him and he would lose the electoral vote in deep blue California. His returns were prepared by CPA's anyway and are probably perfectly legal, although outrageous.
Besides, I'd rather see his grade school report cards rather than his tax returns.
1
@styleman There is currently one contender against the parasite, Bill Weld. If there are any other principled Republicans, there might be one more by next year.
1
@styleman True that it would not affect Trump directly, but down-ballot Republicans might be in trouble. Lack of a candidate on the top spot could hurt GOP turnout.
"...California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election" -
Voters can always write in the candidate of their choice.
1
@sequoia000 you are just wrong. Almost all states that have a primary have requirements to get on the ballot that the constitution does not mention. In Illinois for instance, a presidential candidate must petition to get on his or her party's primary ballot. Between 3,000 and 5,000 primary voters belonging to the candidate's party must sign the petition. So states can and do tell poltical parties which candidates their members can vote for (of course, there is always the write in option).
3
@R Kling
That statement was a quote from the article by Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign. And I agree with you that he IS wrong!
2
At last a contingency that will make it so trump must submit his tax returns in order to be on the ballot in a state.
Our president is NOT going to like this!
He either must release his tax returns or his name will not be on the ballot.
2
This law is about addressing a norm violation.
Because the president violated this very important norm, it must be legislated. If he had respected it, there would be no need for the law, but here we are.
9
I'm all for the states exercising the powers ascribed to them under the Constitution - especially those powers that have been usurped by all three of the federal branches of the government.
However, requiring the disclosure of tax returns, is just another level of intrusive government overreach, in this instance at the state level.
California new law, as with so many of these disclosure requirements, are violations of individual's right to privacy.
It is galling that so many office seekers or appointees are forced to disclose so much when running for or being appointed to government jobs. So many qualified people just say no to government service. And, yet these regulations are more often serving no purpose other than for cover when something goes wrong - which by then its too late.
Further, all these disclosure requirements haven't stopped the likes of the Cheneys, the Clintons, the Cuomos, etc. from amassing huge fortunes during or after their stint in 'public service'.
Sad!
@Common Sense If you can't handle the honest disclosure required by public office, don't seek office. Most people don't. Very easy.
4
@Common Sense Then can public school teachers also have the privacy? We're required to have our income available to the public. We have no choice about it.
Bravo Governor Newsom. Let’s see if the eely Cuomo will follow suit. All blue state governors should do the same. Even if it is pro forma in some sense it will give a strong message to the other states and their governors.
A crook cannot be president. Without checking someone's taxes it is hard to make that determination.
Our election laws have to change. If we didn’t learn from the Trump presidency we will never learn!
5
Trump can not win California anyway, so he'll just opt to not be on the ballot and it won't matter.
4
The income tax code and income tax returns are a reflection of national public policy.
Citizens deserve to see what kind of public policy Presidential candidates indulge in via our income tax code.
Show us your tax returns, Donald, so America can see what kind of taxpayer you are and what kind of public policy you indulge in.
9
I’m somewhat torn about this. It’s pretty extreme to deny a major party nominee a position on the ballot. But on the other side of the coin is: just release your tax returns and it will be a mute point.
The Democratic People's Republic of California has hit hard, fast and true against American Czar wannabe Donald Trump.
By failing to declare, disclose and divest his personal assets into a blind trust you can't tell where Trump Mar-a-Lago ends and Trump White House begins.
Time that the American people knew what Trump Organization profitable advantage arising from his occupation of the Oval Office of the White House Donald Trump is hiding in his income tax returns and business accounting financial records.
The American people have a right to know as much about Trump's conflicts of interest as Chinese, Israeli, North Korean and Russian intelligence.
Except for all of the Trump Organization collusion to get in the White House there was no collusion.
Except for all of the Trump Administration obstruction of justice regarding Trump Organization collusion there was no obstruction of justice.
Trump infamously said that he only wanted men wearing yarmulkes watching his money. And he has surrounded himself with a chosen select seemingly impenetrable scheme of scoundrels in his private and public venues to fulfill that scheme.
Times up!
3
I love it!
5
Just, moral, ethical, perfect.
5
States rights comes back to bite its Republican parents
5
SWEET!!
Dear God, thank you for causing me to be a citizen of California.
Newsom for President, 2028.
4
The idea is no more absurd than who inhabits the White House.
2
Yeah this is unconstitutional
3
I think the fourth amendment will stand strong against this law. Clown stuff here again in California.
2
@Eric. I don’t agree based on the latest Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering. The arguments are the same: states using their rights to set candidate ballot requirements.
3
@FDNYMom states using their authority to draw districts is far different from adding requirements to be President. The law is blatantly unconstitutional, even Jerry Brown refused to sign it on those grounds and for the precedent it would set.
It’s brilliant. I love California! The State conservatives lose their mind over. CFTA. Solar! Education! Rockets! Apple! Leading the way! Go Governor N!
5
What a sad, silly, unconstitutional publicity stunt. Trump Derangement Syndrome is hitting new highs.
4
Good luck with that !
1
Good for California.
3
California, telling Trump to sell it somewhere else! Enough with the lies & obfuscation.
1
Hot Diggity!!! Love it!!!
2
At last an intelligent idea !
2
Man, I love California!!!!
1
Why is California still even a state? Why dont they just secede already? Can the rest of the country vote them out of the union?
4
California to Trump: ‘I call you!’
2
Disenfranchising your entire population in one motion. Congratulations
1
Yes!
2
Trump would be yelling racism from the top of his lungs if Governor Newsom were black. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
4
at least newsome is trying to do something
4
This might be an interesting subject to be raised at the Democratic debates tonight and tomorrow, especially for former California Attorney General Kamala Harris and former law professor Elizabeth Warren to address. (The law is patently unconstitutional, as only the United States Constitution can set forth requirements for a federal office such as President. If this sounds unfair to you, ask yourself if you would like Mississippi to pass a law saying that only male candidates can be on the ballot for President).
1
@Richard. Given the supreme courts latest decision on gerrymandering, I wouldn’t be so sure this is unconstitutional. The constitutional requirements set forth in the constitution have not been violated. States are required to set forth the ballot requirements.
1
Thank you, Governor Newsom, for another reason to be proud of California.
4
Criminal Trump will have his personal attorney, William Barr, sue the state of CA to flout this new requirement. Hopefully, he fails. We can't afford any more Trumps in the future. In fact, we can't afford the one we already have.
7
This isn’t a good idea. I’m disappointed that the governor approved this law. If it’s not tossed out in court(and I hope it is tossed) what we end up with is a very dangerous precedent that the Republicans will abuse if they get power in swing states.
It’s also going to make the popular vote meaningless if it stands because you won’t have a true tally across the entire nation in 2020. This may not have any consequence on who wins 2020, but it’s going to rob us of a data point and could damage the argument that we should do away with the electoral college either via constitutional amendment or the national popular vote interstate compact.
And another thing - Trump probably loves this. He still won’t release his tax returns. He won’t care if he’s on the ballot or not in CA. He’ll just use this to claim the election is rigged against him and rile up his base and maybe even some people who would otherwise be moderates.
I literally can’t think of a single upside to this beyond meaningless feel-good moralizing. Should it be required for presidential candidates to release their tax returns? Absolutely, but the only way it actually makes our country better is if it’s done at the national level.
Moscow Mitch says he vetoed legislation that would protect the United States of America’s sovereign elections because he did not want the federal government to interfere with state election processes.
Various states have different rules for voting.
The law the Governor signed is no different than laws passing stricter voter ID requirements, suggesting this ensures fairness and integrity.
A tax evader or money launderer is a felon who cannot run for president. This is already law.
California’s governor wisely decided on a mechanism to enforce existing law through transparency.
Kudos, and may other states join.
4
If you don't like the fact that a candidate hasn't released his/her tax returns, then don't vote for that candidate. It's easy for most candidates to release their tax returns because they've never worked in the private sector -- e.g. Biden, Harris, Castro. But it's a lot easier to create a false narrative around the tax returns of someone who has been successful in the private sector -- e.g. Mitt Romney. Trump is abhorrent, but enacting a law requiring the release of tax returns serves only to discourage those who have found success in the private sector from seeking public office.
@NT :
Your comment illustrates another reason requiring candidates' tax returns is a good idea. You seem to be under the impression that Trump "has been successful in the private sector." I can see where you got the idea; it was his biggest claim to fame and might have been the main reason many people voted for him -- the idea that he could make great deals for the country as he supposedly did in the private sector. But did he make great deals? Was he really successful or just born wealthy?
2
As in so many legislative initiatives, California leads the way. Don't see why other states should not require as well. All citizens have a vested interest in knowing as much as they can about candidates for public office. This should apply to all offices in which office holders have some power to do "favors" for those with whom they do business.
5
This is an example of We the People exercising our rights and demanding accountability of our elected officials. (CA style!)
It’s not over reach - it’s justice. Candidates can simply choose not to run if they do not approve.
Raising our expectations of our public officials is a nice change frankly.
And anyone running for office, or not, that doesn’t like it can blame DJT.
And Moscow Mitch...
Call it MEGA,,,
Making
Elections
Great
Again
8
@Is_the_audit_over_yet :
Yes, I'd settle for MESA.
Making
Elections
Sane
Again
1
Didn't SCOTUS just delegate districting to the states (Rucho vs. Common Cause) on the basis that the Constitution defers election practices to them, partisan gerrymandering notwithstanding? Rescission of the Voting Rights Act looks like a step in this direction "One man, one vote" appears to be D.O.A. Sad, indeed.
Recall our Birther-in-Chief's determination to obtain proof that Mr. Obama was born in the U.S.? Think he'll support a disclosure law? Why, then, should proof of a candidate's other allegations be a problem?
. Are your really a billionaire? Share your returns.
. What is the current condition of your bone spurs?
. How many times have you been sued? By whom and on what basis?
There are legitimate, non-partisan voter concerns. Compliance with the law will illustrate the veracity and character (or not) of all candidates while all are being treated equally. I'm glad CA has a multi-member citizen commission defining compact districts.
11
If this holds up, Trump will win California’s Republican primary as a write-in and make a huge deal of it. He’ll win as a write-in in any state that tries this. So, I can see how it may harm as well as help. I appreciate the spirit of the legislation very much, though.
1
This should pose no problem, as disclosing tax returns has long been the norm for presidential candidates.
There is, however, one exception, a White House tenant and now candidate who believes he is entitled to disregard and destroy norms that don't suit his whims. Expect one or more Twitter tantrums as he awaits instructions from Fox News about how to defeat this latest enemy attack on America.
Maybe the loyal Republicans on the Supreme Court will declare the law unconstitutional before the Tweeter-in-Chief has to choose between disclosing his tax returns and not appearing on the ballot in the most populous state. Maybe he'll choose the latter option, and claim it's because there is so much voter fraud in liberal California that the result there doesn't matter anyway.
6
Originally, I thought this could be a privacy rights issue.
But one of the primary qualifications for a public servant is transparency, and that means disclosure of tax returns.
All states should require this transparency. Now, a person is allowed to be rich beyond all belief, their sources of income reaching the far stratosphere, but those earnings need to be legal.
And if that persons income earnings are had illegally, then they’re disqualified from public service.
People who gain their income illegally should not be in service to the Public. This California Law is sensible.
10
Given that "Moscow Mitch" is dead set against the federal government being involved in the details of running the voting process, this issue is, by default, left to the states.
15
Good on Cali. People have a right to know how their elected officials might stand to personally benefit from the policies they promote. Trump lied when he told the American people that he would eventually release his tax returns and there is no doubt at this point that there is something embarrassing, unsavory, or downright criminal to be found in them.
13
@Steve : Exactly! Trump also lied when he said the tax law he promoted and signed would not benefit him personally.
2
Jerry Brown was a wise man. This law won't survive a legal challenge. I say that with regret.
1
Former Gov. Jerry Brown's worry that requiring a candidate's tax returns be public would lead to forcing them to produce birth certificates and medical records is specious at best. Of the three documents, only tax returns are generated by individual and are the only ones that have a definite bearing on the candidate's baseline honesty and integrity.
When I enlisted in the Army in 1968, I was required to produce a birth certificate. When I got my first passport in 1986, I had to produce my birth certificate. This document has nothing to do with how an elected official will conduct him/herself in office. In my opinion, Obama should have made his public at the first whisper of his legitimacy as a natural-born citizen. Had he done so, Trump's fanning of those flames would never have reached the smolder stage.
A person's medical records are already protected by federal firewalls, with very stiff penalties for even accidental release or publication.
But a person seeking high office in this country has an obligation to demonstrate his or her personal integrity and honesty in dealing with the very government they are asking us to entrust them with. If they haven't been forthright with the very entity that has provided them with freedom and protection, they are going to lie to and cheat you. Not out of money, necessarily but out of your freedom and your trust.
But, of course, Trump has an ace in the hole...5 aces, actually: Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito.
6
I'm no lawyer and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But it's almost guaranteed that this law cannot be enforced. Individuals are guaranteed certain privacy protections at the Federal level and a State does not have the legal standing to usurp those protections via statutes. Of course they can always try to publicly humiliate and embarrass individuals. And California is certain one State that does that for those they don't like, including President Trump.
Of course the legal challenge will start in CA Federal court which is obviously stacked with liberals. So CA may win the first pass but I'll almost certainly get stayed while it winds it way through the system. We know that CA will take this all the way to SCOTUS no matter the cost financial or otherwise.
2
@Mark You'll get stayed? I doubt it. And the Liberals in California can be some weight against the Conservatives (rightists) now on the Supreme Court and controlling the Justice Dept., namely Barr. What goes around comes around they say. California is no different than say Louisiana or one of Trump's states. In fact since when has Trump ever worried since taking office about embarrassing anyone? Come on...if you cannot see fairly then sadly you are lacking in something. To me it is called integrity. Both sides may have their point, but the person who made this year and the time since 2016 when Trump was elected so poisoned was none other than DJ Trump...and fairness requires that you can admit this truth.
1
I didn’t (and won’t) vote Trump, but this law would start a cascade in every state to target certain politicians. “These are extraordinary times” is not an excuse. This is clearly a one off law and more will come targeting both sides of the aisle.
3
Over 100 years passed before the income tax was passed.
Women were given the right to vote by amendment. The right to vote was given to all races by law.
There’s no tax clause in the right to vote. No where is it stated that a citizen must pay his taxes to be eligible to vote. Tax cheats can vote. Criminals can not.
If we do not require proof of taxes paid to vote, we will not be able to require disclosure of tax status of a candidate for any office.
2
There is no human who can despise Trump more than I.
But I'm wary of this maneuver. If it was an important piece of legislation it would have been enacted decades ago. Using legislative legerdemain is a risky precedent. Perhaps candidates should be required to disclose their taxes as a matter of national policy, but even that seems questionable. We should have an electorate that would simply reject a candidate who failed to be transparent.
Trump should be impeached, indicted and incarcerated.
If not, he should be trumped at the ballot box.
1
All the comments here are confusing a primary with the actual election. They have nothing to do with one another. No state even has to have a primary - many don't.
7
States are allowed to charge fees and/or require signatures to get on the ballot, so why not tax returns?
6
Perhaps Romney should run again. He may even save the Republican party from itself.
4
States have legal discretionary control over voter registration, purgiing voters, ³voting dates, hours, types and locations of voting machines, mail-in and absentee ballots and the ballot design/layout.
I did not read that California's new law would prohibit a candidate from running in California for the office of president. As I read this story, if a candidate failed to submit the required tax returns their name would not be included on the primary ballot. Trump or anyone else not following the voting law could still run as a write in candidate. How would that violate the Constitution which says nothing about how the voting in each state is to be conducted?
Seems to me submitting tax returns in order to place your name on an official state ballot is a fair and effortless requirement to assure voters in a state of a candidate's basic ethical standards. And weed out the lying conmen intending to violate the emoluments clause to profit from the presidency.
125
@JABarry the requirements to be eligible to run for President are set by the Constitution. Any restrictions greater than those set forth are therefore unconstitutional. The state does have the power to set requirements over conducting elections, and for those running for state-wide office. Since the office of President is federal the state can not enact any additional requirements.
1
@JABarry
" ...lying conmen intending to violate the emoluments clause to profit from the presidency".
This is a description of our president.
5
@Bill The Constitution sets the requirements to Be president. Says nothing about running for office. That's semantics, but either way, this is not a "new requirement" as you say because every 35 year old American citizen files tax returns. Nothing new there. Thus requiring a candidate to furnish them is in no way different then requiring the candidate submit his/her name and address on the application.
5
The article states that the primary ballot is affected by the law, not the general election. Most commenters seem to think its the general election ballot. Did I miss something?
1
Before a President-elect can even begin executing the duties of that high office an oath must be taken that this person will "faithfully execute the Office of President" and "preserve,protect, and defend the Constitution". This important California legislation provides the electorate with vital, probative, pre-election personal information to help ensure that there exist no significant "red flags" in a candidate's complete tax documents and filings which would call into serious question, even disqualify, any candidate's capacity to adhere to that solemn constitutional oath were he, or she, elected. Say, by example, a candidate's substantial indebtedness to hostile foreign interests or unknown, secreted business interests?
2
Everyone honestly believing in States Rights, in the legal and historical precedent that individual states set the conditions of elections will support California's decision.
Those favoring big central government in Washington and who are willing to ignore the Constitution will not like it.
Wanna guess how Putin feels about it?
2
I like this transparency. Trump has certainly forced us to require it. I have no problem with a certified birth certificate nor a statement from the PCP about the candidate health. We have certainly learned this is now necessary.
4
Thank you California!
I hope other states do the same. This is the best news I've heard this week!
12
Another empty gesture.
Another legal and political conflict that will distract both the media and the electorate.
Another reason to fear that the democrats will fail to stop making the next election simply about Trump, and start making it about their vision for a better future for average Americans.
3
Democrats only vision is higher taxes, more spending, Nigeria government to control and expose your privacy and less choice, with the exception of abortion.
When the spending will outpace any additional revenue they might receive if taxes are raised in the wealthy, who’s next to raise taxes on,obviously not the people with the least economic means...
You don’t need to be American to vote in California but they require you to make public your finances to run. Sounds like California only protects some people’s freedom and privacy.
2
@CHRIS
You cannot vote in federal elections unless you are an American citizen. No ambiguity here.
1
Every blue state needs to enact a similar law. This may be a step towards a civil war, but refusing to even consider Trump on a ballot is a great start towards reclaiming America, state by state.
9
I'm only the messenger, so don't get mad at me. If anyone challenges this new law it will be found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. The US constitution provides the criteria for anyone to run for president. No state may impose greater restrictions. Many will gladly support this law because it aims at Trump. But it sets a highly dangerous precedent by allowing California to set it own rules restricting the fundamental right of any natural born citizen to run.
Oh, we all may like this one, but what about the next, and the next. Maybe the next restriction might affect me - or you.
30
@Gene Gambale - This legislation does nothing to limit who can run for President. It is only a disclosure requirement. All citizens file a tax return of some sort. Nominating petitions requiring thousands of signatures are much more onerous a hurdle and yet they are routine in every state. And petitions DO restrict who can appear on a ballot.
29
We cannot get so angry at Trump that we forget he will not be the last president of the United States (hopefully). I have a feeling that most people who feel good about this law now would have been furious if Texas had passed a law in 2008 requiring presidential candidates to show a birth certificate. That wouldn't have been constitutional then and this is even less constitutional now.
7
@Gene Gambale So you're arguing that states should not have the right to decide who appears on the state ballots in the state election where the state decides which electors to send to vote for president?
18
It's too early to say whether this will succeed or not. Up to a point, what will follow is fairly predictable: the Trump administration will sue in federal court to overturn the law; the Ninth circuit will uphold the California law; Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. But that's where it gets interesting, because it will set up an interesting conundrum for the five conservative Supreme Court justices. Conservatives have long argued that the courts should show deference to states' rights to administer elections (including federal elections), because the Constitution so empowers them to do so. And Justice Roberts, prior to joining the Court, spent many years as an attorney arguing against the Voting Rights Act in part because, he argued, the Voting Rights Act was an infringement on the power of states to administer elections. So it would require a pretty tortured legal analysis for the conservative justices to now argue that California didn't have the right to include such a provision in its laws (which isn't to say they won't come up with one).
I'm not a betting type, but if I were, I'd lay money on the Supreme Court declining to hear Trump's appeal, and letting the lower court decision stand so as not to have to rule against him. But hey, these days, who really knows?
8
So now the left is going to practice voter suppression. Trump should do two things:
- Ask all of his supporters to write in his name for the presidential primary and write in who they support for every other office on the ballot. This will bring the primary vote tallying to a virtual halt.
- At the federal level, challenge CA in court on every single thing, forcing them to spend money . If they expect to receive money for any state program, refuse to send it, forcing them to go to court.
2
@luxembourg
This isn't the election, it's the primary!
Stop spinning your head!
2
If it’s what you say it is I love it, especially later in the summer.
Okay, I love it right now too.
Way to go, California.
13
It will be interesting how the deeply pro states-rights SCOTUS majority will handle this. A bit of contortionism is to be expected to justify voting in favor of their preferred candidate.
7
I'm totally against this law. While it is common practice for politicians to release tax returns, and Trump did lie about his on multiple occasions, it should not be an eligibility requirement. If voters have a problem with a particular candidate, they should vote against him or her.
That said, given what Trump did to California citizens with the state and local tax deduction, he had it coming. The war within the war continues.
1
The fact is that Trump was never under audit and he lied about it to his constituents who voted for him. And even if he was, he could have still released his records. What's he hiding that is so important that he is willing to take New York and surely California now also to the SCOTUS?
Follow the Money.
13
Hmm, good move.
Though it will only motivate Republican states to vote heavily.
And, sadly, Democrats seem to be less willing to cast their vote, despite the consequences.
Perhaps the best that will be coming from this legislation is a more level playing field for candidates. Once we eliminate the money behind a candidate and allow other voices to be heard, rather than those with the most financial backing, will Democracy be truly free.
1
Will Moscow Mitch give a speech supporting this state-level control of elections the way he claims to support such state-level control?
7
Trump would never win California. But in combination with California's open primary, it's entirely possible there'll be no Republicans on the ballot for any statewide race in the November 2020 election. This could have impacts on other races and ballot measures across the state.
10
@SDGreg Trump got 40% of the vote in California in 2016. There are huge conservatives areas in Central California but if he doesn't show his tax returns, his name will be missing from the ballot.
It's time have that law enacted across the entire country. Every candidate must release 5 years of tax returns to be eligible to have their name on not only the primary ballots but on the presidential ballots as well.
6
I suppose this might lead to federal requirement, but not likely. And in the instant, Trump has no real incentive to enter the California primary -- he is already certain to be the GOP nominee, unless the remainder of the GOP find their backbones -- and he certainly wouldn't if this were a requirement. Careful what you ask for...
6
“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” Mr. Murtaugh said.
Yes, while the Constitution speaks only to the qualifications, the rules for elections are left to the states, and, for that matter, the rules for primaries trebly so, as the primary elections (in states with primary elections, as opposed to caucuses) are a courtesy states provide to parties, which, in turn, are also not mentioned in the Constitution. All campaigns need to get over this.
46
@Eric James: In addition to your good points, let's add that primaries did not even exist until the late 20th century. How could the original intent boys on the U.S.S.C. even begin to devine this one. And who could prevent the CA Republican Party from still voting Trump in their full strength at the convention anyway?
14
Interesting, hopefully other states will follow suit. Any citizen offering themselves up for public office, at any level should be open to public inspection. True public servants would welcome this.
Also interesting is Tim Murtaugh's resume through which I looked, anxious to find something of consequence. Other than a laundry list of positions as a mouthpiece, there was nothing that would warrant offering a legal opinion on the viability of this legislation.
37
So if we want to see any Democrat’s tax return, just have a token candidate run against him or her in a primary. Great plan! Democrats control California and many other enlightened elite states so they will be at a disadvantage because of this law.
1
@Lynn Russell legislation like this is also in the MA legislature.
4
@Lynn Russellvisit interesting ? And other states should follow? Follow what? Being a hindrance to the President of our country. Trying to disrupt the flow of positive gains that have been made in our country, solely due to the commander and chief, a man that truly loves this country and its citizens? This idiot signed that for 1 reason and 1 reason only, out of hatred to a man that is making all politicians look like the self serving liars they are.your states leader is a hateful spiteful puppet of their agenda, and as outright joke and disgrace.
I think this tells you that is time for a few amendments to the Constitution. Another incredible thing is the appointment for to the supreme court in an age in which people live for 100 years. Ten years or so, staggered with the other elections should be the limit. WE should study also a different way to appoint them so to guarantee as much as possible their political impartiality.
24
@Mur Right on. The whole point of lifelong appointments to the Supreme Court, per the Framers of the Constitution, was to defeat political motivations for Justices to (a) serve and (b) issue edicts. The current composition and disposition of the Supreme Court is a blatant violation of its Constitutional purpose.
4
Either elections are run by the state or they are not. If California is in charge of its own election, then it can pass laws on what it requires. If it isn't, then I assume the responsibility falls to the federal government, in which case the federal government should do more to safe guard it.
I wonder what legal argument would dictate California is both responsible for its elections (must pay for and run them) and not responsible (can't impose state standards).
60
This is interesting, although I have some doubts that it will hold.
We hear McConnell chanting that he wants the states to be in control of their election processes, but it is hard to see that he would support something that did not work to his advantage.
We are also going to be subject to a variety of slippery slope arguments, i.e. if this then what will a red state do.
Is this going to go to SCOTUS? Possibly.
16
@JSK
I agree. I wonder if is Constitutional. I imagine the Prez will have a few things to say about this.
1
@JSK McConnell is a flaming hypocrite. Whenever something favors the GOP, he wants the states in control. Now that a blue state takes the initiative against the Administration's, suddenly the GOP is crying foul.
2
@JSK The red states will require candidates to be religiously upright (per the evangelicals' dictates), misogynist, racist (optional, one can go either way), and with only a limited understanding of the Constitution and American history in general. Anything more or less will result in a candidate being tarred and feathered, then run out of state on a rail. They really know how to do it.
Great legislation why would a candidate or president withhold their returns- fraud!
105
Quick, make your tax returns public. Why not? Do YOU have secrets to hide or do you just value your privacy?
1
@Dr. B
Because they are still under audit, right ?
1
@Stretchy Cat Person I hope that is a joke. My boyfriend was an auditor. There is nothing stopping Trump from releasing his returns. He would have to release them for loans or a mortgage. It is a stale argument and a dumb one.
4
What's hilarious is that this won't affect Trump at all - it only affects the primaries. He's already 100% guaranteed to be the Republican candidate.
The former California governor vetoed this, by the way. It would have kept him off the ballot.
The best part? It *will* keep Biden off the ballot, and that *does* matter.
5
@Matt : Biden has already released three years of tax returns, and there's no reason to assume he won't release two more years to comply with this law. Trump, on the other hand, seems very determined not to release anything. What is he fighting so hard to hide?
5
@Matt
He may be guaranteed to be the Republican candidate, but he is already facing potential primary challenges. Hence he may have to appear on the ballot.
2
@Matt And why will it keep Biden off the ballot? Has he refused to release his tax returns?
3
“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” Mr. Murtaugh said.
So, we can look forward to Mr. Murtaugh fighting all the onerous ballot access laws both parties love to throw up to keep Libertarians and other third parties off the ballot, since anything not explicitly expressed in the Constitution is illegal?
I ain't holding my breath.
13
That is a reasonable requirement for being on the ballot for these top line offices. It's typically been so standard we never needed this law before - now we do.
69
From a political standpoint Trump could just not be on the ballot in California. He has zero chance to win, so why not just choose to skip the state altogether?
8
@Mortimer
That would be great! It would affect the down-ballot races as many Republicans would not bother to vote if Trump was not on the ballot. Also, challengers to Trump for the nomination could get all of California's delegates, and that would give them power at the convention.
4
@Mortimer You do realize there are Republicans in California? Are you saying their vote doesn't matter if dear leader can't win the electoral college in the general election? Shall we send them a letter and let them know to just stay home on election day?
I guess Republicans really are "equal opportunity" vote suppressors!
1
It adds requirements to run for president than is required in the Constitution. Don't see how it's going to pass muster in the Supreme Court.
7
This is a law only for the primary. The primary is a state construct. It has nothing (directly) to do with the national election. The Constitution never mentioned primaries.
4
@Tim Long
The article also stated that: “The bill also violates the 1st Amendment right of association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”
If accurate, then that's also a violation of the US Constitution.
The legislation will be defeated because the SCOTUS has a majority that believes their first loyalty is to Trump, and the Constitution comes second to that.
Newsom talks about public confidence being restored in elections, and he's right.
But public confidence also needs to be restored in the SCOTUS, and right now, I don't have much confidence in them.
When they re-instate the 2/3 majority approval needed for new judges, I'll start having a little more confidence. This business of whoever the majority party is gets to stack the courts is crippling to American justice.
Trump is right that we have "Obama" judges and "Trump" judges. We used to have non-partisan judges, but they're going extinct fast.
And that's a flaw the United States of America will not be able to recover from.
4
@yogi-one... “We” never had non-partisan judges. Political science proved that long ago - and then the battle for judges just got more press attention once it was clear to “the public” what was always going on. It is a largely “fixed” game that is settled by naked pushing and shoving between “parties.” Ugh.
1
@yogi-one
The SCOTUS will swat it down because it is patently silly to suggest that an individual State can pass laws that define the requirements for a candidate form the Presidency.
So - no.
@SteveRR. Reading. You should learn how. This law does NOT define who can BE president. It defines. for ONE state how to be on their PRIMARY BALLOT. Do your homework.
1
Way to go California.
33
@Rilke
Don Quixote, his horse Rocinante and his squire Sancho Panza would be jealous.
1
While I have a real problem with candidates refusing to volunteer to disclose their returns, I would hate to see us start down the slippery path of creating laws that are based on one person's indignant violation of norms.
I will address my concern about this lack of transparency at the ballot box.
If one person disruptively took a phone call on a cell phone in a movie theater, it would be overkill to ban cell phones from theaters. Simply remove the offensive patron based on an existing rule that governs appropriate decorum.
2
I think a more apt comparison than tossing the offender from the theater is in order. He can finish his current movie. However, in the future he can’t watch a new one in that theater unless he, as well as all other patrons, leave their phones outside.
1
The GOP Supreme Court will likely declare it to be "unconstitutional"... the same court that also declares that states have the right to gerrymander as they please, even where the obvious purpose is to rig the political system.
29
@Merlin
And hopefully it will be a 9-0 decision.
This is so patently unconstitutional it’s laughable.
We are doomed if any member of SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way.
1
@Norville T Johnson
I am pretty sure you were filled with similar trepidation when this same SCOTUS gave a green light to Gerrymandering and Citizens United, the two most destructive forces in American democracy, bar none.
2
@Merlin
I was in fact. But just because they made past bad decisions doesn't mean I want them to make more. And they didn't endorse gerrymandering they punted it back to the states to decide.
1
Mr. Murtaugh's response is a lesson in misdirection. He states the requirements for president are laid out in the Constitution--and they are. However, California is amending their qualifications for a candidate in their primary. Big difference.
74
@RS Yep, the Republicans are all for state's rights except when the state does something they don't like.
10
Come on CA, why stop with just the Gov and President. Make full disclosure mandatory of tax returns for every single public office holder. Every single one. Not to do so would only suggest that this bill is targeted to a single individual. Not a good for democracy.
4
To me, if according to the IRS, there has been no illegality in the citizen filing and paying their taxes, the tax returns are private information.
4
@Lake So, unless the returns are open to scrutiny, how do we know that there isn't any illegality?
4
@Lake : The opportunities for presidents to make policy decisions that benefit themselves at our expense are too great for us not to require as much information as possible to prevent or detect corruption. We stand to lose national security benefits as well as social and financial benefits if unscrupulous people get into the White House. When the IRS checks for "illegality" in tax filings, they're not looking for presidential conflicts of interest.
2
@CapnDad
The IRS.
The Golden State is leading the way! To the GOP: please take this opportunity to put some decent candidates on the primary ballots!
17
It's probably not going to pass legal muster and shouldn't. However, I'm glad they are trying to make "the President" pay for lying to the American people about showing his returns. He did promise us and that was a lie, which is the norm for someone who lies demonstrably multiple times each day.
3
It’s a Hail-Mary pass, and I guess we will learn whether or not the courts find it constitutional. However, Republicans have been insisting that states should be free to conduct their elections - even those for federal offices - as they see fit. So if California’s government establishes a requirement for certain types of information to be made public in exchange for appearing on the California ballot, well, that’s up to California, is t it?
This shines another bright light on the President’s failure to make his financial information public. I for one want to know, as I suspect most people do. What is he afraid of? What is he hiding? I want to know.
39
My understanding of the constitution is that the state government chooses the electors to represent them in the electoral college - period - end of story. It is only by convention that a general vote is taken, and conventions can change.
Don't ask me about the 2nd amendment - the language is not so murky there either.
1
@oldguy Yeah but this is about the primaries. Not the electoral college. And while they do get to choose their electors, they do *not* get to implement arbitrary requirements meant to keep one candidate off the ballot. SCOTUS has ruled on *extremely* similar cases in the past. This is a show, nothing more. It's also going to be a huge waste of California tax dollars to defend it, but hey - that's their call. They don't like it they should be sure to express their frustration at the ballot box.
If enough states, say all the blue states did this. Then Trump might not be able to get enough votes for the Republican nomination. All you need is some wealthy Democrat to get on the ballot in those states as a Republican and they might prevent him from winning the Republican nomination.
Wouldn't such a move be an ironic way to end the presidency of a many who has lied, cheated and broken all the rules?
140
@Rich DiGeorgio
Tom Steyer are you listening? Just change your registration to R and get on ballots with Bill Weld?
retired federal attorney F/70
10
Since Trump has no chance of winning a single one of California’s electoral votes, he shouldn’t bother placing his name on the California ballot. No doing so would demonstrate the popular vote doesn’t matter.
In fact, none of the candidates should place their names on any of the state ballots. Instead of squandering billions of dollars in pursuit of the meaningless popular vote, the candidates could simply schedule 50 campaign stops at each state capitol building and speak directly to the state legislators who appoint electors to the Electoral College and instruct them how to vote. This would take the ‘“big money” and “little money” out of presidential politics.
12
@William Case
This article is about the primary ballot, as the first sentence plainly states. The electoral college is irrelevant.
8
@William Case Not sure why you say the popular vote does not matter. If you win the popular vote in a state you get the electoral votes of that state. Lose the popular vote and you get none of the electoral votes. Now if you want to argue that it should be changed to either only using the popular vote to decide who wins or within a state have the electoral votes divided based on the percentages of the popular vote each candidate captured then that is a different discussion.
6
@DC
Rules vary from state to state. However, it is up to individual states. The Constitution doesn't obligate states to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote. It's left up to the state legislatures to decide. The November vote doesn't count. Only the Electoral College vote counts. The only purpose of the popular vote is to empower political parties and political action committees. The Constitutional assigns political parties and PACs no role in government.
1
It is certainly about time that some additional basic common sense be applied to our election process. The Constitution does not require that a prospective candidate have a clean criminal record, but voters have a right to know whether a candidate is a crook. A record of financial malfeasance is absolutely relevant to fitness for office and speaks to character, and if it exists it should not be hidden from voters.
104
@Dan
Because the law applies to ALL presidential candidates.
1
@Dan If the IRS hasn't charged a person with anything, what law decides someone has been crooked on their taxes?
1
@Dan But who gets to decide if it is malfeasance? If his tax returns meet the requirements of the law which is assumed to be the case since he has not been charged with falsifying tax returns why does anyone get to pass moral judgement on his returns? I would argue that only the IRS should be permitted to see his federal tax returns. Other than the state where I am domiciled no other state should have the right to see my tax returns.
For sake of argument lets say he complies with it (we know he won't but lets go with it for a minute). What can California do with the information? Any release of any information on those returns to anyone who does not have a legal reason to see the information will be a criminal act. No different than a cyber data breach. No right to make any of it public, no right to share it with media or any other organization. No right to comment on it. This is actually a pretty petty and despicable political act. Where does it stop?
The irony is that Trump's supporters , who will object to having him required to provide his tax returns, have already made it clear that nothing in the returns could possibly make any difference to them anyway. There might be some curiosity about how wealthy he really is, but if it's low, he will just say he manipulates reportable income to his benefit. If he pays little or no taxes, he will just say it proves how smart he it. If he somehow ends up providing returns from what must be a huge number of LLCs or other tax avoidance / liability avoidance vehicles, and if those returns show business relationships with unsavory characters, like lots of Russians, his supporters will dismiss the connections just as they dismissed the Mueller reports documentation of meetings with Russians. But then again, real estate investments in the USA are intentionally allowed to be opaque, so it would be surprising if anything of note showed up in the list of shell companies that do business with Trump.
Still, for the rest of us, it would be interesting to try to figure out answers to questions like "What does Putin have on Trump, anyway?" I'm sure that access to Trump's returns would support a veritable industry of analysts and investigative reporters. But in the near term, the only industry likely to benefit from this law is the legal trade. Or maybe late night comedians.
8
@Mike Iker maybe we would find out that he paid no taxes while the rest of us pay a lot.
2
@Mike Iker : Your logic is sound, but it's hard to believe Trump isn't hiding something devastating. Have you ever seen anyone go to this much trouble to keep people from seeing something that wouldn't make much difference to them?
2
If California were serious, the State would make it illegal to be trump. They should jail him and his family on general principals
8
Are people here commenting, confusing things by combining States’s rights in holding elections with the federal Constitution qualifications to become the President of the US?
8
@MDCooks8
Yes.
This is just too funny. Dems doing a little election fixing of their own.
Add it to the blue states' assertions of states' rights and it is time for the popcorn.
Payback time!
36
Every state has it's own election laws. Every presidential or gubernatorial candidate who wants to be on a California Ballot has to comply but only if they want to be on the Ballot.
They don't have to be on the Ballot in order to be elected. Example: Several years ago, US Senator Lisa Murkowski had a massive write-in campaign when she failed to meet the requirement in her home state of Alaska. It worked and she was re-elected.
23
@Lambie's Kid SCOUTS has ruled many times that actions like these are unconstitutional. They will do so again. Even if they did not, the only person who would be kept off the ballot is Biden. Trump wins the Republican nomination either way.
Oh also it would have kept the former California governor off the ballot. The one who vetoed this because it wouldn't be constitutional.
@Lambie's Kid
Interesting observation, @Lambie's Kid. I have not read California's new law, but if disclosure of tax forms is couched as a requirement to be listed on the State ballot, perhaps that might be judged consistent with the constitutional delegation to states to conduct elections.
1
@Lambie's Kid : Murkowski didn't fail to "meet the requirement." A tea-partier defeated her in the Republican primary, so she defeated him in the general election with a write-in campaign -- quite an accomplishment.
2
Terrible precedent.
7
Thank you California, you're no. 1 for a state in my book!
124
@Jack Camelot
Where California goes the nation follows. Get ready. Time to take out the trash!
2
Why did the Democrats limit this just to the Presidential Election and not all elections in California?
Do they have things to hide?
6
@MDCooks8
Did you read the article? "The law, which goes into effect immediately, requires any presidential or gubernatorial candidate to submit copies of their tax returns from the last five years with the California Secretary of State, at least three months ahead of the state’s primary."
12
@MDCooks8, they did not limit it to presidential elections. Gubernatorial candidates also have to submit their tax returns. Nothing to hide.
13
It also includes gubernatorial candidates
7
I'm going to bet on CA.
42
Bravo, Governor Newsom.
43
Since Trump could never win California anyway, why should he even care about this new law?
3
@Porter Giles
He'll care because to trump it will be perceived as a rejection, something he absolutely cannot handle. He will do everything he possibly can to try to force California to pretend they want & like him.
3
I am reading American Carnage right now (highly recommend) and shortly after Trump became the presumptive nominee in 2016 he was telling his people he would win California. Karl Rove quickly straightened him out on that.
1
But will it make any difference? Even if the law prevails in court, the Trump campaign would hardly be affected. Assuming he refuses, he'd likely win a primary on write-ins, and he's never in a million years going to win California in the general anyway.
2
If other citizens must provide their tax information to the government to qualify and receive approval for public housing, then so can trump. If not, then let's move to the next person on the waiting list when we consider granting residency.
58
Why would it be a bad thing to have to release medical records and birth certificates?
7
Let’s see how transparent don the con is now, we should hope more states go along with California’s election process. States rights!
Trump will have his new personal attorney Barr on this before the weeks end. Come to think of it, what happened to Rudy ever since Barr was hired?
16
@PB : Good points and great question.
1
There is no 'feud' between the White House and California. It takes two sides to have a feud. Politicians in California want to hurt the fairly Elected Donald Trump. This is just one of many steps they have taken to try to do that. Meanwhile 50k homeless in just one city and wealthy are fleeing to other states. Trump is re-elected in 2020 whether he is on the Primary ballot in California or not.
3
@GregP "fairly elected"? Trump got clandestine help from Russian government spies and GOP aides who coordinated with the Russians, plus Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million to Hillary Clinton.
35
@proffexpert hahahahahahahahahahahaha god just give it up.
2
@GregP Dream on!
1
No state may add or detract from the electoral qualifications, as provided by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, for the office of President of the United States.
This law is clearly unconstitutional and will not stand.
4
@Paul Kelly
Hi Paul,
Can you please point out where in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution it says that "No state may add or detract from the electoral qualifications?" Or anything of that nature....
Here, you can use this link: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-02-section-01/
Just point it out for me. Thanks Paul!
11
Technically, it wouldn't keep him from running and campaigning. He could be a write-in on the ballot, he just wouldn't be listed.
2
@RDM so if they were to pass a law stating you must list everyone you had sex with in your life...would that stand? No, because its no ones business. If the IRS has a problem with his returns then its a problem and would be a public issue already. Even then he could just as easily conform with the law and also provide his returns only after an NDA has been filed stating they cannot be publically released further.
Sounds like a great plan for all states to implement
There needs to be certain criteria to be eligible to be President of the United States other than just being born here ...it would be nice to have visibility to basic vetting documents such as tax returns !
6
The Democrats told us last year that once they assumed office they would find a way to see Trump's tax returns. Well, nine months later - nothing. It looks like the only way out of this is if someone with access to the returns publishes them. Trump's lawyers will be paid to keep the returns private, despite his promise to release them years ago - another lie.
14
I am not admitted to the practice of law in California, so the following is just one man’s opinion.
A copy of the new California law regarding the requirement for Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates to provide 5 years of Federal tax returns in order to be listed on the ballot may be found at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27&search_keywords=president+tax+return
The law apparently only makes the provision of the tax returms mandatory in order to have one’s name PRINTED on the ballot. It says NOTHING about being a write-in candidate. Therefore, it appears to add no requirements to actually be allowed to run for office and to be voted for. Rather, it just makes it much easier to collect votes if your name is printed on the ballot than if people have to write your name in. Ask Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) about that.
It gives the candidate the choice of whether his or her name is going to be printed on the ballot or not, no more and no less.
If Trump thinks that a lawsuit is going to overturn this law, I suggest he try thinking some more.
It does not keep him off the ballot.
It just hangs a very big sign on him that he did not turn loose his tax returns, as he promised, again, and again, and again, … until he reneged.
34
I don’t think California is in play for Trump.
1
@Artkap
Correct.
But if one state can do it, so can as many others as choose to pass such a law.
The voters are entitled to know whether they are voting for a person with ethical and/or legal issues.
18
@Joe From Boston so we could pass laws saying only people who drive prius cars can be elected or you must provide a list of everyone you slept with....I mean what about we can only vote for bald people....lol its rediculous.
Clearly a bill of attainder and unconstitutional. Grow up Dems and find a viable candidate of your own. None of your 20 are any good so keep looking. Find one and I might vote for him or her.
5
@Bob
Did you actually read the law?
I did.
You do not know what you are talking about, my friend.
A copy of the new California law regarding the requirement for Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates to provide 5 years of Federal tax returns in order to have their name PRINTED on the ballot may be found at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27&search_keywords=president+tax+return
The law does not prevent them from running as a write-in if they fail to provide the tax returns.
3
@Bob this is not a bill of attainder, Look it up instead of making it up!
1
The fact that Donald Trump stated during the run up to the 2016 election that he would disclose his taxes once an audit had been completed was a complete lie. Warren Buffett responded - at the time -in a NYTimes Op-Ed piece that he is audited every year and was willing to disclose his taxes. What no one challenged Trump on -at the time- is the fact that there is nothing in the Federal Tax Code that precludes disclosure while under audit. Trump has so completely reversed his position on disclosing his taxes that he is now suing New York State for passing legislation that will forward his NY State taxes to Congress. I have been on this issue (and repeatedly written in the Times' comments section regarding this topic on Trump) since Trump was elected and delighted California has signed legislation that all Presidential candidates must legally release their tax returns in order to be on the ballot. The overarching issue with Trump is the fact that his tax returns will indicate to whom he is indebted - Russia, oligarchs and probably many others - as money has, historically, always been a very big problem for him - and it is other peoples money who continue to prop him up and perhaps blackmail him! I hope other states follow California's lead.
60
This President and his Administration have been precedent-setting, but not always in a good way. Mr Trump needs to understand his secretive behavior has consequences, and voters see more than ever they should have a window into the personal financial motivations that affect public policy.
We see this happening now, and it could have been prevented but for the obstructionist behavior that continues.
11
It's not like he's ever going to win CA so does it even really matter? A GOP primary challenger who does get onto the ballot doesn't have a chance either so no big deal.
@Bobbi P But if Trump's name is not on the ballot, millions of GOP voters might not even bother to turn up at the California polls, which would hurt other GOP members running for lower offices. As a Democrat, this wouldn't bother me at all. But the California GOP might want to protect some of its other candidates.
4
@Bobbi P Correct. Other states may/will follow California's lead, and require the same. Then it would certainly become a "big deal", a huge big deal.
9
Federal courts will rule the new California tax return law unconstitutional because it adds a prerequisite to eligibility prerequisites set forth in Article Two of the Constitution. Any natural-born U.S. citizen who is at least 35 year old and has resides for at least 14 years in the United States can serve as president.
Besides, not everyone has has to file federal Form 1040. If your total income for the year doesn't exceed certain thresholds, then you don't need to file a federal tax return.
1
@William Case
I haven't read the law itself yet, but from everything I've read about it, anyone can still run for President in the CA primaries. It's only if they want their name printed on the ballot (a situation controlled by the state) that they need to comply with this law.
8
@Inkspot
It obviously adds an eligibility requirement. You cannot run for president in California if you believe tax returns should be private. This is in a state that calls asking the citizenship question on census forms unconstitutional.
1
The constitution is clear that states may choose electors for the Presidency however they choose. I don't know the details of this particular law, but if it says anything along the lines of "no elector may cast their vote for a candidate who ...", it will be very difficult to overturn.
Although with the current Supreme Court, anything is possible...
10
There's no telling what kind of corruption this president has been hiding behind his tax returns. I think its reprehensible what the Republican congress co-signs for this president. I think we should ask for his birth certificate too.
7
I'm really leery of the idea that states can make up their own requirements for who gets to run for president.
Suppose red states start doing the same?
4
@Talbot "red" states already make up "their own requirements" It's called gerrymandering.
13
@Talbot
Red states make up their own requirements as to who can vote. Usually that restricts those more likely to vote Democratic.
5
@Talbot | California is not doing what you claim. The law involves criteria for allowing a presidential candidate's name to appear on the state ballot. Said name does not have to appear on said ballot; write-ins are possible, and the new law rightly does not take up the issue of write-ins.
Article 2, clause 5 of the US Constitution lays out criteria for who is eligible to be president. The CA law changes nothing with respect to those criteria. There are already all kinds of rules about candidates' names appearing on ballots, isn't that so? And I doubt that all 50 states have the same rules.
6
Will this be the issue to finally break the spell Trump has over his neophytes? I can't even begin to imagine what the arguments against this law would look like. I'm not a lawyer, but even to layman like me the arguments presented by Trump's campaign toward the end of this article seemed weak. States are powerless to put bureaucratic processes in place to allow candidates onto a ballot? How is requiring tax returns any different than requiring paperwork be filed, or petitions to be signed to ensure a minimum number of supporters?
7
I guess this means Trump won't win California. Oh, wait...
1
This makes more than good sense to me, and had potus presented his tax returns before the election, and IF all was legit, he / we might be spared our current political messes.
I also find myself increasingly wondering if potus might, however unintentionally, take down his entire family because of his insulting refusals to respect and follow traditions. An honest, patriotic president would insist that his financial realties and taxies be made open to the public. Such a president would also insist that we know to what extent Russia invaded our elections.
I truly worry that the guy has unleashed the worst aspects of the American character by his actions and words, aspects that may be difficult, if not impossible to control in the future.
7
If Michigan and Pennsylvania enact the same legislation I bet that Trump will not run.
21
I think Trump shouldn't even challenge this in court.
Let CA be CA.
It'll be CA against the rest of the country, which should serve him pretty well in 2020 considering CA right now is trying to literally steal 10 Congressional seats and Electoral Votes from MI, OH, PA, WI and MN.
CA against America?
Has a nice ring to it.
1
“steal” Electoral Votes? May I remind you that California has the highest population in the country and is growing, while the states you mentioned are losing population. The US Constitution requires a census every ten years to determine the makeup of the seats in the House of Representatives. Already voters in the states mentioned have more voting power than a California voter since there is a cap on the total amount of House members. If there was not a cap, California should have 153 members instead of the 53 currently, while the states mentioned would gain or lose only a small fraction of that number. Electors are the same total number of House and Senate members. In California it is now 55. California voters have had less voting power for the past century, since the cap of 435 House members was established.
3
Nothing is stopping Californians from writing in Trump's name, so legal challenges are moot.
6
@Alex
I believe you are correct.
I am not admitted to the practice of law in California, so the following is just one man’s opinion.
A copy of the new California law regarding the requirement for Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates to provide 5 years of Federal tax returns in order to be listed on the ballot may be found at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27&search_keywords=president+tax+return
The law apparently only makes the provision of the tax returms mandatory in order to have one’s name PRINTED on the ballot. It says NOTHING about being a write-in candidate. Therefore, it appears to add no requirements to actually be allowed to run for office and to be voted for. Rather, it just makes it much easier to collect votes if your name is printed on the ballot than if people have to write your name in. Ask Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) about that.
It gives the candidate the choice of whether his or her name is going to be printed on the ballot or not, no more and no less.
If Trump thinks that a lawsuit is going to overturn this law, I suggest he try thinking some more.
It does not keep him off the ballot.
It just hangs a very big sign on him that he did not turn loose his tax returns, as he promised, again, and again, and again, … until he reneged.
5
As a California resident.. I support this new law.
It codifies what has been the norm for presidential candidates in the modern era.... until Trump that is.
Trump clearly has something to hide... because innocent people do not protest as vapidly as Trump does.
Not that he can win California anyway.. but watch him simply not be on the ballot and then cry foul and refuse to step down if he loses the general election.... claiming things are "rigged".
17
What he owed, or what he paid?
1
Of course this law will be challenged, and fail, all the way up.
Dems: This sort of ridiculous stunt doesn't attract voters. Indeed: It makes Trump's supporters even more determined to get him a second term. And it makes California a laughing stock.
Again.
3
@Austin Liberal is except this ... his base is already solidified a d this isn't going to impact their decision making at all.
2
Laughingstock, hardly. Just returned from Europe and the Far East. If you answer California as where you are traveling from people smile and are positive. If you say the U.S. they used to smile, now they ask why we voted for Trump. I have to let people know that our state overwhelmingly did not vote for Trump, then the smiles return.
3
Let’s keep it short and simple. Why won’t the President of the US who is running for re-election unwilling to release his tax returns?
10
Why is Trump so afraid of releasing his tax returns? (No need to answer- I know why.)
There have to be some guardrails when it comes to presidential candidates. It should be law that if you want to run for public office you have to release your tax returns. Full stop.
23
Time and again I have been humbled by watching people attempting to tell Donald J Trump what to do. That doesn’t happen. He tells you what he’s going to do (or not do) and the country follows along, for better or worse.
Most times for worse.
1
It is becoming evident each day that Democrats spend more energy in their attempt to disqualify the legitimate President, while doing little to nothing about the homeless crisis, which many people with mental health issues are living in tents on the sidewalks, defecating in public that has created a public health crisis.
What will it take for these Democrats in California to address this issue? A few deaths or murders or rape of prominent Democrats donors family members ?
Probably not since the healthcare of the homeless and general public doesn’t trump Trump’s tax returns....
3
Even better if they required it for Senators and Congressmen, too.
8
High time for the other 49 states to do the same if he wants to be on their 2020 ballot. After all, isn’t trump the most transparent president in history?
21
Every one and some states are trying one way or the other. Problem is the law will be held up in the courts and by the time of the decision, the election will be over.
Well, at least it can go in the history books as another attempt to get Trump to obey the law.
Good Luck!!!!!
2
Since there is approximately a 0.00000% chance that Trump is going to win California's electoral votes, would it even matter in this case? He could just not be on the ballot there, and nothing would change really.
2
Probably true, but hopefully other states will follow our lead and enact similar rules.
3
Occam's razor says he's not hiding anything illegal, just embarrassing stuff. He's not as rich as he claims or he's in debt. Chances are he'd say it's all on paper anyway and accounting tricks. There's not going to be any "gotcha" moment in his tax returns. Plus, if he can run around screaming the kind of stuff he does and nobody cares, what are they going to care about his accounting?
1
Occam's razor says... publicly stating he will accept foreign actors information for election, meeting privately with Putin, supporting Putin's denial of interference over the evidence of the world's best security and intelligence says, "he's bought and paid for"
3
As more grist for his faux grievance mill, this will make Trump happy. He's always thrilled to have someone or something to rail against. He even looks forward to getting re-elected and facing both houses of Congress in Democratic hands as a way of justifying further outrages. There's no stopping point with this guy, because nobody else matters.
1
Here's the problem: very likely his tax returns are completely clean. He's just been using them as a red herring. But I guess that's a red herring with two heads because there's a whole lotta Dems offering up the same plate of fish.
Good for outing all the Don Quixotes, I suppose.
1
That’s it! Really like the creative thinking of California. It’s so unfortunate that a state has to do this so that a candidate does what they are supposed to do.
15
Trump is running out of places to hide, sooner or later he will be cornered. Since we didn't have an income tax at the time of the Constitution it needs to be updated to reflect today's reality. Wasn't it trump who said that people should have to present ID to buy groceries.
22
@Steve Rabid dogs, when cornered lash out --we better be prepared for the rabid followers too.
Trump though, who obviously has never been shopping inside a grocery store, actually said so knowledgeably "You need an ID to buy groceries".
Must be encouraging to his base to know how he 'gets' the impositions and hardships they face on a daily basis . . .
1
From another Times article about “Moscow Mitch”: “Mr. Blunt said he agreed with Mr. McConnell that the federal government should not gain more authority over state elections.” Let see if Blunt and McConnell agree that this is a state’s rights issue as well.
27
BRILLIANT!!!!
I certainly hope other States follow suit.
6
Another reason I love California! Truly the Golden State!
25
Trump's telegraphed it over and over ...
the key to his downfall are his taxes.
This is where we find the true ethical makeup of a person or if they say one thing and do another, which I think is worse!
4
Hilariously unconstitutional. Now we get to waste some taxpayer dollars litigating it. Great!
3
@Jeff California costs will borne by AG personnel already on the payroll, and Trump can waste some of his campaign funds .
1
@Jeff
I think you are wrong.
All the law actually does is let a candidate decide whether his or her name will be PRINTED on the ballot (if the tax returns are provided), or NOT PRINTED on the ballot.
The candidate would be a write-in candidate if the tax returns are not provided, just like Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was in the 2010 primary, which she won.
What is unconstitutional about giving the candidate that choice?
6
This is creative, and I LOVE IT when Trump is trumped! Bravissimo, California!
5
As usual, the Golden State leads the way. Query: if a candidate doesn't appear on the primary ballot, can the candidate still appear on the general election ballot? And if, as I understand it, California is one of the states that apportions its electoral votes by the popular votes, could Trump be shut out of any electoral votes at all from the great state of California?
2
Partisan politicians cannot make new election laws that could be challenged in the supreme court. Calfornia has a massive problem of homelessness. does the governor care about problems in his state. Just recall this governor as was done a few years ago. Who cares about Trump taxes. It is hardly the end of the world if he keeps them private. It is the IRS business to determine whether Trump did not pay his taxes.
Trump will be fully justified in exercising his freedom of expression to respond to his critics or the squad or any Trump haters. Don't start crying then. Trump will be Trump and he will never be afraid to give a fitting response.
2
Disclose health physical and mental, as well as, taxes. Trump is a gift showing us the weaknesses in our precious and fragile democracy. Over 130 contacts with Russians by Trump administration, plus his willingness to accept help from foreign entities. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
2
Gavin Newsom for President... of the Republic of California. All of our taxes would go to only California! We would of course allow the US to continue to use "our" military bases, for a fee of course. And we'll have to negotiate a trade deal with the US for access to all of our biotech, high tech, agricultural products, oil, minerals, aerospace, seafood, and a tourist tax on "foreigners." That's one way to get rid of Trump, to just leave him behind. Maybe other states will follow!
6
Fabulous!
4
I agree with Nate Silver, this is an embarrassment for California and alienates moderates,
All we need to do to beat Trump in 2020 is not do crazy/absurd/embarrassing things.
Please. Stop.
3
@Prof Emeritus NYC
We should do crazy/absurd/embarrassing things AND beat Trump in 2020.
3
Every state already DOES have unique requirements not set forth in the US constitution to be on the ballot, so in its face, this isn’t unconstitutional.
13
As long as this law applies to every candidate submitting their tax returns it seems likely that the Supreme Court will be unable to declare it unconstitutional. The federal courts tend to let the states set their standards for voting and do not interfere as long as those standards are equally applied.
61
I'm all for States flexing their rights but not those explicitly not permitted in the US Constitution. Qualifications of federal officers is not one of them so long as they are in the Republic.
6
@Kevin This is for primary ballots. This is not for the election.
6
Here a couple of questions pertaining to the public disclosure of tax returns by political candidates.
1. California is proposing a law that requires any candidate for President to release his tax returns as a prerequisite to being placed on the California ballot. Do you agree?
2. If so, would you support a law that requires each voter to release her or his tax returns to the public as a prerequisite to voting in a presidential election?
3. If you respond no because the release of tax return info is not relevent to voting for a candidate for public office, please explain why the release of such information is relevant to a candidate's ability to run for public office?
4. Do you agree that tax return information in general is personal information that should remain private?
5. If so, do you believe that private citizens should have to give up this protection in order to run for public office?
4
@TWW Too twisted. Here's the point: We all should have the right to see Trump's tax returns. Same for any person running for president.
5
@TWW What a ridiculous rebuttal. Did you even read that before you wrote it?
A candidate for public office should be required to submit returns to the public simply as a matter of record as to where their financial interests lie. Even if Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet or any other real billionaire were simply VOTING, what business or finances they have would have zero effect. Sure, they can vote for someone that agrees with their business policies, but that still does not have any effect on what happens after they vote.
Politicians or public servants should be required to release returns simply because one should not even want a question as to whether or not they are using their position for profit over public service. Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm because he didn't want there to even be a question as to whether he was using his position as President to encourage companies to buy his peanuts over anyone elses.
And of course, it would certainly go both ways. Anyone who would question why such and such entered office poor and left a millionaire would have documented proof. Be they republican, democrat, or independent.
And hey- if you don't want the public to know about your tax returns, don't run for office. It's not like this is some sort of new standard or anything. You're being hired to serve the PUBLIC, and in hiring you, they have the right to know about you, finances and all.
This should not be such a tough concept to grasp.
7
@TWW
Yes, I agree that private citizens should have to give up this "protection"in order to run for public office. In fact we cannot tell if president Trump is governing in ways that feather his own nest, without seeing his tax returns. He has multiple business entities and has his fingers in a lot of pies, but we don't know which ones without seeing his tax returns.
4
States rights, per Moscow Mitch!
I am hoping other states will follow. This is the kind of transparency that will influence my vote in local, state and federal elections going forward.
193
@Is_the_audit_over_yet
Observing the increasing court room mental gymnastics, this could get struck down.
However, the essential messages transmitting who cares about transparency, ethics, integrity and is willing to actual strive to improve those - and who just doesn't and actually puts up any roadblocks possible - should very much influence our votes in local, state, and federal elections.
1
I think any electorate has the right to define what they want to know about their elected officials and unelected officials. It is OUR government and OUR State. Short of the constitution, which is OURs, this is not an overreach. Asking it of the electorate is.
32
This I am not buying: “The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” Mr. Murtaugh said.
Since the Supreme Court has found no problem with states slapping rules on voters that the Constitution does not provide for, it's hard to see how slapping rules on candidates would differ.
230
@Larryman LA - The Constitution presents the qualifications to -serve-. Nothing is said about qualification to appear on the ballot. The final say in an election is about the selection of electors, and the means of their selection appears to be reserved to the states.
And -anyone- can appear on the ballot through the write-in option.
5
@Larryman LA
The Constitution is not always right, clear, and applicable to the 21st centuries deeds and misdeeds. It is high time for many amendments, updates and clarity.
6
@Larryman LA Well, you're about to see some Supreme Court Gymnastics in action. You just wait.
5
This state law will end up in court just like the new New York State law that Cuomo signed, allowing state tax records to be available for Congressional review. I see both going to the SCOTUS. But in the end, a “law is a law is a law”. Once it’s passed, it must be followed and Trump is not above the law. Mitch McConnell and the GOP can’t have it both ways, disallowing federal control of election rules to protect voters and at the same time disallowing state control for their own rules.
91
This move may backfire, but I am not so sure it is unconstitutional. Consider: Donald Trump may still run in the CA Republican primary, CA voters may still vote for him (write-in), and he will likely win the primary. No one is telling anyone for whom they may vote. This is just about getting one’s name printed on the primary ballot. Furthermore, the law ONLY affects PRIMARY ballots - note the final election ballots .
States have long had specific requirements for getting one’s name on a primary ballot, eg: presumably CA requires a minimum number of signatures on registration papers to gain ballot access. I am not sure CA cannot make additional requirements if they see fit. This may be unwise in the long term, but could very well be ruled constitutional.
15
@Pete Traversy There are 3 requirements set in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. Neither of these involve anything to do with providing a tax return.
@Kevin You are just quoting the federal standard to become President. It has nothing about qualifying to be on a ballot. It is a far different thing.
5
@Pete Traversy So what you're saying is Newsome is Virtue Signalling..once again?
IT means nothing...which is right up Newsome's alley since he appears to be a man quite incapable of doing anything a real man would do..which is own up to a single core principle.
I wish leadership would focus on the people and not on one man! All this energy on Trump is absurd. Try implementing change for the better so that it will translate into wins at the ballot box!
9
@greg This man is not an ordinary man. It is a dangerous evil man that may destroy our nation. Tax returns will expose his financial criminality. With Moscow Mitch, Putin Trump, Complicit Barr, and Infested GOP, there will be no fair ballot box. We need to proceed with other measures, including this one, before it's too late to protect democracy and our nation.
8
@greg
I don't think it is absurd. But we are in new territory, so only history, not you nor me, will judge whether it is absurd.
2
Finally. McConnell trumpeted states rights when preventing election security to come to a vote . Let’s see how long that trumpet sounds
254
@Alto Put VoterID into the bill and Mitch will let it come up for a vote.
What are you afraid of?
Free and fair elections?
3
@Erica Smythe
Not so "free and fair" if the government doesn't provide a voter ID free of charge. Otherwise it significantly disenfranchises low-income voters, and would essentially constitute a poll tax.
Reading history helps. As does critical thinking.
11
@Erica Smythe
Republicans are terrified of free and fair elections.
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter purging, and help from the Russians.
They use every trick in the book.
12
This is now how the law works, they don't get to choose who can run for president nor can they deny it. This is California overs stepping as usual.
8
@Carthan: I love it every time that Trump supporters prove that he was dead on when he said he can shoot someone right between the eyes in the middle of Fifth Avenue and you will still support him.
He totally nailed it when he described his supporters as mindless lemmings.
1
@Carthan
Oh?And Trump hasn't been overstepping? And stepping all over everything and every one?
3
This will get thrown into the Grand Canyon of Litigation, but it will remind Californians and the rest of the country what Trump has continued to not do: Show Us the Money.
42
I fervently hope that other states will follow suit. That is the only way to outflank Trump.
198
I'm with you! also the issue is bigger than the individual, and important to avoid another man or woman taking power with suspicious funding and conflicts of interest?
21
@William O. Beeman, agree on following suit, but it's more than Trump, I think it's a great policy for all candidates for public office.
3
I love it! Proud to be a Californian.
Yes, I loathe Trump. But we should all applaud the transparency this will require from anyone seeking the Office of the President.
If the Supreme Court doesn't nullify this new state law, of course. Which given its current composition is a very distinct possibility.
153
@Dr J CA should worry more about CA.
I'm assuming this law also applies to every person running for Governor, State Senator, State REpresentative, City Counciler, School Board Member, County Commissioner, Mayor, Dog Catcher and Fire Marshall.....in California only?
1
@Erica Smythe
"The law requires that all presidential candidates release their tax returns in order to be placed on the ballot for the state’s primary next year..."
Helps to read the article.
17
@Erica Smythe
We _are_ worried about California. The policies put in place by Putin's candidate are damaging our state and our people. We need to know what is hiding in those tax returns.
4
On and on goes the Merry-go-round.
The wheel goes up.
The wheel comes down.
And it isn't going to stop until Trump is no longer our president.
7
@Richard Phelps
January 21, 2025
Just short of 6 more years.
@Erica Smythe Sadly, you may right. And it may even be later than that since he is likely to claim some sort of emergency requiring him to remain in office. He is going to have a good fight on his hands regarding obstruction of justice charges once he is a private citizen again.
1
Love it.
I know Trump loves to fight, and I know CA makes a convenient target (even though Newsom isn't Black), but most Americans think that candidates should have to file their returns as part of their candidacy.
178
@Cousy
Most Americans, but not those in the cult I imagine. They might like the idea if it were anyone other than their guy, but by now we all know how that goes.
5
Perfect! Love this!
80
Need enough Blue States to enact the same law and watch him squirm. Not likely in Pennsylvania, the Republicans gerrymandered the state and control the legislature. They are stymied at the Executive level though.
1
what size landslide is Pennsylvania's Republican GM able to keep at bay? good that you pointed this out
@minnie 60% Democratic majority, About 60% Republican majority in legislature. Democrats control Governorship and State Supreme Court. State Supreme Court elected.
Will be challenged in court. Resolved after 2020 election. More distractions.
5
What a great idea! This law sends a strong message to Trump and others who may follow in his footsteps that they can't do whatever they please.
Given that states are responsible for elections, even national elections (didn't Mitch McConnell say so just last week?), it may even be constitutional.
428
Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.
61
@Barbara This idea should spread throughout the country. Let citizens have as much info as possible since
any of the candidates can withhold whatever they choose.
39
Agree. What a great idea!!
21