• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CALIF legislature - no tax returns - no spot on ballot

Perotista said:
Release of tax return is relative recent. Some like Ford just released a summary, other like Reagan just one year. Romney I believe released two years. I don't think it really matters if California does this or not. That state isn't competitive and I don't see it becoming so for a couple of decades at least. So all the law does is in effect make the Democratic nominee release his tax returns, a Republican isn't going to win there anyway. The last republican to win California was Reagan and he was a Californian, a native son.

So basically, for a Republican the law is irrelevant. I also think if it ever reached the SCOTUS, it would be ruled unconstitutional. But since I don't speak lawyerese, I am far from certain.
Click to expand...

Why would it be ruled unconstitutional?
 
mike2810 said:
What part of my post did you not understand?
Click to expand...

The part where you keep using the term NATIONAL ELECTION. The California election is a state election for California state electors. Do you not support the right of a state to determine how its electors are chosen?
 
CALIF legislature - no tax returns - no spot on ballot
Click to expand...

won't work. courts will toss it. we'll probably only see his returns if they are leaked.
 
haymarket said:
California is making it part of that same process. They are deciding that NO California elector will vote for anyone not complying with the tax return requirement. As is their right for their own state election of electors.
Click to expand...
That's not what your link says. This law has nothing to do with selecting California's electors.
 
haymarket said:
Why would it be ruled unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I've had second thoughts on that. The constitution defines the qualifications for an individual to become president. But the constitution doesn't address ballot access. Hence you have all 50 states granting automatic ballot access for both major parties with any third party or independent having to jumps through hoops to gain ballot access. 50 different state laws and 50 different time periods in which a non-major party can qualify for ballot access. Going back to my Ross Perot days and getting him on the ballot changed my mind as to the constitutionality of the issue. If a state can dictate the qualifications for third parties/independents, it can do the same for the two major parties.
 
Perotista said:
I've had second thoughts on that. The constitution defines the qualifications for an individual to become president. But the constitution doesn't address ballot access. Hence you have all 50 states granting automatic ballot access for both major parties with any third party or independent having to jumps through hoops to gain ballot access. 50 different state laws and 50 different time periods in which a non-major party can qualify for ballot access. Going back to my Ross Perot days and getting him on the ballot changed my mind as to the constitutionality of the issue. If a state can dictate the qualifications for third parties/independents, it can do the same for the two major parties.
Click to expand...
I'm curious about the constitutionality of the government compelling a citizen to divulge private information in order to participate in the political process.
 
Moon said:
That's not what your link says. This law has nothing to do with selecting California's electors.
Click to expand...

Of course it does as that is the very purpose of the election for President in each state.
 
Moon said:
That's not what your link says. This law has nothing to do with selecting California's electors.
Click to expand...

You cannot have a state election for president without it being about the electors.
 
Moon said:
I'm curious about the constitutionality of the government compelling a citizen to divulge private information in order to participate in the political process.
Click to expand...

They do not have to divulge the information. That is up to them.
 
Moon said:
I'm curious about the constitutionality of the government compelling a citizen to divulge private information in order to participate in the political process.
Click to expand...

They do not have to divulge the information. That is up to them. Running for a public position often involves making sacrifices in ones private life. Its something of a trade off.
 
haymarket said:
You cannot have a state election for president without it being about the electors.
Click to expand...
The law has nothing to do in selecting their electors. It prevents the Secretary of State from putting the name on the ballot.
 
haymarket said:
They do not have to divulge the information. That is up to them. Running for a public position often involves making sacrifices in ones private life. Its something of a trade off.
Click to expand...
Pretty flippant reading of a constitutional protection, but I understand the emotion behind the support of this law.
 
Cardinal said:
Are those requirements, or are those the only requirements? And what is the exact wording? In other words, does the Constitution ban further requirements? Honest question.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken most states require a certain number of signatures on a petition to be on the ballot, or is that only for state reps?
 
haymarket said:
The part where you keep using the term NATIONAL ELECTION. The California election is a state election for California state electors. Do you not support the right of a state to determine how its electors are chosen?
Click to expand...

Do you believe the US should have uniform standards for how someone gets on the ballet for the position of POTUS on each States ballet?

I have answered your question. Sorry you can't seem to comprehend the answer.
 
haymarket said:
It is NOT violating the Constitution. If you claim it is - how so?
Click to expand...

you're right it's not.

however if it were applied against say, a Trump reelection campaign, then the state of California is disenfranchising republican voters, and thus congress can reduce their elector count and congressional seats
as per the 14th amendment
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't want to associate with any person who determined my credibility on the basis of my tax returns.
 
Moon said:
The law has nothing to do in selecting their electors. It prevents the Secretary of State from putting the name on the ballot.
Click to expand...

So that t here is no slate of electors for the candidate who violates the law.
 
Moon said:
Pretty flippant reading of a constitutional protection, but I understand the emotion behind the support of this law.
Click to expand...

What so called "constitutional protection" are you referring to?
 
mike2810 said:
Do you believe the US should have uniform standards for how someone gets on the ballet for the position of POTUS on each States ballet?

I have answered your question. Sorry you can't seem to comprehend the answer.
Click to expand...

I believe the election for President should be a single national election with one set of rules and decided by the winner of the popular vote with no Electoral College.

So do you support the right of a state to pass laws determining how it allocates its electors or not? You have NOT been clear on this. You keep talking about a NATIONAL ELECTION when it is a series of individual state elections. So your premise is totally false.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
you're right it's not.

however if it were applied against say, a Trump reelection campaign, then the state of California is disenfranchising republican voters, and thus congress can reduce their elector count and congressional seats
as per the 14th amendment
Click to expand...

Actually the Republican candidate who refuses to comply with the law would be disenfranchising republican voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom