• 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!

Trump Off NJ Ballot in 2020

I never understood the fascination with tax returns of the candidates. Then again when I became interested in politics, no candidates disclosed their tax returns. That was back in 1956, I think Ford was the first one to do so, his was but a summary. I think the opposing party and opposing candidate are interested in tax returns for a gotcha moment.

According to the law, tax returns are supposed to be private. Why the desire to make them public, is that desire actually going against the law? Those who want Trump's tax returns, would they vote for him if he releases them. You know they wouldn't. They just want a chance at a gotcha, more or less a political vendetta, call it free opposition research.

Show me one voter who would vote for Trump if he released his tax returns that didn't vote for him only because he failed to release his tax returns, then I might reconsider. As for New Jersey, Trump doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever winning there. He might as well avoid all campaigning, all operations there and spend that time, energy and money elsewhere in swing states. Perhaps New Jersey is doing him a favor. New York, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, etc might as well follow suit. No chance for him in any of those states. He ought to just cede them now and concentrate on the states he can win.
You've missed the point with the bolded. Tax returns allow the public to examine the candidate's financial dealings to see where his financial loyalties may lie, including possible conflicts of interest.
 
There's another way Trump can be on the ballot that the cultists aren't even considering. He can release his tax returns. Like he promised. No need to trample the constitutional state rights.

We should ask whether his audit is complete. What do you think the odds are on an honest answer from him? Zero?
 
The New Jersey legislation would ban millions of poor people from running for president in that state. People don’t have to file income taxes if they don’t make a certain amount of money. Therefore, they wouldn’t have any returns to submit in New Jersey.

And it wouldn’t just ban the poor. If you became rich in the last three or four years before the election, and thus didn’t have five years of returns, you would also be banned from the ballot.

Leave it to Democrats to think of new ways to punish the poor.

It would be quite easy to demonstrate you were not required to file. How many people making less than $12,000 grand a year do you imagine to have the experience to run the federal government?
 
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - Wikipedia

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't plan to be voting for Trump anyway, but there's no way this even hits the supreme court and if it did, it would be shot down unanimously. It's a stunt coming from a deep blue state. Interesting how it only applies to the office of president and has been passed twice since he took office.

Edit: removed knee-jerk name calling of Trump. I try to avoid that habit.
 

Even if this is completely legit, I don't want to win this way. We don't need to win this way.

Come on guys, think this through. We would all be losing our **** right now if the Democratic nominee was off the ballot in a state, legal or no, it's undemocratic. Full stop. How is one to critisize gerrymandering that tips elections in favor of Republicans if one puts their blinders on when it comes to their political enemy?

I would like to see those tax returns, and I think he should release them, but just no. I'm not about to tell New Jersey Trump supporters that their dear leader is a dangerous, authoritarian egomaniac, and then hold hostage their ability to vote for him.
 
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - Wikipedia

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I don't plan to be voting for Trump anyway, but there's no way this even hits the supreme court and if it did, it would be shot down unanimously. It's a stunt coming from a deep blue state. Interesting how it only applies to the office of president and has been passed twice since he took office.

Edit: removed knee-jerk name calling of Trump. I try to avoid that habit.

I don't know the answer, but I don't think you hit all the relevant sections of the Constitution above. How does this fit into the analysis?

U. S. Electoral College: Presidential Election Laws

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

And states have a number of different requirements to get on the ballot, such as signature requirements, fees, deadlines, etc. so they definitely have some significant leeway, and I'm not sure why a financial disclosure would be necessarily off limits. Basically, I'm saying I don't know, not that you are wrong...
 
Last edited:
It would be quite easy to demonstrate you were not required to file. How many people making less than $12,000 grand a year do you imagine to have the experience to run the federal government?

According to the news story cited, the law does not mention any exceptions for those not releasing a return to the state.
Mahatma Gandhi mobilized an entire nation and his new worth was only $1,000.

Mahatma Gandhi Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth
 
Even if this is completely legit, I don't want to win this way. We don't need to win this way.

Come on guys, think this through. We would all be losing our **** right now if the Democratic nominee was off the ballot in a state, legal or no, it's undemocratic. Full stop. How is one to critisize gerrymandering that tips elections in favor of Republicans if one puts their blinders on when it comes to their political enemy?

I would like to see those tax returns, and I think he should release them, but just no. I'm not about to tell New Jersey Trump supporters that their dear leader is a dangerous, authoritarian egomaniac, and then hold hostage their ability to vote for him.

Respect. I agree with your statement on just about every level and it's nice to see a progressive be the one to say it this way. You expect it from repubs, conservatives, and of course libertarians.
 
I'm a little confused. The section you quoted has nothing to do with the candidate. Just the rep for the electoral college.

Right, but the section provides that electors may be appointed in a manner determined by the state legislature. A statewide election is one such option, but not required, and if they do have elections, states presumably have the power to determine how to conduct them. We know that almost all states have decided to but don't have to appoint electors based on winner take all, and there are a bunch of different state rules on ballot access for the purpose of selecting electors.

Here's one constitutional scholar's take on it that I just found. His answer is 'maybe.'

How States Could Force Trump to Release His Tax Returns - POLITICO Magazine

The logic then goes like this: If a state legislature can take back from the voters the right to vote at all for president, it may be able to use ballot-access laws to limit the candidate choices presented to voters. And doing so would not impinge on the Qualifications Clause in Article II because Congress ultimately counts the Electoral College votes and can police that Clause. If a state legislature, for example, chose electors supporting a candidate under the age of 35, the U.S. House of Representatives, which counts the Electoral College votes, could disregard those votes after deeming the underage candidate unqualified.

Also here: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

Other legal experts are also confident in the soundness of the tax-return maneuver. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and frequent critic of the Trump administration, described Maryland’s bill as a “neutral, even-handed way” to allow voters to assess the “financial and ethical history” of would-be candidates. He also viewed its constitutional footing as more secure.

“It’s not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution’s age, residence, and other qualifications,” Tribe said.
 
Even if this is completely legit, I don't want to win this way. We don't need to win this way.

Come on guys, think this through. We would all be losing our **** right now if the Democratic nominee was off the ballot in a state, legal or no, it's undemocratic. Full stop. How is one to critisize gerrymandering that tips elections in favor of Republicans if one puts their blinders on when it comes to their political enemy?

I would like to see those tax returns, and I think he should release them, but just no. I'm not about to tell New Jersey Trump supporters that their dear leader is a dangerous, authoritarian egomaniac, and then hold hostage their ability to vote for him.

I'm pretty undecided on the tax return requirement - disclose or else - but the reason I don't immediately reject it is because I don't view reasonable financial disclosure requirements as unreasonable or overly burdensome. We have required them of Congress for decades now, and FEC requires presidential candidates to make those disclosures today. Trump filed his as required before the 2016 election.

Financial Disclosures • OpenSecrets

The problem is those are very general and aren't subject to audit or examination. Tax returns are specific and are subject to audit, and so are far more revealing.

So it's not immediately clear why a state requirement for disclosures in excess of what is already required is so troublesome. We know that all candidates for decades have complied voluntarily, which means they didn't find them overly burdensome. And states aren't really holding hostage anyone except those who refuse to comply with the requirements. The solution for Trump is what all candidates for decades have done - release the returns.
 
Right, but the section provides that electors may be appointed in a manner determined by the state legislature. A statewide election is one such option, but not required, and if they do have elections, states presumably have the power to determine how to conduct them. We know that almost all states have decided to but don't have to appoint electors based on winner take all, and there are a bunch of different state rules on ballot access for the purpose of selecting electors.

Here's one constitutional scholar's take on it that I just found. His answer is 'maybe.'

How States Could Force Trump to Release His Tax Returns - POLITICO Magazine

Also here: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

I get where you are coming from. Without getting into the level of constitutional jurists or scholars, we are probably going to end up unsettled here. Any time a state has tried this, it has been shot down on a state level. Even NJ OLS ruled that they could not limit the candidates beyond the guidelines of the federal constitution.

Unfortunately, I cannot cut and paste from this link for some reason. However, if you look at the end of page 2 and start of page 3, you will find the relevant case law and such. It's not a tough read.

https://savejersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/I.O.-1454-Schepisi-2017-executed-scanned.pdf

That's NJ's own legislative research group. It is comprised of pretty moderate jurists.

Anyway, I won't have evidence to present beyond that because we aren't a court of law here, but I'm still very open to discussion.
 
That sounds illegal

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It is-the federal courts are going to ram that nonsense up the collective asses of the assholes who passed such a BS law.
 
It is-the federal courts are going to ram that nonsense up the collective asses of the assholes who passed such a BS law.

I was waiting for the lawyer to weigh in. Thanks. Could I trouble you to skim my last link and see if you think it's pretty straight up?
 
Why won't your cult leader release his?

If he has nothing to hide, then he should have no problem...right?

Sort of like Obama's college records?
 
I was waiting for the lawyer to weigh in. Thanks. Could I trouble you to skim my last link and see if you think it's pretty straight up?

I read it and based on what it states, its conclusion seems well supported.
 
I read it and based on what it states, its conclusion seems well supported.

That's what I thought, but all my law is second hand. I can barely do a statute lookup ;)

Thanks for taking the time!
 
I get where you are coming from. Without getting into the level of constitutional jurists or scholars, we are probably going to end up unsettled here. Any time a state has tried this, it has been shot down on a state level. Even NJ OLS ruled that they could not limit the candidates beyond the guidelines of the federal constitution.

Unfortunately, I cannot cut and paste from this link for some reason. However, if you look at the end of page 2 and start of page 3, you will find the relevant case law and such. It's not a tough read.

https://savejersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/I.O.-1454-Schepisi-2017-executed-scanned.pdf

That's NJ's own legislative research group. It is comprised of pretty moderate jurists.

Anyway, I won't have evidence to present beyond that because we aren't a court of law here, but I'm still very open to discussion.

Fair enough, and I don't know your background but I'm not even a lawyer, but I read the tax laws pretty regularly.... I'm a geek in some ways and just enjoy reading about questions like these and was throwing in my pretty uninformed 2 cents. :peace

I'll just say that my own personal opinion is the standard of candidates releasing their returns is IMO an excellent thing, because I believe we have a right to know where a candidate makes his or her money. It will almost certainly influence a lot of decisions if, for example, some industry paid a candidate $10 million to sit on a board, or be a nominal VP of something. Disclosure either makes that a non-starter because someone contemplating running can't bear the heat of disclosing it, or if they do get that kind of deal, the public should know, especially in this era where $10 million or $50 million is peanuts to the big boys.

So it worries me that Trump said no, and it didn't cost him, and I worry the standard has been shattered. Darkness in politics is IMO corrosive and sunlight a great antidote to a lot of problems so the more the better as long as the disclosures are reasonable and the history of the requirement in the past few decades, with every candidate doing it, indicates it is reasonable as I see it.
 
Fair enough, and I don't know your background but I'm not even a lawyer, but I read the tax laws pretty regularly.... I'm a geek in some ways and just enjoy reading about questions like these and was throwing in my pretty uninformed 2 cents. :peace

I'll just say that my own personal opinion is the standard of candidates releasing their returns is IMO an excellent thing, because I believe we have a right to know where a candidate makes his or her money. It will almost certainly influence a lot of decisions if, for example, some industry paid a candidate $10 million to sit on a board, or be a nominal VP of something. Disclosure either makes that a non-starter because someone contemplating running can't bear the heat of disclosing it, or if they do get that kind of deal, the public should know, especially in this era where $10 million or $50 million is peanuts to the big boys.

So it worries me that Trump said no, and it didn't cost him, and I worry the standard has been shattered. Darkness in politics is IMO corrosive and sunlight a great antidote to a lot of problems so the more the better as long as the disclosures are reasonable and the history of the requirement in the past few decades, with every candidate doing it, indicates it is reasonable as I see it.

In principal, I agree with everything you said. However, the only way to change something like this would require a constitutional amendment. We are past the days where those happen. Everyone is too busy making every single thing partisan to ever get a 2/3 vote on anything.

That being the case, it's unfair to try and change it with stunts and such. Much as I'd like to see his returns, it would never change my vote. I won't be voting for him no matter what they say. The folks who say it will change nothing are probably correct. I, and many others, are under the assumption he has plenty to hide and bringing it to light won't change his base.

At this point, it's all about motivating the middle. Do they vote 3rd party or actively vote against him? Stuff like this is counter-productive for the party.
 
It is-the federal courts are going to ram that nonsense up the collective asses of the assholes who passed such a BS law.

I don't see why that's obvious when the FEC already requires presidential candidates to file financial disclosures, and this would just be a different type of financial disclosure, and one that every candidate for decades has voluntarily complied with, so not apparently or obviously overly burdensome. The argument for it also isn't frivolous, sunlight is good, Congress agrees which is why FEC requires financial disclosures. The state is simply saying, we'd like a bit MORE sunlight that Congress has already determined is worthwhile.

Also, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is pretty broad. The NJ conclusion was essentially, "who knows" as long as the requirements aren't discriminatory in any way, and disclosures required of all candidates wouldn't appear to me to be discriminatory, except agains those who'd rather keep their financial affairs a secret.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why that's obvious when the FEC already requires presidential candidates to file financial disclosures, and this would just be a different type of financial disclosure, and one that every candidate for decades has voluntarily complied with.

Also, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is pretty broad. The NJ conclusion was essentially, "who knows" as long as the requirements aren't discriminatory in any way, and disclosures required of all candidates wouldn't appear to me to be discriminatory, except agains those who'd rather keep their financial affairs a secret.

wanna bet if this nonsense survives the courts?
 
You've missed the point with the bolded. Tax returns allow the public to examine the candidate's financial dealings to see where his financial loyalties may lie, including possible conflicts of interest.

Do you really think it made a difference? Those who were going to vote for Trump were going to do so regardless of his tax returns and those who were going to vote against him were going to do that regardless also. I seen IKE vs. Stevenson, JFK vs. Nixon, LBJ vs. Goldwater, Nixon vs. Humphrey, Nixon vs. McGovern, none released any tax returns. Those according to federal law are supposed to be private.

If I remember right, Ford started all of this by releasing a summary of his taxes, not his tax returns in an effort to get Carter to do the same and cut Jimmy's lead in the polls. Purely political on Ford's part. I think it has been purely political ever since. One side looking for a gotcha.
 
I think it's more than that. IMO, we're owed as voters a great deal of transparency about a candidates' real or potential financial conflicts of interest, and nothing is as transparent as a tax return, where you have to put down numbers on every dollar you make.



You're arguing that transparency doesn't matter, so why have it, why not allow candidates to hide their sources and amount of income so we as voters have no idea who paid them how much. I don't agree, at all.

If you want an example - Hillary is a good one. When she went on the $10 million speaking tour for Wall Street, my views about her changed forever, for the worse, mostly because it demonstrated a just amazing amount of arrogance. Everyone on the planet paying attention knew she was running for POTUS in 2016, she didn't need that money, and still she sold herself out to Wall Street people who she was alternatively promising to crack down on. Her decision to take more than $10 million in "speaking fees" gave us a nearly foolproof way to determine that was bull****. It was the moral equivalent of a shake down - pay me or else - and they paid, of course, because why not?



Except as you know the Republicans in down ballot races will suffer without Trump at the top to bring out GOP voters.

With New Jersey having 11 out of 12 House representatives being Democrats, two Democratic senators, democratic governor, with the Democrats having a 54-26 advantage in NJ's state legislature and a 26-14 advantage in their state senate. Down ballot Republicans in this one party dominated state which hates Trump would be probably better off without Trump on the ballot. The same probably holds true in New York and California, all one party states. No competition.

As for Hillary, all I had to go was to open secrets to see all the money wall street firms gave to Hillary, lobbyist also. Very little went to Trump from those folks. I didn't need tax returns for that. Wall street owned Hillary.
 
Back
Top Bottom