Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear o

[Helix]

The constitution is actually fairly specific about the requirements. It allows the states to choose EC reps and such by whatever measure, but Pres candidates have to be natural born and 35 and that's it. It was debated pretty heavily when NJ tried a few weeks ago. Thread link below.

I certainly am curious about what Trump is trying to hide, but the problem is the greater concept. States start adding restrictions to control who gets on the ballot because of their lean is opening a pretty big door. What happens if they say they have to subscribe to a certain party? Maybe they have to release church transcripts from any congregation they've attended.

Trump Off NJ Ballot in 2020

perhaps we need to amend the constitution to make it more specific. i also support taking control of elections out of the hands of the states, because red states mostly use their control to make it more difficult to vote. as for what he's hiding, i think that most of us could guess, including his zombies.

 

[Praxas]

Even a Trump basher like me knows that it would be unconstitutional to deprive citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. WTF are they smoking in the Washington State Senate?

Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear on ballot - CBS News

States already have certain rules for candidates to appear on the ballot. This is no different.

 

[Keridan]

perhaps we need to amend the constitution to make it more specific. i also support taking control of elections out of the hands of the states, because red states mostly use their control to make it more difficult to vote. as for what he's hiding, i think that most of us could guess, including his zombies.

Oh, I'd be sold on a new arrangement all around. I'd absolutely love to end the EC entirely. That would have the same effect you are describing.

As for amending the constitution, well, I have no belief we will see a 2/3 vote on anything without our current polarized government and it's only getting worse.

 

[Helix]

Oh, I'd be sold on a new arrangement all around. I'd absolutely love to end the EC entirely. That would have the same effect you are describing.

As for amending the constitution, well, I have no belief we will see a 2/3 vote on anything without our current polarized government and it's only getting worse.

i agree with you on all of this.

 

[tres borrachos]

Oh, I'd be sold on a new arrangement all around. I'd absolutely love to end the EC entirely. That would have the same effect you are describing.

As for amending the constitution, well, I have no belief we will see a 2/3 vote on anything without our current polarized government and it's only getting worse.

Oh so would I! The EC ran its course many years ago. It's been working against itself for too long. Time to go.

 

[Cardinal]

Even a Trump basher like me knows that it would be unconstitutional to deprive citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. WTF are they smoking in the Washington State Senate?

Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear on ballot - CBS News

I just realized that the wording of the law requires the disclosure of income tax returns to appear on the ballot. Requirements for appearing on a state ballot are already numerous.

There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for president of the United States.

An individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Presidential nominees are selected by delegates at national nominating conventions. Individual states conduct caucuses or primary elections to determine which delegates will be sent to the national convention.[1]
An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot.[1]
An individual can run as a write-in candidate. In 2016, 33 states required a write-in candidate to file some paperwork in advance of the election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates was not permitted. The remaining states did not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election.[1]

Ballot access for presidential candidates - Ballotpedia

 

[Keridan]

Oh so would I! The EC ran its course many years ago. It's been working against itself for too long. Time to go.

I haven't really been able to find any reliable polling, but I don't know too many people who support the EC. I wonder what it would really take to get some national attention on this item. Maybe it would be one little bipartisan thing we could accomplish.

 

[Cardinal]

I haven't really been able to find any reliable polling, but I don't know too many people who support the EC. I wonder what it would really take to get some national attention on this item. Maybe it would be one little bipartisan thing we could accomplish.

It's not going to be bipartisan so long as one party sees the EC as their only means to holding on to power.

 

[Keridan]

It's not going to be bipartisan so long as one party sees the EC as their only means to holding on to power.

That's fair, but I can dream. Of course, both parties seem absolutely convinced they will win. Take advantage of that?

 

[Cardinal]

That's fair, but I can dream. Of course, both parties seem absolutely convinced they will win. Take advantage of that?

I'm not seeing that absolute conviction from either side. Absolute conviction leads to complacency, and I'm not seeing complacency from anyone.

 

[Keridan]

I'm not seeing that absolute conviction from either side. Absolute conviction leads to complacency, and I'm not seeing complacency from anyone.

Really, bud? You're gonna speak up for nothing other than to stomp on my far-fetched dreams? I'm sad now. You're lucky the sun is out and I will probably recover.

 

[maxparrish]

Nobody is arguing that federal returns aren't confidential, but you still need to provide them for other things, such as a mortgage loan, and nobody is arguing that that's Unconstitutional.

But then the requirement that an individual provide proof of income is a market transaction (presumably not endorsed nor prohibited by federal law...although under financial regulations still might be required by regulatory law),does not involve government fiat on who is or is not on the public ballot, one man-one vote doctrinal issues, or violation of privacy laws (the mortgage company is not fee to distribute those returns to the public).

There is some ambiguity to the limits of state power, but some aspects are highly dubious.

First, the States have no right to set federal qualifications for federal office. Be in term limits, age, etc. Such a law would certainty be challenged and overturned. To allow it would clearly deny Washington voters equal voting rights compared to other federal office voters.

Second, it is uncertain if the State could demand federal tax returns as a qualification for state office. The considerations of both voter and candidate equal rights to participation and federal privacy law would come into effect. Even in mortgage loan case the federal income tax return can't be released to the public - which is the whole point of demanding tax returns.

Third, it may be more likely that state returns can be mandated for state elections, although whether or not it would violate a privacy law in that state may vary from state to state.

 

[Cardinal]

But then the requirement that an individual provide proof of income is a market transaction (presumably not endorsed nor prohibited by federal law...although under financial regulations still might be required by regulatory law),does not involve government fiat on who is or is not on the public ballot, one man-one vote doctrinal issues, or violation of privacy laws (the mortgage company is not fee to distribute those returns to the public).

There is some ambiguity to the limits of state power, but some aspects are highly dubious.

First, the States have no right to set federal qualifications for federal office. Be in term limits, age, etc. Such a law would certainty be challenged and overturned. To allow it would clearly deny Washington voters equal voting rights compared to other federal office voters.

Second, it is uncertain if the State could demand federal tax returns as a qualification for state office. The considerations of both voter and candidate equal rights to participation and federal privacy law would come into effect. Even in mortgage loan case the federal income tax return can't be released to the public - which is the whole point of demanding tax returns.

Third, it may be more likely that state returns can be mandated for state elections, although whether or not it would violate a privacy law in that state may vary from state to state.

But regardless, privacy is respected until such time you need to provide certain information for certain situations, such as mortgage loans or elections (also keep in mind that you need to provide financial disclosures to the FEC).

My exact age is respected as private until I want to run for office. My exact age is respected as private until I rent a car. My tax returns are respected as private until I apply for a home loan.

As for whether it's the bank or "the public," the fact that you have chosen to share your tax returns with another party in order to take part in something makes the difference moot.

 

[azgreg]

Are there other criteria that a candidate for POTUS must meet to become eligble for office?

If so, (and yes there are) then we already have restrictions on who we allow to campaign for the office.

What distinction do you see for this particular one? Do you believe that it's that specific thing...not revealing the tax returns...that is unConstitutional?

Also, Americans can currently write in and vote for anyone they want for POTUS.

Not in all states. For example here in Arizona you have to file forms by a certain date in order to be an official write in candidate. If you don't, any votes for you won't count.

 

[Lursa]

Not in all states. For example here in Arizona you have to file forms by a certain date in order to be an official write in candidate. If you don't, any votes for you won't count.

Thanks, I didnt know that.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Even a Trump basher like me knows that it would be unconstitutional to deprive citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. WTF are they smoking in the Washington State Senate?

Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear on ballot - CBS News

The voters have NOT had their "right" to vote for the CANDIDATE of their choice restricted any more than they have by being forced to vote from a President and a Vice-President from the same party.

People who want to be CANDIDATES simply have a new requirement to meet before having their names printed on ballots and the form of the ballot is constitutionally mandated as being within the purview of the several states.

 

[SLC]

Everyone has a right to keep their age private, too. But you have to demonstrate that you're 35 or above to run for President.

Maybe we should have a law to show your birth certificate before you run that would prove your age and place of birth both.

 

[Cardinal]

Maybe we should have a law to show your birth certificate before you run that would prove your age and place of birth both.

I guess, though I'd be curious what compelling reason would inspire such a law in the first place. Did a non-naturalized citizen slip through the cracks at some point that I'm not aware of?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Voters there tend not to vote for "crooked rich assholes" anyway.

Unless:

1. the voter is a "Big R" voter and the candidate is a "Big R" candidate; or
2. the voter is a "Big D" voter and the candidate is a "Big D" candidate;

of course.

 

[digsbe]

I guess, though I'd be curious what compelling reason would inspire such a law in the first place. Did a non-naturalized citizen slip through the cracks at some point that I'm not aware of?

No, but we did have this one idiot for a president that went 8 years without disclosing his grades and university transcript. Maybe we need laws forcing those kinds of disclosures? After all the public should have the right to know about the educational standards and qualifications a candidate possesses right?

 

[pamak]

No, but we did have this one idiot for a president that went 8 years without disclosing his grades and university transcript. Maybe we need laws forcing those kinds of disclosures? After all the public should have the right to know about the educational standards and qualifications a candidate possesses right?

We need laws to protect politics from corruption and conflict of interest issues, and it is hard to link university grades with such problems.

 

[Cardinal]

No,

Okay, then I'm not clear on the inspiration for such a law.

but we did have this one idiot for a president that went 8 years without disclosing his grades and university transcript.

Was there a compelling reason to see this transcript I'm not aware of? I do recall one of the candidates threatening the schools he went to from releasing his own transcript shortly before demanding Obama's transcript. Why do you suppose Trump would go to such lengths to hide his own transcripts right before demanding to see Obama's?

Maybe we need laws forcing those kinds of disclosures? After all the public should have the right to know about the educational standards and qualifications a candidate possesses right?

After two years of Trump, I can sympathize with this position.

 

[NWRatCon]

As I noted earlier, there are competing interests between State and federal government, as described in the original article. It is an unresolved issue. States get to decide how to choose their electors, that's in the Constitution. There is currently a multistate compact effort to tie electors for the electoral college to the popular vote that is very close to ratification. It does not require a constitutional Amendment to go into effect.

A separate constitutional issue is whether ballot access questions constitute an "additional requirement" to hold office. I think it is an interesting question. One defect in Washington's case, I think, is that Washington had no income tax. Can Washington State take a stance different than current federal law? After all, federal law covers federal tax returns.

There is also an effort at the federal level to require disclosure of tax returns. That, frankly, is where this question should be resolved, but Congress hasn't been functional since the 1980s. Me mk

 

[NWRatCon]

No, but we did have this one idiot for a president that went 8 years without disclosing his grades and university transcript. Maybe we need laws forcing those kinds of disclosures? After all the public should have the right to know about the educational standards and qualifications a candidate possesses right?

you do realize that the current idiot President has actively suppressed disclosure of his grades and SAT SCORES, at the same time lying about them, right?

 

[joko104]

Still more Democratic politicians voting for "No one can require ME to release MY tax returns because they are private, but other candidates do." Typical 100% Democratic Party hypocrisy by their politicians.