Trump, RNC sue to block California law requiring release of tax returns

[octoberlib]

President Trump and the Republican National Committee on Tuesday filed a pair of lawsuits in federal court in California, opposing a new state law that would require President Trump to release his tax returns.

The law, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week, requires that presidential and gubernatorial candidates provide five years of federal tax returns from the most recent taxable years to the California secretary of state in order to appear on the state’s primary ballot.

Trump refused to release his tax returns during his 2016 presidential bid, rejecting decades of precedent. He is already engaged in a pair of lawsuits concerning the potential release of his federal and New York state tax returns to Democrats in Congress.

The RNC lawsuit alleges that the law is “a naked political attack against the sitting President of the United States.”


https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/456384-trump-rnc-sue-to-block-california-law-requiring-release-of-trump-tax

[malaise]

1. They sure have something to hide

[octoberlib]

3. He does NOT want those tax returns seen. Tax evasion and money laundering is my guess.

[former9thward]

12. The IRS and NY IRS have seen the returns for decades.

If there is tax evasion or money laundering why has no one acted? For decades?

[octoberlib]

29. And yet, the NYT had a huge story on how Trump' had been

evading taxes for years by underreporting income and hiding money and apparently neither agency knew about it. For years.

[former9thward]

32. Then why was nothing done?

If the story was accurate and says what you said it says?

[octoberlib]

34. Last I heard on the subject , they were investigating

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

[former9thward]

38. That is about his father.

They have had his returns for decades now and they are still investigating?

[Fullduplexxx]

2. So is judicial watch .https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212351709

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212351709

[ScratchCat]

4. I went to the article at the link

But didn't see what Federal law they believe the California statute is in violation of.

Its funny how the RNC is now insisting he shouldn't have to reveal his taxes. Its very clear they show cash flow from Russia and Saudi Arabia, among other things.

[former9thward]

13. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

It is the clause that courts have used in the past to strike down state laws which have tried to add qualifications to run for federal office.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Again it does not apply to primaries.

States determine the requirements to be on the primary ballots.

States currently impose various requirements. Such as: collecting signatures supporting their name on the ballot or paying a filing fee. In some states, Texas being one, the state party determines the qualifications for their primary.

South Carolina has a filing fee of up to $20k to be on the ballot.

The clause only applies to being on the ballot in the general election.

Voting in a primary does not even result in a candidate's name being on the ballot in the general. It is the elected delegates from each state attending the national convention voting to determine the nominee.

[former9thward]

22. The clause says nothing about a general primary election.

I predict the courts will strike the law. They have been striking such laws since 1828.

[LiberalFighter]

25. You can predict all you want. You would be wrong!!

You apparently don't get it. There are already filing fees or petitions in states to get on the primary ballot. The clause is for the general election. They did not have primaries back then.

They also had more than one candidate on the general ballot from the same political party back in the early days.

Political parties are also a private entity creating their or rules.

[dumbcat]

21. Is having your name printed on a ballot a "qualification" under the Constitution?

I don't see how having to provide info to be placed on a state ballot is adding a "qualification" to be President in violation of the Constitution. He is still fully qualified to be and to run for President. Nowhere in the Constitution does it require a name be on a ballot. It doesn't even require a ballot. It doesn't even require that States hold a vote of the people. He can still be elected President by the EC. In states that do have ballots, every one I have seen has a space for a write in name, so no one is being denied the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice.

So how is it changing the "qualifications" to be President?

[former9thward]

24. The courts have disagreed with your argument since 1828.

That is when Arkansas tried to add qualifications to who could be on their federal ballot. We will see what the courts say.

[ZZenith]

26. Did you notice the word "federal" anywhere in your post?

[former9thward]

31. Do you know how elections work?

The states print the ballot for federal offices. The CA law is about a federal office.

[ZZenith]

35. It's about a state primary for federal office.

“Each State has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots and who may not. According to Article I, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections is up to each State, unless Congress legislates otherwise...”

“While the United States Constitution does set parameters for the election of federal officials, state law, not federal, regulates most aspects of elections in the U.S., including primaries, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), the running of each state's electoral college, as well as the running of state and local elections. All elections—federal, state, and local—are administered by the individual states.[2]...”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

[former9thward]

39. We will see how the courts rule.

It seems the law's proponents don't want that.

[ZZenith]

40. I am sure you will be thrilled if they block California from enacting this law.

[former9thward]

41. I support Jerry Brown's position.

He vetoed the law when he was governor. He said it was unconstitutional and would end up backfiring.

[ZZenith]

42. Jerry Brown is wrong on this issue.

States get to decide their own qualifications.

“The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution states that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof." Consequently, each state may design its own unique criteria for ballot access.[2] The United States is one of the very few nations that does not have uniform federal ballot access laws.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access

Do you know how elections work?

[former9thward]

43. No, Jerry Brown and I don't.

[former9thward]

30. If a state passed a law saying Democrats could not be on the ballot

what would you say? Because the EC could vote for them anyway so it doesn't matter. Does it?

[ScratchCat]

33. You just went from a qualification to be on the ballot

To a law preventing anyone with a specific party affiliation from being on the ballot. That's not even close to a similar argument. Paying a fee or releasing your financials is a qualification. Saying someone can't be on the ballot if they choose a certain political party is not.

[dumbcat]

37. Why are they different?

If the state passed the law saying only Republicans (or Green party, or whatever) could be on the ballot, then that's "the will of the people" of that state. Then, they would also have to pass a law (again, following the will of the people) as to how their Electors in the EC shall vote. The State could also pass a law eliminating the election for President, and instruct its Electors to always vote Green Party. If that's what the people's representatives and governor agree, that's the "will of the people.""

[dumbcat]

36. Or if a state passed a law eliminating it's state's election for President?

Is that Unconstitutional? Would that be any different?

[NewJeffCT]

18. I think the tax returns will also shatter

the myth that he's a brilliant billionaire businessman. I think the guy that wrote Trump Nation is correct that Donny is worth maybe $150 million to $250 million. And, even that might be generous.

[Mike_DuBois]

5. I believe he is actually broke

I think he's a paper billionare, leveraged beyond bankrupcy.

[NewJeffCT]

19. with all the money he's generating off of the presidency

he may not be underwater anymore.

[Gothmog]

6. This will be fun to watch

[philf99]

7. I may be in the minority here

But I don't like this law. I think putting restrictions on candidates is a bad idea. Don't give the republicans any ideas.

And in the end this isn't going to force him to release his returns

[atreides1]

8. You're right

You're probably in the minority!

The law only applies to those running for governor and president, not all candidates! The Republicans won't do it for the very same reason they've filed a lawsuit...it's information they know will shed light on the truth!

And Republicans aren't big on telling the truth!

[MichMan]

11. Why not all other offices?

Shouldn't voters have the right to know the tax info on every single state and local candidates as well ?

In fact, I would think that knowing what financial conflicts of interests exist for the local treasurer, city council, prosecutor, or judges affects us much more personally.

Dont understand why California purposely limited it to president and governor only and exempted everyone else.

[octoberlib]

10. Well, the whole candidates releasing tax returns thing resulted from past corrupt Presidents.

I think anyone who wants to be President should be investigated and their past gone through with a fine tooth comb especially financially, so I don't really have a problem with it. Corruption should be a disqualifying factor.

[uponit7771]

20. Republicans will do it anyway

[gratuitous]

9. States' rights?

I thought Republicans were all about states running their elections as they see fit. Certainly Republicans like excluding citizens likely to vote against them from voting, and they've come up with all kinds of ingenious ways to restrict the franchise. Now they don't like naked political attacks and states making up rules for who can be on the ballot? Huh.

[ffr]

14. The GOP is running scared. Keep the pressure on them until they screw up.

Or until we find out how deep Putin is into our democracy.

[Gothmog]

15. This is a 15 page poorly drafted petition

This petition is poorly drafted and is only 15 pages http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/08/06/1.-.complaint.pdf Somehow California is violating trump's first amendment rights by making him file his tax returns. This is a poorly drafted piece of shit petition

[octoberlib]

28. Thanks, Gothmog!

[Patterson]

17. This is a bad law and sets a bad precedent

[ZZenith]

27. Does it now?

[JCMach1]

23. States can determine whatever manner they want to distribute

Their electoral votes...

Trump's challenge will fail