NJ to pass law requiring tax return release

[NewJeffCT]

Maryland did this last year, I believe.

These are blue states that Trump had little to no chance of winning. Neither does Pence. However, will this also affect Sanders in the primaries since he did not release his tax returns last time around?

[Gothmog]

1. Christie had vetoed a similar law when he was governor

[NewJeffCT]

2. the governor in NJ is a Democrat now

I would think he'd sign it

[Gothmog]

5. I agree

[SFnomad]

3. I'm sure it will get challenged in court. Being that the Constitution leaves elections

specifically to the states, I'm not sure they'll get very far in those challenges.

[Gothmog]

44. Prof. Tribe thinks that these laws are constitutional

Prof. Tribe disagrees with your analysis https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opinions/state-laws-requiring-tax-return-disclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office.

As a result, we believe these laws comport fully with the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike prohibited qualifications, these laws do not impose substantive requirements on candidates beyond those imposed by the Constitution itself; that is, these laws do not limit which candidates may run for office based on any particular information in their tax return. Thus, they do not create an insurmountable barrier in advance to any set of individuals otherwise qualified under Article II of our Constitution. Instead, these laws require federally qualified candidates to comply with a relatively minor process of tax disclosure. That is something competing candidates can and should readily do in order to allow voters to make more informed judgments about those contenders' characters or backgrounds.

I trust Prof. Tribe on this.

As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters

[SFnomad]

45. Did you just cut/past this from somewhere else?

As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters

The midterms were months ago and the Democrats did retake the House, though they are taking their time getting at tRump's tax returns.

[Cha]

4. Every Presidential Canidate should follow Elizabeth

Warren's lead.

Link to tweet

[Me.]

6. What's The Deal With Refusung To Show Tax Returns

What are they afraid of, what are they hiding?

[NewJeffCT]

7. There were stories that Trump was shocked

that he got away with not releasing his tax returns

[Me.]

11. He's Shocked, I'm Shocked

[Cha]

10. Transparency, baby! That's what it's

all about.. and BS better get on board that train.. with Elizabeth leading the way!

[WeekiWater]

33. I know she isn't well liked here.

But Gillibrand has been leading the way on this for a while now. She fights for transparency in Congress like few others.

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/sunlight-report

[NurseJackie]

8. Fantastic!

I believe these laws will help the voters to make better decisions. And it will help to weed-out the candidates who have something to hide. It's a win-win all the way!!

[pressbox69]

9. It's a start.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Oh - it will pass alright

At this point - we have nothing to lose by not playing nice with the Federal Government and the rest of America.

Also - remember this - we are one of the VERY last primaries - June 2nd.

So what we do will most likely fly under the radar. No one is paying attention so -

Why not?

[VarryOn]

13. I'd also like politicians to be required to release...

But also divorce decrees and medical records (not complete records, but enough info to give voters a picture of overal lphysical and mental health).

[CrossingTheRubicon]

15. And child support payments?

Full transparency.

[VarryOn]

16. Sure. Very relavent...

I'd like to know if a politician seeking my vote is taking care of their kids.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

17. I agree. Full disclosure.

Past and present children.

[Andy823]

14. That's the way it should be

The votes have the right to know if the person running has and shady deals, or large sums of money they don't talk about before we make them the candidate.

[TomSlick]

18. Not to throw cold water - but

The Constitution sets the qualifications for President - 35 years old, natural citizen, etc. I am not confident that either the Congress or the States can impose new criteria, no matter how good an idea.

[NewJeffCT]

19. I think at the state level

most states can decide their own laws as long as they don't conflict with the overall requirements.

[TomSlick]

21. A reasonable argument.

I'm not convinced a state couldn't have such a requirement but neither I am convinced they can. I think it an interesting constitutional law question.

[rgbecker]

35. Every state has rules about who gets on the ballot.

Mostly you need a petition with signatures of voters...the number determined by each state. Third party candidates have a hard time getting on all 50 state ballots because of the hoops they need to jump through. Often there are people on my ballot (Mass) that never show up on any other states ballots.

The states have complete control of the elections.

The constitution's requirements are simply that. Beyond the citizenship and age requirement there are many barriers that are put up by the states.

Oh, and look at the different rules about the electoral college and who gets to go...I believe Nebraska and Maine now divide theirs up rather than make all the delegates go with one or the other candidates.

[TomSlick]

36. Again, a reasonable argument.

However, there is a limit somewhere to a State's power. Taking the absurd example, a State could not bar a candidate from the State of California. As a slightly less absurd example, I do not believe a State could require an affidavit attesting that a candidate had only ever voted for candidates of the party in which s/he is running.

I do not know that whether a State could impose a requirement that a candidate submit tax returns. I think it an interesting constitutional law question. I am not convinced that we need interesting constitutional law issues in the middle of a primary race.

[rgbecker]

39. Well if there is going to be a tax return rule it has to start sometime.

And if it going to be contested, it will be when the State or Feds enforce it that it will be contested. (There is a tax return required part of the Democratic sponsored HR 1 now in debate in the house). And it won't be enforced except during an election...probably a primary first. So we can't really control when the issue comes up or when it will be in the courts.

If one state wants it, any serious contender will have to comply to be competitive

Sooner the better in my opinion.

[TomSlick]

42. I don't disagree.

The constitutional challenge would make work for lawyers - a great and noble good.

I fully expect that any Democratic candidate to release his or her returns without the need for a law. Trump, of course, will not. It might be fun if some state refused to allow Trump on the GOP primary ballot.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. We are changing our reputation

We are state that many outsiders think - NJ ='s Corruption.

Redisyric, tax returns, etc etc. I think this just might pick off Sweeney. I've had enough of him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Those are the *minimum* requirements. I don't see any reason why Congress or states

couldn't impose additional ones, or why political parties couldn't require certain things - like releasing tax returns - as a condition of endorsement or support. The Constitution says only this: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." This doesn't say there can't be other qualifications; it merely disqualifies those who don't meet these minimums. If they wanted those to be the only requirements they'd have phrased the clause something like this: "Any person who is a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and who shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, shall be eligible to the office of President."

The Constitution also gives the states the power to decide how candidates can get on their ballots. The states impose registration requirements and time limits in order for candidates to be listed on their ballots, and the Constitution says nothing about that. Why not tax returns?

[Gothmog]

28. Candidates who won't disclose taxes shouldn't be on the ballot

Prof. Tribe disagrees with your analysis https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opinions/state-laws-requiring-tax-return-disclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office.

As a result, we believe these laws comport fully with the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike prohibited qualifications, these laws do not impose substantive requirements on candidates beyond those imposed by the Constitution itself; that is, these laws do not limit which candidates may run for office based on any particular information in their tax return. Thus, they do not create an insurmountable barrier in advance to any set of individuals otherwise qualified under Article II of our Constitution. Instead, these laws require federally qualified candidates to comply with a relatively minor process of tax disclosure. That is something competing candidates can and should readily do in order to allow voters to make more informed judgments about those contenders' characters or backgrounds.

I trust Prof. Tribe on this.

As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters

[R B Garr]

20. Great! Transparency for everyone. No double standards. nt

[Gothmog]

23. Released their tax returns every year since 1977,

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Yep, if you dont release them you are hiding something PERIOD

and yet...oh fuck it

[Peacetrain]

24. WTG New Jersey!!

[UCmeNdc]

25. California Needs to do this!

[Gothmog]

29. Yeah for Senator Warren

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

30. Politics How States Could Force Trump to Release His Tax Returns

I volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection issues and have been in war rooms the last five or so elections. Prof. Hasen has a good blog on election law and he believes that these laws are constitutional. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950

The answer lies in another part of Article II—the part that received some important attention in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that Democrats love to hate. Famously, the 2000 case between Republican nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore effectively handed the election to Bush when it ended the Florida recount.

Article II provides that the “state legislature” “may direct” “the manner” for choosing presidential electors. In Bush v. Gore, the Court stated that this Article II power given to state legislatures was “plenary,” meaning that the states have a broad power when it comes to presidential elections. Indeed, the Court wrote that even though state legislators have given each state’s voters the right to vote for presidential electors, at any time a state legislature can “take back the power” to appoint electors. In other words, if the California or Texas state legislature wanted to directly choose the state’s presidential electors in 2020, the state could do so. As Dean Vik Amar notes, the Constitution does not necessarily include a right of Americans to vote for president at all (and American citizens in U.S. territories do not have this right).

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.

Prof. Hasen has some concerns about the wisdom of these laws and possible GOP retaliation if blue states adopt these laws. I also believe that these laws are valid

[honest.abe]

31. Yes!!!

[WeekiWater]

32. At this point in time, a law shouldn't have to be passed.

It’s nice to see some legislators working to protect the citizens from nefarious and deceptive players. I truly believe Trump would not be President if we saw his full taxes. I’m sure he isn’t the only one who would be eliminated if forced to be transparent.

[Gothmog]

34. Has sanders released his tax returns yet?

[rgbecker]

40. Not yet.

When he does and we find out what he's been hiding, he's toast. So keep bringing it up..I'm sure he's paying attention.

I'm sure you will, some how.

[R B Garr]

41. It's really odd how someone can imply there's

some kind of corruption in not being transparent, then not be transparent themselves. Do people actually get away with this? Strange.

[leftofcool]

37. Good

[Scurrilous]

38. ...

[Gothmog]

43. Senator Gillibrand has released her taxes

Link to tweet

/photo/1