California justices skeptical of law requiring Trump to release tax returns for primary
So, instead of voter suppression, we have Democrats suppressing the choices that voters have. WTH?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
During a hearing on a new law requiring presidential primary candidates to produce their tax records, a lawyer representing the state argued the Legislature had the power to impose all sorts of requirements. Though some justices appeared inclined to find some support for the new law, no one on the court embraced the notion that the Legislature had unfettered power.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Jay C. Russell, defending the law, spoke of its expansiveness in response to a question from Justice Joshua Groban.
“Would the Legislature be entitled to impose requirements that candidates produce birth certificate or psychotherapy records or affidavits that they have never committed adultery or been a member of the Communist Party?” Groban asked.
Russell said yes, under the text of a state law, “the Legislature does have plenary power to regulate primary elections.”
He noted, though, that some requirements could run afoul of privacy protections embodied in the state and federal constitutions.
“The Legislature can then tack on any number of additional requirements?” asked an incredulous Justice Ming W. Chin.
“Where does it end?” Chin asked. “Do we get all their high school report cards?”
Even justices whose questions suggested an openness to the tax returns requirement indicated there had to be some limits.
Justice Goodwin Liu told Russell that he seemed to be espousing “a very strange reading” of the law.
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar suggested that a less expansive reading of the law might have been “enough to win your case.”
In the case before the court, the California Republican Party argued the law violated the California Constitution, which since 1972 has called for an open presidential primary.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the Legislature had not even considered the state Constitution in drafting the law.
The Legislature has plenary power “until the Constitution speaks,” she said. She said the court searched the records to determine if the Legislature even consulted the state Constitution.
“We didn’t find anything,” she said. “Did you?”
Even if the state high court upheld the law, it could not be enforced under an order by Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr.
England ruled in September that the law violated four different sections of the U.S. Constitution in addition to a separate federal law. The state appealed his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is not likely to decide the case before the deadline for producing tax returns.
Federal courts have the last word on matters of federal law, and the California Supreme Court has the final say on state law issues. If either court blocks the law, it cannot take effect.
In a separate case, a federal appeals court in New York decided earlier this week that Trump’s accountants must turn over his tax returns to a grand jury investigating possible illegal conduct by the president. The Trump administration has said it would appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
And the double standard rolls on. You WILL suppress voters if you suppress candidates.
Are you saying that this law only effects GOP candidates?
So does that mean that you oppose the GOP cancelling primaries?
The GOP gets to decide what it wants, not you.
I recall you not having a problem with Hillary basically buying the DNC.
So why upset now?
Who did she pay?
No. It doesn't matter the party. Suppression of available candidates for voters to choose from is equal to suppression OF their votes.
Ignoring.
So where does the double standard you spoke of come in?
Do at least try to keep up.
She settled the DNC's debt. I am guessing that means she paid the creditors.
or is the former chair of the DNC a liar?
Ignoring facts and history??
Typical.
Jesus H Christ. The left is continually harping on the fact that voter ID is suppression because, evidently, their constituents are too stupid to figure out how to get one. Therefore, crying suppression. and now the state can decide who they can and cannot vote for? FFS.
Ignoring.
We got the Presidential primary separate from the rest of the jungle primary system and where one has to be a Republican to vote in the presidential republican primary. We forced the state to do that by threatening to take the party out of the primary system and have a caucus instead. If the state prevails in court, a GOP caucus instead of primary could happen.
Utter bullshit Xx. Why lie? Parties control how they run their primaries and WHO may participate. Stop trying to pretend that CA somehow challenged the GOP rules for how they run their primaries.
Oh and BTFW, when you are talking about Republican voters, since you voted 3rd party, WHY do you say 'we'?
I have voted Republican in every election I voted in since 1978. Except in 2016 for President. That year I voted for an establishment Republican running as an independent. The last time I will ever vote for an establishment Republican. It will be either a tea party like populist libertarian/ Conservative party base Republican or 3rd party from now on. Trump has my vote for 2020.
Of course parties control how they run their Presidential Primaries. The state tried to compel open primaries a few years ago and the GOP said that they would eliminate the state primary for President and go with a caucus instead if the state passed that law. When the proposition was written that passed to create our current jungle primary it was written to let the parties make their own presidential primary rules to avoid the GOP going to a caucus. Now democrats and decline to state voters can vote in the democrat presidential primary and only Republicans can vote in the Republican Presidential Primary.
Prove it Xx. Post a link.
Yes, we established that already--facts and history.
Well done.
Texan is on my view but ignore list.
Texan is on my view but ignore list.
You lucky dog!
"Presidents aren’t required by law to release their tax returns."
Since The " Most Important Democrat in Democrat world "..... LOST .....in 2016....the Democrats are going to try and do anything they can to make sure the "No-Law" is adhered too.
So ….. you're not really Ignoring "Texan".
Good job !
Isn't it interesting that someone felt compelled to tell us all who he ignores!
Living in his head--rent free!
Lmfao!
No kidding....but apparently.....not really !
You're still being …… VIEWED !
Wait, didn't you just post a comment about the KY. governor race and saying the legislature being able to over turn the race and keep Bevin in office? How is that not voter suppression? Bevin lost. But just ignore the will of the voters?
Only in your mind. If you bothered to read, there could even be ano0ther vote if the "victory" didn't meet certain Constitutional requirements. I really don't have a dog in that hunt and I was just stating fact. You know. Trying to put some air freshener on the constant barrage of "BUT TRUMP" stinky articles.
Democrats reaching back to their roots, similar to how they kept Lincoln off the ballot in the south
It's not similar in any way.
States rights. That thingy the right always supports as long as it fits their agenda.
This has national implications. As in 2016, the party, in the end, will nominate whom they want to and this piece of bias BS has no bearing on that. It's aimed purely at the GOP and Mr. Trump.
Sheesh Jim, you act like they are using extortion of a foreign country to dig up dirt on trump.
Again, states rights, they can pass laws as they see fit.
What don't you understand? And I guess yes they can. No matter how stupid. And without Trump, there may not even need to be a primary on the GOP side. Perhaps they should have a referendum and put that piece of "legislation" to a vote prior to.
And I am sure you realize there could be some uncovered consequences to Dem candidates as well. The troop of Representatives and Senators in California are NOT squeaky clean either. Why is it that liberals and democrats NEVER EVER remember that decisions have unintended circumstances? I think you know why. It's all about feelings over intellect..............every damned time.
State laws can be struck down.
They have and WILL be struck down.
Figured Democrats would have learned that by now after their Jim Crow laws were struck down.
"Again, states rights, they can pass laws as they see fit. "
Ah! So you supported the Arizona laws conserving immigration inforcement or do you only think that for certain laws only?
There's a big surprise.
I find it amazing that with all the talk of "abuse of power" in the news - and especially from self-righteous Democratic legislators - no one sees the irony in legislation like this.
Especially in a state where both Shifty Schiff and Pelosi are from, two of the biggest " Trump abused his power" squawkers.
LOL skeptical for good reason.
states do not get to add extra requirements to run for president
seriously, no chance this bs sticks... no chance what so ever
but it is funny they even try, thanks for the laugh
Let Trump put his name on it. It's not like he will carry CA anyway despite some of his Trumper Hollywood lemmings.
The vindictive prick hates California because it bruised his ego that they didn't pick him for president - and that they never gave him any awards for his crappy reality show. Which is why he's tried to deny aid for the fire-ravaged parts of the state - one more thing that show how unfit he is for the office of president. He's so ignorant that he doesn't even understand how fire management is done, or what percent of CA is managed by the Federal gov't versus state, and such; but you bruise his ego and he'll try to destroy you. He hates America for the most part; unless you voted for him, you don't count.
And he changed his legal residence to FL because he's so upset about how NY "treats him very unfairly." I swear, the man should just wear a giant snowflake outfit all the time, because he's the whiniest little baby I've ever seen.