Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot.

[Captain Adverse]

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

A federal judge in California blocked a state law that requires candidates for president to disclose tax returns before their names can appear on the state's primary ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. Englund Jr. of the Eastern District of California on Tuesday [10/01/19] wrote "while this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California" to pass the law, "the Act's provisions likely violtate the Constitution and the laws of the United States." Englund noted that it is not the court's role "to decide whether a tax return disclosure is good policy or makes political sense."

The judge said the law would set a dangerous precedent and become a slippery slope for other kinds of disclosures. He also said it presents a "troubling minefield" that would permit a state to makes it's own demands.

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

 

[PLizzy]

As much as I believe Trump's tax returns are our business, the California law is no doubt unconstitutional.

 

[year2late]

Never thought it had a chance.....as much as I would like the opportunity view them (of any candidate)

 

[Moderate Right]

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

I wonder if there is a record of how many cases were filed against Trump that Trump lost and then won on appeal. The left gotta be tired of losing most of them. It just goes to show how Democrats believe they are above the law in their anti-Trump obsession.

 

[ocean515]

I wonder if there is a record of how many cases were filed against Trump that Trump lost and then won on appeal. The left gotta be tired of losing most of them. It just goes to show how Democrats believe they are above the law in their anti-Trump obsession.

For me, it shows how emotionalism and some kind of disconnect from how laws and the Constitution works, pervades the majority of people aligned with the New Democratic Party.

I'm coming to the conclusion it's the optics and how it can be used for propaganda, which drives the powers behind the party to attempt these stunts, as I'd like to think they are smart enough to know better. But maybe that is just wishful thinking.

 

[CaughtInThe]

By far the funniest part of the Trump grift is that he promised his own supporters that he'd release his returns (so they could see he's an honest guy).

Suckers.

 

[Perotista]

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

This is for now. I imagine this will go all the way to the SCOTUS. It will be interesting, the Constitution lays out the qualifications for one to become president. Anyone running for the presidency must meet those qualifications. But the Constitution doesn't address ballot access. States have limited ballot access and placed qualification on numerous parties and candidates to attain that ballot access since the beginning of the country. Every independent and third party candidate that I know of and researched has met the constitutional requirements. Yet have been denied ballot access in most states. In 2016 Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states, Stein in 44, McMullen in 11 states, Castle on 23. I could go on for the other 20 or so candidates who ran for president, who met the Constitutional qualifications who who were denied ballot access by the states through various requirements and state laws. Most of these remainders were on the ballot only in a couple of states.

If a state can limit or deny ballot access to these third party and independent candidates through their various state laws, why not a Republican or Democrat? Most states if not all give the Republican and Democratic parties automatic ballot access, but make every other party jump through hoops.

It is my hope that the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, meaning any candidate that meets the Constitutional Requirement must appear on any state ballots that a candidate decides to run for the presidency in. This may boil down to the question does a state have the power, the constitutional right to apply additional ballot access laws in addition to those specified by the Constitution. We shall see if this goes that far, to the SCOTUS.

Is there a difference between ballot access which the states control and qualifications to be president? Can a state limit and deny any candidate, Republican, Democrat, third party, independent ballot access even though everyone of those candidates meet the Constitutional requirements? At present, the answer is yes if one is a third party and or an independent. What I want is the SCOTUS to rule on this. Either the states can limit and deny through their various laws on ballot access not only independents and third party candidates, but also Republican and Democratic candidates or they must include anyone and every one who meets the constitutional requirements on their ballot if they so desire to run for the presidency in that state.

 

[Moon]

This is for now. I imagine this will go all the way to the SCOTUS. It will be interesting, the Constitution lays out the qualifications for one to become president. Anyone running for the presidency must meet those qualifications. But the Constitution doesn't address ballot access. States have limited ballot access and placed qualification on numerous parties and candidates to attain that ballot access since the beginning of the country. Every independent and third party candidate that I know of and researched has met the constitutional requirements. Yet have been denied ballot access in most states. In 2016 Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states, Stein in 44, McMullen in 11 states, Castle on 23. I could go on for the other 20 or so candidates who ran for president, who met the Constitutional qualifications who who were denied ballot access by the states through various requirements and state laws. Most of these remainders were on the ballot only in a couple of states.

If a state can limit or deny ballot access to these third party and independent candidates through their various state laws, why not a Republican or Democrat? Most states if not all give the Republican and Democratic parties automatic ballot access, but make every other party jump through hoops.

It is my hope that the SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, meaning any candidate that meets the Constitutional Requirement must appear on any state ballots that a candidate decides to run for the presidency in. This may boil down to the question does a state have the power, the constitutional right to apply additional ballot access laws in addition to those specified by the Constitution. We shall see if this goes that far, to the SCOTUS.

Is there a difference between ballot access which the states control and qualifications to be president? Can a state limit and deny any candidate, Republican, Democrat, third party, independent ballot access even though everyone of those candidates meet the Constitutional requirements? At present, the answer is yes if one is a third party and or an independent. What I want is the SCOTUS to rule on this. Either the states can limit and deny through their various laws on ballot access not only independents and third party candidates, but also Republican and Democratic candidates or they must include anyone and every one who meets the constitutional requirements on their ballot if they so desire to run for the presidency in that state.

Interesting points, definitely something I hadn’t thought about before, but will now. Thanks.

 

[Mr Person]

It's a temporary injunction, not a final ruling. Well, the articles say "temporary" but they mean "preliminary".

 

[roughdraft274]

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

How exactly was the law written? If it's only "you must do X to get on the ballot" then it seems to be constitutionally valid as the states already have numerous laws regarding who gets on the ballot already. It doesn't stop the citizens from voting for that person should they want to. There are already things like filing deadlines etc. This would just be another thing you must file in order to make it on the ballot. Though I do very clearly see how these kinds of laws can be used in an incredibly dirty way when used to target a specific candidate or party, and I do not support them, I don't know how it would be unconstitutional when the state isn't actually stopping someone from voting for the person.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I wonder if there is a record of how many cases were filed against Trump that Trump lost and then won on appeal. The left gotta be tired of losing most of them. It just goes to show how Democrats believe they are above the law in their anti-Trump obsession.

I believe Trump has lost most cases, and then also lost on appeal.

 

[Mr Person]

It's a temporary injunction, not a final ruling. Well, the articles say "temporary" but they mean "preliminary".

Based on vague memories from Civ Pro long ago, this seems reasonable:

Preparing for and Obtaining Preliminary Injunctive Relief

In most pertinent part, " Courts issue injunctive relief in order to require or prevent a party from taking certain actions in instances where monetary damages are not adequate to compensate a plaintiff for his or her injuries. Injunctive relief can be issued by a court before the case is decided on the merits in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction (PI) . . .The test used by the court for evaluating a motion for a TRO and PI is generally the same. Although the test for obtaining a TRO or PI may vary slightly across jurisdictions, generally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy a four-factor test: (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. The court is likely to more heavily scrutinize the factors when considering a PI than a TRO."

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

Except that you claim to be an attorney, don't you?

As an attorney, you would know that this is not a ruling that the law is in fact unconstitutional, and you would be acutely aware that any judge with his head screwed on properly would realize that the probability of this getting to SCOTUS before the election mathematically approaches 0, and therefore, the second through fourth factors are likely to be given even more weight than they usually are.

But you didn't mention that. Is that because maybe you aren't who you say you are, or is it because you are once more being dishonest in slavish service of Trump's interests?

:thinking

 

[SLC]

Never thought it had a chance.....as much as I would like the opportunity view them (of any candidate)

How about just not voting for anyone that doesn't show his or her tax returns. Tax returns are private and a candidate has the right to reveal them or not. Just as voters can vote for them or not.

 

[Perotista]

Interesting points, definitely something I hadn’t thought about before, but will now. Thanks.

Yes, almost every state limits their ballot access through a variety of laws. They have done this even though each and every candidate meets the constitutional requirements. Each state has imposed additional requirements. But who knows how the SCOTUS will rule. Personally, although I would love to see Trump win this, so any candidate that meets the constitutional requirements must be included on every state ballot. I have my doubts. I think the requirements outlined are just that, what a candidate must meet to run for the presidency. Now as to include the candidates on their ballot, that is a state option. Ballot access and the requirements are two different things.

We have a very long history of the states denying ballot access to candidates and parties that meet the Constitutional requirements. So this case will be very interesting to me.

 

[Perotista]

Based on vague memories from Civ Pro long ago, this seems reasonable:

Preparing for and Obtaining Preliminary Injunctive Relief

In most pertinent part, " Courts issue injunctive relief in order to require or prevent a party from taking certain actions in instances where monetary damages are not adequate to compensate a plaintiff for his or her injuries. Injunctive relief can be issued by a court before the case is decided on the merits in the form of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction (PI) . . .The test used by the court for evaluating a motion for a TRO and PI is generally the same. Although the test for obtaining a TRO or PI may vary slightly across jurisdictions, generally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy a four-factor test: (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. The court is likely to more heavily scrutinize the factors when considering a PI than a TRO."










Except that you claim to be an attorney, don't you?

As an attorney, you would know that this is not a ruling that the law is in fact unconstitutional, and you would be acutely aware that any judge with his head screwed on properly would realize that the probability of this getting to SCOTUS before the election mathematically approaches 0, and therefore, the second through fourth factors are likely to be given even more weight than they usually are.

But you didn't mention that. Is that because maybe you aren't who you say you are, or is it because you are once more being dishonest in slavish service of Trump's interests?

:thinking

If the SCOTUS rules this law unconstitutional, would their ruling apply to all these candidates and parties, independents who meet the Constitutional requirements, but aren't allowed on the ballot due to a variety of state laws limiting ballot access? The SCOTUS ruling could have a profound effect on any and all future presidential elections depending on how they rule.

What I suspect is at stake are all the laws and requirements that each states has which each candidate and party, independents must meet in order to be included on their state ballot. Either a state has the right to limit and deny ballot access if certain requirements aren't met or they don't if any candidate, political party, independent only meets the Constitutional requirement for any federal office they are seeking.

 

[Mr Person]

If the SCOTUS rules this law unconstitutional, would their ruling apply to all these candidates and parties, independents who meet the Constitutional requirements, but aren't allowed on the ballot due to a variety of state laws limiting ballot access?

With the understanding that I do appeals in criminal cases with everything else being a subject I generally think "hrm...that sounds familiar, I think the answer is X, let me check"...

...with that understanding, I can't say much that is useful without seeing the actual order itself.

It really comes down to what the basis of the decision is. As you earlier pointed out, there are any number of state rules in play that result in certain candidates appearing on the ballots in certain states, but not all states. I'm 99.99999% that there is no existing constitutional rule so broad that it would apply to any potential candidate in any circumstance and equally certain SCOTUS would never hold that there is one. So for example, I cannot imagine it being held that a state could not have a requirement about the minimum number of signatures (or whatever is used) to get on a ballot. So no matter who is affected and how, there is going to be a remaining set of requirements states can set for getting on a ballot.



That doesn't say much. I am a bit puzzled because OP's article doesn't say much about what the actual legal basis of the decision is. There's this:

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns | TheHill

Which says in part, The judge's decision came after a hearing on Thursday in Sacramento on consolidated arguments made in five lawsuits over the California law. During the hearing, England focused on the issue of whether a federal financial disclosure law preempts states from imposing additional rules, the Times reported. A lawyer for California argued that different states already have different rules for their primary elections, while a lawyer for Trump argued that the U.S. Constitution established rules for running for president that states cannot alter, according to the Times.


Trump attorney Jay Sekulow praised the judge's decision. “We are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the court’s written order," he said in a statement. "It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizens’ 1st Amendment right of association."


It sounds like there are a number of arguments in play, spread out across multiple lawsuits.

The issue of pre-emption has to do with the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption - FindLaw

But then Sekulow's statement seems to indicate their suit was arguing that a state requirement of disclosure of tax returns in order to get on the ballot is tantamount to addition of a federal constitutional requirement for president and.....something something violates an individual in CA's first amd rights to associate. (I'm really not seeing the latter).

This....

Judge blocks California law aimed at President Trump's tax returns - ABC News

...says, " England ruled that the law likely violates several articles of the U.S. Constitution, including First Amendment rights by depriving candidates access to the ballot and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause."




Basically, I can't really answer the questions without seeing what the order granting the preliminary injunction says. At most, I can say that the final ruling will most likely affect requirements most similar to CA's law, and which are which depends entirely on how that final ruling is decided, which isn't saying much at all. Too much is in the air right now, and these articles are way too sparse on legal detail.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Federal Judge Blocks California Law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot. Adrienne de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter (10/01/19)

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump to release tax returns to appear on ballot

Of course this will be appealed first to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then perhaps up to the SCOTUS if the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision.

However, I agree with this ruling, as I have argued when it was first enacted that it was an unconstitutional requirement that would open the door to all sorts of restrictions beyond those qualifications listed in the Constitution.

Good for this judge. A win for not only Trump, but looking past the short-sighted advocates of this kind of action, a win for all future candidates for President regardless of Party affiliation.

I can't see how this could be a state matter. The judge was right to do so.

 

[Perotista]

With the understanding that I do appeals in criminal cases with everything else being a subject I generally think "hrm...that sounds familiar, I think the answer is X, let me check"...

...with that understanding, I can't say much that is useful without seeing the actual order itself.

It really comes down to what the basis of the decision is. As you earlier pointed out, there are any number of state rules in play that result in certain candidates appearing on the ballots in certain states, but not all states. I'm 99.99999% that there is no existing constitutional rule so broad that it would apply to any potential candidate in any circumstance and equally certain SCOTUS would never hold that there is one. So for example, I cannot imagine it being held that a state could not have a requirement about the minimum number of signatures (or whatever is used) to get on a ballot. So no matter who is affected and how, there is going to be a remaining set of requirements states can set for getting on a ballot.



That doesn't say much. I am a bit puzzled because OP's article doesn't say much about what the actual legal basis of the decision is. There's this:

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns | TheHill
..

But then Sekulow's statement seems to indicate their suit was arguing that a state requirement of disclosure of tax returns in order to get on the ballot is tantamount to addition of a federal constitutional requirement for president and.....something something violates an individual in CA's first amd rights to associate. (I'm really not seeing the latter).

This....

Judge blocks California law aimed at President Trump's tax returns - ABC News

...says, " England ruled that the law likely violates several articles of the U.S. Constitution, including First Amendment rights by depriving candidates access to the ballot and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause."




Basically, I can't really answer the questions without seeing what the order granting the preliminary injunction says. At most, I can say that the final ruling will most likely affect requirements most similar to CA's law, and which are which depends entirely on how that final ruling is decided, which isn't saying much at all. Too much is in the air right now, and these articles are way too sparse on legal detail.

Yeah, but you tried. Perhaps it will all boil down to the scope of the ruling. If the SCOTUS rules against or for the specific law regarding the requirement of tax returns, then it won't apply to all the rest, signatures etc. I'm sure many more lawsuits would follow depending on the ruling. Now I would say the 1st and 14th amendments apply to third party and independent candidates also. Aren't all these laws limiting ballot access also denying the right and or opportunity for any resident of any state to vote for a third party or independent candidate?

Do we have one set of laws regarding ballot access for the two major parties and then another set for every other party and independent? This will be interesting to follow. Personally I don't give a darn whether Trump is on the ballot in California or not. But I certainly would like to see ballot access opened up to more than just the two major parties. Give the people a wide range of choices.