• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

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 support it. it's very easy to be a crooked rich asshole without running for office.
 
Helix said:
i support it. it's very easy to be a crooked rich asshole without running for office.
Click to expand...

We already have a crooked rich asshole running in 2020. That would be Donald Trump. He will be on the ballot, and should this become law and somehow upheld as constitutional, people in Washington will not have a voice at all in the general election. That would be unconstitutional.

Want Trump to release his tax returns? There is already a method for that. Congress can subpoena them.
 
I am sure that Trump is very worried about not winning Washington state.
 
As with too many posts and poster, the OP reacted to the headline without reading the very article cited. The constitutional issue is laid out in the article, and it is a live question:
 

The lawmakers and the state AG appear to be confident that the bill will hold up under Constitutional challenge.

A Constitutional point in favor of the law is that it would not discriminate between natural born citizens 35 years of age and above. Of course, whether that argument will be enough remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
It's a blue state, so, it doesn't mean much.
 
Its an idiotic law. Everyone has a federal right to keep their tax returns private. Arguably, the state could require its own residents running in a state race to release their state returns BUT Washington state doesn't even have an income tax return, because there is no income tax.

This is a case where some lame brain has proposed legislation that is unconstitutional, illegal, and much too stupid.
 

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.
 

While that was my gut reaction upon hearing it, the more I think about it the less I think there is a legal issue with it. After all, candidates have to meet all other manner of administrative requirements to be put on the ballot, to include certain financial disclosures. Though I am sure if they keep adding requirements the courts will step in at some point. I don't know if this one is the step too far or not.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because federal law protects federal income tax returns, absent any other federal law mandating they be released the issue is moot. If there is or is not a federal law requiring a birth certificate proving ones age or place of birth, I do not know.

State election law cannot over-ride federal protections of confidentiality of federal returns - it can, however, over-ride its own laws on confidentiality of state returns.
 

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.
 

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.
 

If I don't like the Democrat challenging Trump on my ballot, I'm going to write in you.

But on a serious note, I'm not sure how this prevents people from casting a vote for whom they want.
 
I'm a little embarrassed for my home state right now. Oh well, they can try it. I don't imagine it will last long.
 
tres borrachos said:
If I don't like the Democrat challenging Trump on my ballot, I'm going to write in you.

But on a serious note, I'm not sure how this prevents people from casting a vote for whom they want.
Click to expand...

Yippee! I'm on my way!
 
This wouldn't be necessary if Trump with all his conflicts of interest didn't divulge his tax returns. If you're becoming president we should make sure you aren't using the office to enrich yourself. There should be more scrutiny for someone running for president, than for an average person applying for a mortgage.
 

i don't see anything in the constitution that prevents the states from requiring the release of tax returns as a condition for appearing on the ballot. if corporations are people and money is speech, then perhaps we should know how much speech a presidential candidate has in order to be fully informed. this will probably make it to the higher courts, though, so we'll probably see what they think about it.
 

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
 
Oh, lord. Yet another conservative who's entreated for discourse on a matter about which s/he lacks even the most fundamental comprehension. Indeed, given your assertion, it's not even clear you read the darned article you've referenced.

From the article:
Certainly the matter is contentious and it may well be contested; however, as noted in the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states cannot add to the qualifications of senators and congressional representatives outlined in the Constitution.

But legal experts have said the law is at least partly unclear, since the Constitution also gives states the power to set rules for how presidential elections are held within their borders.

In an advisory letter issued before Tuesday's vote, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and solicitor general Noah Purcell told lawmakers they thought the proposal was legal.

"The disclosure requirement you propose is likely Constitutional," the pair wrote.
​

Regarding the above excerpt:

Red:When states pass ballot access measures, they apply equally to all would-be parties and party candidates.

Whatever WA's senators may be smoking, it's not a substance that led them, unlike you, to fail to carefully consider the legal precedents regarding the lawfulness of their IRS tax return disclosure requirement for obtaining ballot access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…