Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

Who would have thought that New Jersey would be the state to fight the good fight and take a stab at Trump?

Now, the only question is if Christie will sign it or ignore it long enough for it to become law.

New Jersey lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill requiring U.S. presidential candidates to submit their tax returns to have their names listed on the state ballot, reacting to President Donald Trump's refusal to disclose his returns during the 2016 campaign.

The legislation, which also applies to vice presidential candidates, has passed both houses of New Jersey's Democratic-controlled Legislature. It now goes to Governor Chris Christie, a Republican who supported Trump's campaign and had a role on the president's transition team. The governor's office declined to say whether he would sign it.

The bill would require presidential candidates to release federal returns for at least their last five taxable years as a condition of having their names on the state ballot in general elections.

If Christie were to veto the legislation, it would require a two-thirds vote by the Legislature - comprised of the 40-seat Senate and 80-seat Assembly - to override the veto

Brian Murray, Christie's press secretary, declined to say what action the governor will take on the bill, citing a policy of not discussing legislation until it reaches the governor, and his staff has had "ample time to thoroughly review it."

If Christie fails to take action on the measure, it will become law after 45 days.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-jersey-trump-tax-idUSKBN16N315

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Why didn't any state with a democratic governor think of this? There's no way Christie signs it.

Edit, hell, why don't all of them do it?

 

[Syriel]

Other states have bills pending.

Jersey is the first one to pass a bill and send it to the gov to become law.

 

[Blader]

Why didn't any state with a democratic governor think of this? There's no way Christie signs it.

Edit, hell, why don't all of them do it?

Other state legislatures where similar measures are pending include Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania Tennessee and Virginia.

.

 

[SuperBanana]

Why didn't any state with a democratic governor think of this? There's no way Christie signs it.

Edit, hell, why don't all of them do it?

Doesn't Christie seriously hate Trump now?

 

[E92 M3]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

 

[Host Samurai]

I think that this will eventually be a thing in a post Trump America. I also believe they will be more strict on who can be in your cabinet.

 

[Cagey]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

Civil procedure is a class I often try to forget exists, but wouldn't standing complicate challenges here? A person would have standing to challenge on the merits when attempting to get onto the ballot, not years beforehand. Thus, you're challenging this sort of law in the public eye during the throes of a primary or general election season.

 

[higemaru]

Doesn't Christie seriously hate Trump now?

I don't believe so but Jared Kushner seriously hates Christie for sending his dad, Charles Kushner, to prison while he was Attorney General.

I'm also not part of Capital Hill gossip circles and I'm sure these people's minds change every couple of days though so he might think differently.

 

[MetatronM]

Civil procedure is a class I often try to forget exists, but wouldn't standing complicate challenges here? A person would have standing to challenge on the merits when attempting to get onto the ballot, not years beforehand. Thus, you're challenging this sort of law in the public eye during the throes of a primary or general election season.

Trump has already opened his 2020 reelection campaign, so I imagine he would be able to challenge right away since technically he's already running for president.

 

[StarCreator]

I'm not sure five years is long enough a period of time to reveal the tax filings Trump has fought so hard to keep hidden by the time he is up for re-election.

 

[Syriel]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

The US Constitution disagrees with you.

Section 4. Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

Source:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/11-elections.html

While the courts have rebuked some ballot access laws in the past, the vast majority of them have been upheld.

Requiring disclosure of tax returns in order to appear on a ballot doesn't seem to run afoul of any section of the Constitution.

Now Congress could pass a law saying that states can't do that, but it is unlikely that a judge would rule against such a requirement. If you have a cite indicating otherwise, please share.

 

[Cagey]

The US Constitution disagrees with you.



Source:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/11-elections.html

While the courts have rebuked some ballot access laws in the past, the vast majority of them have been upheld.

Requiring disclosure of tax returns in order to appear on a ballot doesn't seem to run afoul of any section of the Constitution.

Now Congress could pass a law saying that states can't do that, but it is unlikely that a judge would rule against such a requirement. If you have a cite indicating otherwise, please share.

Not exactly. You're citing Article I for a requirement pertaining to presidential elections.

 

[sphagnum]

NJ best state

 

[Syriel]

Not exactly. You're citing Article I for a requirement pertaining to presidential elections.

Doh. You are correct.

I should have quoted Article II, Section 1. Between that and the 22nd, there aren't many requirements laid out in the Constitution for president.

There doesn't seem to be a direct conflict as far as requirements to be on a state ballot, since the states set their own regulations for voting and electors. As long as there is nothing prohibited (discrimination, voter suppression, etc.) states have wide latitude.

 

[Cagey]

Doh. You are correct.

I should have quoted Article II, Section 1. Between that and the 22nd, there aren't many requirements laid out in the Constitution for president.

There doesn't seem to be a direct conflict as far as requirements to be on a state ballot, since the states set their own regulations for voting and electors. As long as there is nothing prohibited (discrimination, voter suppression, etc.) states have wide latitude.

The battle would be interesting, to be sure. I think courts may take a dim view of a state establishing substantive requirement to run for President, but like I stated earlier, the fact this would need to get fought in state court somewhere (whether Best State or some other Lesser State like NYS (suck it NYS)) would just highlight the tax return problem.

EDIT: Could easily see NJSC or NY Court of Appeals (or DNJ/SDNY/EDNY, damned if I remember where you would need to initiate this sort of challenge) upholding the state law and Trump campaign having to appeal to SCOTUS, for example, keeping the issue directly in the spotlight.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

It's unbelievable how much of the Presidency was based on the trust system. "Well I'm sure he'll be a nice guy so who needs laws to say as much?"

 

[Smiley90]

This would apply to his re-election campaign, correct? Do we know how far back the tax disclosures have to go? If yes then we'd at least find out things by... 2019?

... welp

 

[Syriel]

The battle would be interesting, to be sure. I think courts may take a dim view of a state establishing substantive requirement to run for President, but like I stated earlier, the fact this would need to get fought in state court somewhere (whether Best State or some other Lesser State like NYS (suck it NYS)) would just highlight the tax return problem.

EDIT: Could easily see NJSC or NY Court of Appeals (or DNJ/SDNY/EDNY, damned if I remember where you would need to initiate this sort of challenge) upholding the state law and Trump campaign having to appeal to SCOTUS, for example, keeping the issue directly in the spotlight.

States already have requirements to appear on the ballot, past what is listed in the Constitution. So it's not like this would be an entirely new thing.

It's no different really than states having the ability to allocate electors as they choose.

Prohibiting the listing of a name on a ballot wouldn't prevent a candidate from campaigning or from being voted for as a write-in.

It also wouldn't prohibit primary names (as those are controlled by the individual parties), just the state election ballots.

I would actually be very interested in hearing how a legal argument against such a restriction would be framed, especially when you keep in mind that disclosure is something that has traditionally been done in the past. It's not like NJ is making up an arbitrary rule here.

 

[Syncytia]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

I want muh states rightzz

 

[fluffydelusions]

NJ best state

Literally the only time I've ever heard someone say that lol

 

[Orbis Tabula]

This would apply to his re-election campaign, correct? Do we know how far back the tax disclosures have to go? If yes then we'd at least find out things by... 2019?

... welp

It only asks for the last five years, so if it hit Trump on his reelection campaign it would only go as far back as his returns from last year.

 

[CHC]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

Could a state theoretically get around it by saying that in order to campaign in their particular state, the candidate would need to release the returns? I mean, it wouldn't apply on a federal level but it would effectively be the same thing because you can't really omit any whole state from your campaign strategy.

 

[Makonero]

It's unbelievable how much of the Presidency was based on the trust system. "Well I'm sure he'll be a nice guy so who needs laws to say as much?"

it's not that we trusted the candidates, it's that we trusted the american people

oops

 

[Sulik2]

It's unbelievable how much of the Presidency was based on the trust system. "Well I'm sure he'll be a nice guy so who needs laws to say as much?"

The president was never intended to be this powerful as his role was laid out in the constitution. Its a combination of congress de facto seeding its powers to the president, like declaring war, and nuclear weapons. Once the president had to be the only person in charge of nukes for practical reasons the power creep was inevitable.

 

[Duxxy3]

It's unbelievable how much of the Presidency was based on the trust system. "Well I'm sure he'll be a nice guy so who needs laws to say as much?"

I think a lot of legislation will be passed to prevent another trump. I think the American people expect their president to act a certain way. Presidential for lack of a better word. Trump is a lot of things. Presidential is not one of them.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

It is not constitutional and will get blocked in the supreme court if needed. While good in theory, states do not have that sort of authority.

Actually it's debatable. The Constitution doesn't state the process for the States to add candidates to their popular vote ballots.

 

[MIMIC]

Wouldn't this need to be a constitutional amendment?

 

[Cagey]

States already have requirements to appear on the ballot, past what is listed in the Constitution. So it's not like this would be an entirely new thing.

It's no different really than states having the ability to allocate electors as they choose.

Prohibiting the listing of a name on a ballot wouldn't prevent a candidate from campaigning or from being voted for as a write-in.

It also wouldn't prohibit primary names (as those are controlled by the individual parties), just the state election ballots.

I would actually be very interested in hearing how a legal argument against such a restriction would be framed, especially when you keep in mind that disclosure is something that has traditionally been done in the past. It's not like NJ is making up an arbitrary rule here.

The issue is how the law gets viewed.

#1. If the law is seen as a state creating a qualification for persons running for President above and beyond what the Constitution requires in Article II, Section 1 and the 22nd Amendment, then there's an argument it runs afoul of the Constitution. There's only the qualifications outlined in the Constitution that one needs to run for President. These laws add a new qualification: "35 and older, natural born citizen, resident of US for 14 years, and released tax returns for X years."

#2. If the law is seen as a state adding to its ballot access rules, an area where Bush v. Gore (amusingly enough) established that states have some leeway for setting up ballots, then there's an argument it's constitutional. The law would add a new requirement for getting your name officially on a ballot -- release tax returns -- but would not render someone ineligible.

Comes down to the ballot access v. eligibility distinction. The first description is a more reality-based look at the actual impact of a candidate not getting onto a ballot for their ability to win an election (eligibility in a de facto sense), the second description is a more legal argument about a person remaining legally eligible to win an election but just not being allowed to have their name printed on a ballot.

Never bothered to take an Election Law class so feel free to ignore all this.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Could a state theoretically get around it by saying that in order to campaign in their particular state, the candidate would need to release the returns? I mean, it wouldn't apply on a federal level but it would effectively be the same thing because you can't really omit any whole state from your campaign strategy.

Bernie and Clinton did <insert upside down emoji here>

 

[Ogodei]

The issue is how the law gets viewed.

#1. If the law is seen as a state creating a qualification for persons running for President above and beyond what the Constitution requires in Article II, Section 1 and the 22nd Amendment, then there's an argument it runs afoul of the Constitution. There's only the qualifications outlined in the Constitution that one needs to run for President. These laws add a new qualification: "35 and older, natural born citizen, resident of US for 14 years, and released tax returns for X years."

#2. If the law is seen as a state adding to its ballot access rules, an area where Bush v. Gore (amusingly enough) established that states have some leeway for setting up ballots, then there's an argument it's constitutional. The law would add a new requirement for getting your name officially on a ballot -- release tax returns -- but would not render someone ineligible.

Comes down to the ballot access v. eligibility distinction. The first description is a more reality-based look at the actual impact of a candidate not getting onto a ballot for their ability to win an election (eligibility in a de facto sense), the second description is a more legal argument about a person remaining legally eligible to win an election but just not being allowed to have their name printed on a ballot.

Never bothered to take an Election Law class so feel free to ignore all this.

Actually makes sense, because nothing in the constitution mandates that states have ballots. A state could probably move to a "write-ins only" system if they wanted. You don't need to be on the ballot to be elected, as Senator Murkowski knows, it's just kind of helpful.

The problem is you could game that system by creating barriers of ludicrous ballot access requirements to effectively blanket-ban people you don't like from getting on the ballot, but that isn't a problem we've seen yet.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Wouldn't this need to be a constitutional amendment?

Don't think so. Elections are a state-level event. So the federal government has limited say in how states run their election process. Generally it revolves around civil rights issues and access.

Not sure how making someone who is running for public office disclose their tax returns is a civil rights issue.

Someone being on a state's ballot or not does not prevent them from running for president if they are otherwise qualified.

 

[Goro Majima]

Actually makes sense, because nothing in the constitution mandates that states have ballots. A state could probably move to a "write-ins only" system if they wanted. You don't need to be on the ballot to be elected, as Senator Murkowski knows, it's just kind of helpful.

The problem is you could game that system by creating barriers of ludicrous ballot access requirements to effectively blanket-ban people you don't like from getting on the ballot, but that isn't a problem we've seen yet.

I can't even imagine the fuckery the Republicans would try to pull if the courts opened up the pathway to have states significantly change ballot requirements.

 

[Cagey]

Actually makes sense, because nothing in the constitution mandates that states have ballots. A state could probably move to a "write-ins only" system if they wanted. You don't need to be on the ballot to be elected, as Senator Murkowski knows, it's just kind of helpful.

The problem is you could game that system by creating barriers of ludicrous ballot access requirements to effectively blanket-ban people you don't like from getting on the ballot, but that isn't a problem we've seen yet.

Right? If we apply common sense, and ignore the legal arguments, Jersey's tax return law is clearly doing both: it's controlling state ballot access and it's adding a new qualification to be eligible to become President.

Permitting the law can allow for some more onerous requirements. For example, let's ignore the obviously shady fuckery that could go down, and invent a new (arguably sensible!) law that would directly address 2016: to get on Jersey's presidential ballot, you must have held elected office at the state or federal level for X years.

If we keep up the "it's just ballot access and you're still eligible!" charade, when does something like this cross the threshold to become impermissible? Particularly given this is a state level, and you can wind up with a byzantine patchwork of "ballot access" rules.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I can't even imagine the fuckery the Republicans would try to pull if the courts opened up the pathway to have states significantly change ballot requirements.

You mean like they already do for voting requirements?

Right? If we apply common sense, and ignore the legal arguments, Jersey's tax return law is clearly doing both: it's controlling state ballot access and it's adding a new qualification to be eligible to become President.

Permitting the law can allow for some more onerous requirements. For example, let's ignore the obviously shady fuckery that could go down, and invent a new (arguably sensible!) law that would directly address 2016: to get on Jersey's presidential ballot, you must have held elected office at the state or federal level for X years.

If we keep up the "it's just ballot access and you're still eligible!" charade, when does something like this cross the threshold to become impermissible? Particularly given this is a state level, and you can wind up with a byzantine patchwork of "ballot access" rules.

A tax return isn't a qualification though - it's mandatory for all US citizens. There is no undue burden, compared to mandating a time of service in office.

 

[ahoyhoy]

The president was never intended to be this powerful as his role was laid out in the constitution. Its a combination of congress de facto seeding its powers to the president, like declaring war, and nuclear weapons. Once the president had to be the only person in charge of nukes for practical reasons the power creep was inevitable.

I think its been a steady increase since basically the beginning, especially after the Civil War.

It makes the most sense to me seeing as how the President, as an individual, has the power to act without compromise, making them much more equipped to stretch their powers as far as they can, whereas Congress would need to reach consensus to even try to encroach on the powers of the Executive.

And once those powers are ceded as you said, there's really no going back.

 

[MIMIC]

Don't think so. Elections are a state-level event. So the federal government has limited say in how states run their election process. Generally it revolves around civil rights issues and access.

A state-level event for a federal election though. And the Supreme Court already reaffirmed that the Elections Clause doesn't permit states to add random qualifications for Congressional candidates. The same would probably apply to Presidential candidates (since it's also a federal office -- the highest federal office):

From the Congressional Research Service:

Qualifications of Members of Congress (PDF file)

There are three, and only three, standing qualifications for U.S. Senator or Representative in Congress which are expressly set out n the U.S. Constitution: age (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate); citizenship (at least seven years for the House, nine years for the Senate); and inhabitancy in the state at the time elected. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, cl. 2 (House); and Article I, Section 3, cl. 3 (Senate). The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the historical understanding that the Constitution provides the exclusive qualifications to be a Member of Congress, and that neither a state nor Congress itself may add to or change such qualifications to federal office, absent a constitutional amendment. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 522 (1969); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton, 514 U.S. 779, 800-801 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)

[...]

Although the states have no authority to add to the constitutional qualifications for congressional office, the states have the responsibility under the "Times, Places, and Manner" clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4, cl. 1) for administering elections for federal office, including regulating such subjects as ballot design, candidate placement on the ballot, ballot security measures, nomination procedures to appear as a party's nominee on the ballot, and ballot access requirements for independent and new or minor political candidates....However, requirements that are more than merely administrative and procedural or measures to protect ballot integrity have been found to be unconstitutional as additional qualifications for office.

States get to run the elections, but that's all.

 

[whyamihere]

The issue is how the law gets viewed.

#1. If the law is seen as a state creating a qualification for persons running for President above and beyond what the Constitution requires in Article II, Section 1 and the 22nd Amendment, then there's an argument it runs afoul of the Constitution. There's only the qualifications outlined in the Constitution that one needs to run for President. These laws add a new qualification: "35 and older, natural born citizen, resident of US for 14 years, and released tax returns for X years."

#2. If the law is seen as a state adding to its ballot access rules, an area where Bush v. Gore (amusingly enough) established that states have some leeway for setting up ballots, then there's an argument it's constitutional. The law would add a new requirement for getting your name officially on a ballot -- release tax returns -- but would not render someone ineligible.

Comes down to the ballot access v. eligibility distinction. The first description is a more reality-based look at the actual impact of a candidate not getting onto a ballot for their ability to win an election (eligibility in a de facto sense), the second description is a more legal argument about a person remaining legally eligible to win an election but just not being allowed to have their name printed on a ballot.

Never bothered to take an Election Law class so feel free to ignore all this.

I believe this is right? States have a significant amount of leeway with how to handle ballot access, so it would come down to the difference between ballot access and eligibility.

My guess is that it's viewed as an eligibility requirement, but I really don't know.