My son ran for school board (local election) when he was 18. He had to provide his tax returns as part of proving his eligibility to run. I have zero idea how anyone gets to public office without providing them - maybe each state is different?
Under the Tenth Amendment's principle of federalism every state has power to legislate its own election laws, procedures, and practices. They are applicable to state and national elections.
However, this state power cannot be exercised to impose requirements on a candidate for the presidency beyond those enshrined in the Constitution.
If states did have power to impose additional requirements, and disallowed presidential candidates who did not satisfy them from appearing on the ballot, voters would be disenfranchised.
If a challenge to the
Tax Transparency Bill or similar legislation were argued before the Supreme Court it is a virtual certainty that a unanimous Court would strike it down.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Senate Bill 27 (SB 27)
Signed by Gavin Newsom
Legislative history
First reading 30 July 2019
Status: Current legislation
California Senate Bill 27 (SB 27) (officially named as the "
Tax Transparency Bill"), is a California law that requires candidates running for either President of the United States or Governor of California to publicly release their tax return of the previous five years in order to be listed on the primary ballot.[1][2][3] The bill, authored by State Senators Mike McGuire and Scott Wiener, was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 30, 2019.[2]
The law does not place the requirement to publicly release tax returns on candidates running as write-in candidates.[4]
A similar bill was vetoed in 2017 by Governor Jerry Brown. In vetoing the bill, Brown cited the slippery-slope argument as well as his concern that the law would be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.[5]
Court challenges
Within a week of the bill being signed into law, it was challenged in court. The Trump re-election campaign, the California Republican Party, and Judicial Watch all filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the law. The suit by Judicial Watch is on behalf of four California voters.[5][6]
On September 19, 2019, U.S. District Judge Morrison England issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the law with a promise for a final ruling by the end of the month. In issuing the injunction, the judge made reference to the Ethics in Government Act as preempting the law under consideration.[7]
On November 21, 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously determined the law violated the California Constitution[8] and that President Donald Trump must be allowed to appear on the March 2020 primary ballot. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye delivered the 7-0 decision.[8]