Author Topic: Can the SCOTUS ruling be used to force disclosure of tax returns by candidates?  (Read 718 times)

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
This is a semi-tongue-in-cheek post.

SCOTUS just ruled that faithless electors can be punished.

Now, can the blue states mandate that electors can only vote for candidates who have disclosed their tax returns?

------------------------------
I don't think it will be a good idea for the sake of democracy for states to exploit this loophole even if it existed. But you sometimes wish you could respond in kind to dirty tricks like gerrymandering and racially motivated voter suppression etc.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
The "bad faith" electors would vote for their non-transparent candidate anyway and file a lawsuit with support from the party's lawyers.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
No. There is a grand-canyon-sized difference between "forcing electors to abide by the result of the election" and "specifically attempting to sabotage the chances of a particular candidate / party", and the courts are smart enough to make that distinction.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
What is actually interesting about this decision is where it intersects with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the compact ever got enough states to sign-on to make it the decider of elections, then this decision seems to me to indicate that those states could in fact force their electors to abide by state law and vote for the national-popular-vote-winner, even if that candidate did not win the most votes in that state.

SailingOnASmallSailboat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Location: Somewhere where the water is at least 5 feet deep.
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?

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
What is actually interesting about this decision is where it intersects with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the compact ever got enough states to sign-on to make it the decider of elections, then this decision seems to me to indicate that those states could in fact force their electors to abide by state law and vote for the national-popular-vote-winner, even if that candidate did not win the most votes in that state.

Actually, even more interesting, is that it looks like one of the arguments for the legality of the NPVIC involves the idea that it only binds state legislatures, not electors, and therefore can't possibly be reducing the power of other non-signing states. If electors can be bound, like is apparently allowed, then the argument against the legality of a national-popular-vote compact is stronger.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
I have zero idea how anyone gets to public office without providing them - maybe each state is different?
Laws requiring disclosure of tax returns as a condition for holding public office are not universal.  Don't know if they are common: e.g., there is no requirement for school board candidates here to release theirs.

See 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information for some relevant federal law.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
What is actually interesting about this decision is where it intersects with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the compact ever got enough states to sign-on to make it the decider of elections, then this decision seems to me to indicate that those states could in fact force their electors to abide by state law and vote for the national-popular-vote-winner, even if that candidate did not win the most votes in that state.

Actually, even more interesting, is that it looks like one of the arguments for the legality of the NPVIC involves the idea that it only binds state legislatures, not electors, and therefore can't possibly be reducing the power of other non-signing states. If electors can be bound, like is apparently allowed, then the argument against the legality of a national-popular-vote compact is stronger.

I don't get your point. Can you please elaborate a bit?

How could this strengthen the argument against the national popular vote? It seems to do the opposite as far as I can see.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
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]
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 09:43:01 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 38
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
What is actually interesting about this decision is where it intersects with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the compact ever got enough states to sign-on to make it the decider of elections, then this decision seems to me to indicate that those states could in fact force their electors to abide by state law and vote for the national-popular-vote-winner, even if that candidate did not win the most votes in that state.

Actually, even more interesting, is that it looks like one of the arguments for the legality of the NPVIC involves the idea that it only binds state legislatures, not electors, and therefore can't possibly be reducing the power of other non-signing states. If electors can be bound, like is apparently allowed, then the argument against the legality of a national-popular-vote compact is stronger.

I don't get your point. Can you please elaborate a bit?

How could this strengthen the argument against the national popular vote? It seems to do the opposite as far as I can see.

The argument goes that the compact would disenfranchise the non-signing states, and as such requires congress (and maybe even an amendment) in order to be legal. The exact specifics of how faithless electors tie into it is complicated and murky to me, but the wikipedia article links to a couple opinion pieces about it. This guy seems to think that it's on shakier ground if electors can be bound. My best attempt to summarize: if faithless electors are possible, then the NPVIC only gives the signing states a chance to decide the election, it doesn't guarantee it. If it does guarantee it then the argument that the non-signing states are being disenfranchised is stronger.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 12:24:03 PM by sherr »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
What is actually interesting about this decision is where it intersects with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If the compact ever got enough states to sign-on to make it the decider of elections, then this decision seems to me to indicate that those states could in fact force their electors to abide by state law and vote for the national-popular-vote-winner, even if that candidate did not win the most votes in that state.

Actually, even more interesting, is that it looks like one of the arguments for the legality of the NPVIC involves the idea that it only binds state legislatures, not electors, and therefore can't possibly be reducing the power of other non-signing states. If electors can be bound, like is apparently allowed, then the argument against the legality of a national-popular-vote compact is stronger.

I don't get your point. Can you please elaborate a bit?

How could this strengthen the argument against the national popular vote? It seems to do the opposite as far as I can see.

The argument goes that the compact would disenfranchise the non-signing states, and as such requires congress (and maybe even an amendment) in order to be legal. The exact specifics of how faithless electors tie into it is complicated and murky to me, but the wikipedia article links to a couple opinion pieces about it. This guy seems to think that it's on shakier ground if electors can be bound. My best attempt to summarize: if faithless electors are possible, then the NPVIC only gives the signing states a chance to decide the election, it doesn't guarantee it. If it does guarantee it then the argument that the non-signing states are being disenfranchised is stronger.

The issue of NPVIC's constitutionality  is further complicated by the Compact Clause enshrined in ARTICLE 1 of the Constitution.



Under ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10, Clause 3, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact  with another State."
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 12:48:39 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!