It Has Begun!

[Viper1j]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/12/illinois-senate-votes-bar-donald-trump-2020-ballot/

Illinois Senate votes to bar Trump from 2020 ballot if tax returns aren't released

The Democratic-led Illinois Senate voted 36-19 in favor of a bill allowing the state to block President Trump from the 2020 ballot if he does not release five years of his tax returns.

“If you want to run for vice president or president of the United States, hey, what’s wrong with providing your tax returns for the past five years? If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about anything, That’s how I see it,” said state Sen. Tony Munoz, a Chicago Democrat, during debates.
Mr. Munoz, who introduced the bill, said he wants to force presidential campaigns to be more transparent but did not use the president’s name during debates, according to WBEZ.

Illinois Senate Republicans blasted the bill for being unconstitutional, with state Sen. Dale Righter calling it “an embarrassing waste of the Senate’s time.”

“This is being pushed by a far-leftist organization from the city of Chicago that wants to be able to get up and chirp about the president of the United States. We ought to be better than this,” Mr. Righter said.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports 17 other states have similar legislation working through their statehouses.
New York’s Democratic governor said Monday he would support a state bill permitting the state Department of Taxation and Finance to give to Congress any person’s state tax return, allowing them to hand over Mr. Trump’s taxes.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Neal requested last Wednesday for the IRS to release Mr. Trump’s tax returns from 2013 to 2018.

The letter read, “Under the Internal Revenue Manual, individual income tax returns of a President are subject to mandatory examination, but this practice is IRS policy and not codified in the Federal tax laws.”

When asked about the request, Mr. Trump said he’s “always under audit, it seems,” and added, “Until such time as I’m not under audit, I would not be inclined to do that.”

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Damn he will miss out on all those EC votes he would have gotten...

This will excite me when it’s a state of any consequence promoting the idea. That and I’m not sure it would stand up against a court challenge.

 

[MavericK96]

My guess is that any states willing to ratify this wouldn't have voted Trump anyway.

But this is hilarious and I love it.

 

[ivwshane]

Five years? So only one year before trump became president? Weak!

 

[Viper1j]

How many votes does Il and Wa have? Washington is set to vote yes. NY has a nice chunk, and they're doing it too.

 

[Vic]

Damn he will miss out on all those EC votes he would have gotten...

This will excite me when it’s a state of any consequence promoting the idea. That and I’m not sure it would stand up against a court challenge.

No, this is completely legal. The states can place almost any requirement they want on political candidates, as long the requirement is reasonable and applied uniformly. So if they want to require that all candidates provide financial disclosure through tax returns, they can do that.

But true, this isn't going to pass in any red states, or even any swing states. But amusing nonetheless.
We all know there's only 3 reasons Trump won't release his returns. Either 1) he's not as rich as he claims to be, 2) he's dirty, or 3) both 1 and 2.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Waiting for the AT despicables to say something against States rights or Democrats rigging elections.

 

[fskimospy]

No, this is completely legal. The states can place almost any requirement they want on political candidates, as long the requirement is reasonable and applied uniformly. So if they want to require that all candidates provide financial disclosure through tax returns, they can do that.

But true, this isn't going to pass in any red states, or even any swing states. But amusing nonetheless.
We all know there's only 3 reasons Trump won't release his returns. Either 1) he's not as rich as he claims to be, 2) he's dirty, or 3) both 1 and 2.

Yes, the Constitution explicitly gives the states the power to do this. In fact, Illinois doesn’t even need to have an election for president if it doesn’t want to.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yes, the Constitution explicitly gives the states the power to do this. In fact, Illinois doesn’t even need to have an election for president if it doesn’t want to.

The second part is the danger. Bush v. Gore pointed out that the states rights were plenary when it came to electors. In reality no one has the right to vote for president and there’s nothing to stop states from changing their electors at any time. That doesn’t necessarily mean they can demand tax returns and while they would likely win it hasn’t been truly tested and SCOTUS has a particular slant right now.

That’s what concerns me. What kind of a Pandora’s box is opened with these type of laws? It’s clearly targeted at keeping Trump off the ballot What might red states decide to pass to limit ballot access to Democrats? Clearly the people didn’t care enough about tax returns because they voted for him.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The second part is the danger. Bush v. Gore pointed out that the states rights were plenary when it came to electors. In reality no one has the right to vote for president and there’s nothing to stop states from changing their electors at any time. That doesn’t necessarily mean they can demand tax returns and while they would likely win it hasn’t been truly tested and SCOTUS has a particular slant right now.

That’s what concerns me. What kind of a Pandora’s box is opened with these type of laws? It’s clearly targeted at keeping Trump off the ballot What might red states decide to pass to limit ballot access to Democrats? Clearly the people didn’t care enough about tax returns because they voted for him.

Well it’s aimed at Trump because he is the only Canidate to refuse to release his taxes. Every other Canidate has. Shit Hillary released somewhere around 20 years worth, posted them online in a searchable data base.
I just don’t know what a red state is going to do without shooting themselves in the dick.



They are good at shooting themselves in the dick....

 

[simpletron]

Damn he will miss out on all those EC votes he would have gotten...

This will excite me when it’s a state of any consequence promoting the idea. That and I’m not sure it would stand up against a court challenge.

I think you're wrong about this holding up in court. There is only one true federal election, the 538 electors election of the president and vice president. This election is the only one that is the sole purview of congress. The following two paragraphs from the constitution, clearly layout that the State legislature is allowed to regulate the election of its senators, representatives and electors for president and VP.

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

Article 2, section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This is why the election rules vary so much from state to state, from registration to early voting and in particular importance for this case - the requirements to be on the ballot. Each state has its own rules to be listed on the ballot from collecting X number of signatures, paying fees, filling out application and a host of associated deadlines Unless congress has passed a law barring this or someone can make a strong case that releasing tax returns is discrimination against a protected class or trump is being denied "due process" by releasing his tax returns, I think this ballot requirement will pass smoothly through the court system if challenged.

Also I agree that doesn't become interesting until one of the states that trump carried in 2016 or could flip his way passes a similar law.

 

[Indus]

If only PA, MI and WI could pass this!

 

[blackangst1]

It doesnt appear this would affect EC votes, would it?

edit: it appears they could use the "faithless elector" clause

 

[JEDIYoda]

No, this is completely legal. The states can place almost any requirement they want on political candidates, as long the requirement is reasonable and applied uniformly. So if they want to require that all candidates provide financial disclosure through tax returns, they can do that.

But true, this isn't going to pass in any red states, or even any swing states. But amusing nonetheless.
We all know there's only 3 reasons Trump won't release his returns. Either 1) he's not as rich as he claims to be, 2) he's dirty, or 3) both 1 and 2.

BINGO!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Well it’s aimed at Trump because he is the only Canidate to refuse to release his taxes. Every other Canidate has. Shit Hillary released somewhere around 20 years worth, posted them online in a searchable data base.
I just don’t know what a red state is going to do without shooting themselves in the dick.



They are good at shooting themselves in the dick....

Perhaps they could say the Church must approve all candidates. So basically only old white men may be elected.

 

[Lanyap]

I think you're wrong about this holding up in court. There is only one true federal election, the 538 electors election of the president and vice president. This election is the only one that is the sole purview of congress. The following two paragraphs from the constitution, clearly layout that the State legislature is allowed to regulate the election of its senators, representatives and electors for president and VP.

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

Article 2, section 1
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This is why the election rules vary so much from state to state, from registration to early voting and in particular importance for this case - the requirements to be on the ballot. Each state has its own rules to be listed on the ballot from collecting X number of signatures, paying fees, filling out application and a host of associated deadlines Unless congress has passed a law barring this or someone can make a strong case that releasing tax returns is discrimination against a protected class or trump is being denied "due process" by releasing his tax returns, I think this ballot requirement will pass smoothly through the court system if challenged.

Also I agree that doesn't become interesting until one of the states that trump carried in 2016 or could flip his way passes a similar law.

Trump needs to release his tax returns but not sure how this would go if a lawsuit escalates to the SC. I can see the Trump admin pushing it. It also opens Pandora's box and allows red states to retaliate. Even Jerry Brown vetoed similar legislation. This is more fodder for Trump supporters.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950

Still, Democrats should consider the Pandora’s box they might be opening here. Will solidly Republican states allow electors to vote only for Republican candidates for president? If the tax gambit is OK, then such a law might also be constitutional. Or perhaps the GOP would retaliate with laws aimed at voter suppression or other such measures that target typically Democratic constituencies.

At that point, it is unclear if the courts would block such a move. Bush v. Gore also held that once a state grants voters the right to vote it cannot arbitrarily value some people’s votes over others. But the Court also suggested the case was a one-day-only ticket, with no precedential value outside of statewide recounts of election results.

Are Democrats willing to trade a low-percentage shot at forcing Trump to release his tax returns for the risk that Republicans will outmaneuver them in the end? It is not clear they would be wise to go down this road, not knowing exactly where it will lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...hese-bills-become-law/?utm_term=.3aa94565a370

Former California governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did the same when California’s legislature passed similar measure.

“First, it may not be constitutional,” Brown wrote in his decision. “Second, it sets a ‘slippery slope’ precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

 

[Greenman]

Why not just run a good candidate and win the election? Just pick someone reasonably intelligent, well spoken, and not to far left of center. There just isn't any need for foolishness that will end up backfiring.

 

[Indus]

Why not just run a good candidate and win the election? Just pick someone reasonably intelligent, well spoken, and not to far left of center. There just isn't any need for foolishness that will end up backfiring.

We ran a centrist candidate well to the right of center who said she was left of center. Guess what.. it backfired! We now have an extreme right wing nutjob as potus.

 

[ivwshane]

Why not just run a good candidate and win the election? Just pick someone reasonably intelligent, well spoken, and not to far left of center. There just isn't any need for foolishness that will end up backfiring.

You pretty much described every Democrat candidate, good job.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, this is completely legal. The states can place almost any requirement they want on political candidates, as long the requirement is reasonable and applied uniformly. So if they want to require that all candidates provide financial disclosure through tax returns, they can do that.

But true, this isn't going to pass in any red states, or even any swing states. But amusing nonetheless.
We all know there's only 3 reasons Trump won't release his returns. Either 1) he's not as rich as he claims to be, 2) he's dirty, or 3) both 1 and 2.

You have it as does @simpletron. States have the authority to set the standards that meet Constitutional requirements.

There is no immediate EC effect because Trump won't get any however not running means that no votes are cast for Trump and those are subtracted from his ego. Good, but still no real world change. There is one thing that may happen and that is the states which aren't as happy as they were in 2016 with Trump might make this example influence them. Losing even one state like PA would do him in and there may be momentum here.

Personally, I believe that any candidate that runs for national office should be required to do the same, and state as well, regardless of party.

If this were to happen before 2020 Trump would likely drop out rather than have his criminal activities made public.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Oh noes! The Republican ticket won't get all those IL electoral votes they normally get!

 

[fskimospy]

You have it as does @simpletron. States have the authority to set the standards that meet Constitutional requirements.

There is no immediate EC effect because Trump won't get any however not running means that no votes are cast for Trump and those are subtracted from his ego. Good, but still no real world change. There is one thing that may happen and that is the states which aren't as happy as they were in 2016 with Trump might make this example influence them. Losing even one state like PA would do him in and there may be momentum here.

Personally, I believe that any candidate that runs for national office should be required to do the same, and state as well, regardless of party.

If this were to happen before 2020 Trump would likely drop out rather than have his criminal activities made public.

Yes, every state should make this a requirement. It’s just common sense.

 

[HomerJS]

Why not just run a good candidate and win the election? Just pick someone reasonably intelligent, well spoken, and not to far left of center. There just isn't any need for foolishness that will end up backfiring.

Republicans had candidates during GOP primary not too far from right of center and they all lost.

 

[Viper1j]

Oh noes! The Republican ticket won't get all those IL electoral votes they normally get!

Nor Washington, nor New York.

And from what I hear NY is a biggie.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, every state should make this a requirement. It’s just common sense.

62M Americans demonstrated they didn't have any when they voted for Trump in the first place. The world's greatest con artiste would have fucked with their minds even if his tax returns had been made public. When the billionaire candidate bragged on national TV that he didn't pay federal income tax because he was smart they actually admired him for it. Their headsets were pre-fucked, corrupted by decades of right wing agitprop & disinformation.