NJ Bill Requires GE Presidential Candidates to Release their Income Tax Returns

[JustAnotherGen]

http://ballot-access.org/2018/01/23/new-jersey-bill-to-require-general-election-presidential-candidates-to-release-their-income-tax-returns/

Ten New Jersey legislators have introduced AB 1230. It says that no presidential candidate’s name shall be printed on the general election ballot unless the candidate has released his or her tax returns, by 50 days before the election. The bill also says no presidential elector may vote for anyone who hasn’t released such tax returns.

A similar bill passed in 2017, but it was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie, a Republican. He is no longer Governor so this bill is fairly likely to be enacted.

Show me your moneeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!

[msongs]

1. states have no authority in federal matters nt

[Cicada]

2. And the US Constitution provides an exhaustive list of requirements

And tax returns ain’t in the list of requirements. Now congress could provide campaign finance payments only to those who provide tax returns, etc.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Nope -

It's set at the state level

[Cicada]

12. I don't think states can overrule the constitution

And the Constitution provides the requirements to be President. California can not require the President be at least 50 years old, can not require that he be a Farmer, etc. constitution trump’s states. There are areas where the constitution is silent, such as whether a state’s residents may vote to select those in the electoral college, but a state may not change the constitutionally mandated requirements to hold the office of President. They can’t require tax returns, they can’t require the President work as a farmer, and so on. The constitution has spoken on requirements and states can not overrule the constitution.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Ha it's not the President Job Requirements

It's the ballot.

Don't confuse the two.

Ballot access sits with the state.

If you meet the Federal Requirements - all we ask is you meet the States requirements to be on the ballot.

Show me the money. All of it.

ETA as I posted below -
Star Member JustAnotherGen (24,674 posts)

4. In order to get on the ballot

. . . a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

Lather, rinse, repeat - these laws are set at the STATE level.

[ehrnst]

3. Well, here's someone who thinks it's possible

The answer lies in another part of Article II—the part that received some important attention in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decision that Democrats love to hate. Famously, the 2000 case between Republican nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore effectively handed the election to Bush when it ended the Florida recount.

Article II provides that the “state legislature” “may direct” “the manner” for choosing presidential electors. In Bush v. Gore, the Court stated that this Article II power given to state legislatures was “plenary,” meaning that the states have a broad power when it comes to presidential elections. Indeed, the Court wrote that even though state legislators have given each state’s voters the right to vote for presidential electors, at any time a state legislature can “take back the power” to appoint electors. In other words, if the California or Texas state legislature wanted to directly choose the state’s presidential electors in 2020, the state could do so. As Dean Vik Amar notes, the Constitution does not necessarily include a right of Americans to vote for president at all (and American citizens in U.S. territories do not have this right).

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

It's too bad that we're down to forcing a financially secretive candidate to simply volunteer to do what has been considered basic ethical transparency in presidential candidates since the seventies.

But 2016 showed we can't expect that.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Exactly

Anything to give Trump a really hard time in 2020 I'm all for.

We didn't elect Murphy, hold a Democratic Assembly seat, and flip another blue to just roll over and take shit from that ass wipe that clogs up 202/206/287 every weekend in the summer because it can't keep it's ass in Washington DC.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. In order to get on the ballot

. . . a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses, and the general election.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

Lather, rinse, repeat - these laws are set at the STATE level.




Any Presidential candidate that wants to sue us can take it right on up to SCOTUS -

And also explain to the people of NJ precisely what it IS that their corrupt ass is hiding.

I'm on the ballot next month in a local race - if the people of this town in NJ want my tax returns - I can give them to them in detail back to 2004.

It's very simple.

[murielm99]

10. Thanks.

I go to ballotpedia quite often. I would recommend it to anyone here.

[OnDoutside]

7. It probably won't happen but could Republican controlled states

Bring a law that would be completely objectionable for Democratic candidates, in retaliation ?

[JustAnotherGen]

9. I'm of the mindset

We can't worry about other states.

Other states elected people who pass a tax bill that deliberately and maliciously fucked over home owners and renters alike in NJ (thieved our property tax deduction).

This IS retaliation.

[OnDoutside]

11. Good point.

[3Hotdogs]

13. What law might that be?

I can't think of a law that would be more objectionable to Dems than to Reps.

They could require all candidates to have been convicted of, or accused of immoral behavior, adultery. That might allow more Reps onto the ballot.

[OnDoutside]

14. I'm not sure but if you look at the sheer neck of those idiots in NC, anything

Is possible.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. They already passed voter ID laws. nt

[lunamagica]

8. K&R. They all should volunteer the infornation for transparency's sake

but since some don't, this is necessary.

[brer cat]

15. I agree. nt

[George II]

18. No veto this time around, and I believe Democrats have larger % in both houses? (not sure)

[JustAnotherGen]

19. Yep we sure do!

we couldn't get rid of our Senator but maintained a Democratic and flipped an Assembly seat last November in LD-16.