California Forces Trump to release tax returns to get on Nov 2020 ballot

[SmartVoter22]

THIS LINK WAS FROM AN OLD NEWS ARTICLE. MY BAD.
This law was put on hold by an appeal since it's Jul 2019 publish date. I was reading another article which referred the link and did not check that article's date. I apologize to those thinking this is occurring now.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a bill on Tuesday to force President Donald Trump to release his tax returns in order to get on the state’s 2020 primary ballot. While other states have pursued Trump’s taxes, California is the first one in the country to make the disclosure of tax returns a requirement for a ballot spot.
Senate Bill 27, dubbed the “Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act,” took effect immediately after Gov. Newsom signed it.
This law has two really good benefits...
1) With the GOP's decades long effort at voter suppression, this one law may result in millions of votes, for Trump, to disappear. In 2018, Trump's California votes were 4,483,810. This new law may also reduce the down ballot races. Rep.Nunes and the fringe right would have also seen lower votes.

While the law only requires the last five years of returns, this is a critical step toward election reform. This law should expand to all federal and statewide offices in every state.

[uponit7771]

1. K&R

[Maraya1969]

3. The Supreme court turned that over. Check the date of your link because I think it's old.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article235271887.html

Judge halts California law forcing Trump to release tax returns

September 2019

[wnylib]

5. Well, isn't it great that we have

an impartial, non-partisan SCOTUS?

(Not)

[Baitball Blogger]

9. +1

[oldsoftie]

10. It was Federal Court in Sacramento, not the SCOTUS

[wnylib]

11. Oh. OK

[oldsoftie]

14. From the date of this original decision, apparently not.

Seems as though they would have announced an appeal at the time of this decision.

[wnylib]

15. After posting, I thought that an appeal

might be difficult since states regulate their own election laws. A higher court might not take the case unless it involved constitutional rights of the voters, as in civil rights.

So I edited that part out of my post.

[jberryhill]

34. The appeal was dismissed as moot

....because the California Supreme Court had, in the meantime, struck down the law.

The CA Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and four of the six judges were appointed by Jerry Brown, one of whom was previously an Obama appointee to the DoJ.

[jberryhill]

29. No - It was not a federal court at all

It was the CA Supreme Court.

[oldsoftie]

32. They must have appealed then. The original decision was by a US District Court judge

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-19/trump-tax-returns-federal-court-challenge-california

SACRAMENTO — A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. said he would issue a final ruling by the end of the month but took the unusual step of issuing the tentative order from the bench. He said there would be “irreparable harm without temporary relief” for Trump and other candidates from the law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July.

[jberryhill]

33. No....

That US District Court decision issuing an injunction against application of the law was rendered moot on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, because.....

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16514/jerry-griffin-v-alex-padilla/

Dec 16, 2019

Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, MARSHA S. BERZON and DANIEL A. BRESS): Appellants' motion to dismiss these appeals as moot (Docket Entry No. [20] in appeal No. 19-17000) is granted. Because these appeals were mooted by the California Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. Padilla, No. S257302 (Cal. Nov. 21, 2019), and not through any voluntary actions of the parties, we remand these matters to the district court with instruction to vacate the October 2, 2019 order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Paulson v. City of San Diego, 475 F.3d 1047, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2007). The parties should seek any other relief in district court. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. DISMISSED and REMANDED with instructions. [11534031] [19-17000, 19-17002, 19-17004, 19-17007, 19-17009] (AF) [Entered: 12/16/2019 03:32 PM]

---------

To recap, there were suits filed in both the state and federal courts. The federal district court issued an injunction, the injunction was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

MEANWHILE, the California state courts invalidated the law, thus rendering the entire federal litigation moot.

Bottom line - the law was struck down by the California Supreme Court, not the federal courts.

[Hiawatha Pete]

8. You're right

I remember that it looked like it might get overturned in 2019.

The line in the OP about the bill being signed on tuesday made me think this was a new attempt at getting Trump to release is returns.

Still, kudos to California & Newsom for trying.

[Farmer-Rick]

16. Of course they did. The Supremes are such tools of Trump

[jberryhill]

18. The history of ballot access laws is littered with attempts at discrimination against minorities

States don't get to impose eligibility requirements on candidates for federal office.

When various state legislatures wanted to pass "birther bills" with various provisions aimed at Obama, DUers were against it.

When various state legislatures want to pass other types of restrictions aimed at GOP candidates and unmoored to any Constitutional requirement, then amnesia sets in, the sordid history of ballot access restrictions is forgotten, and it's all jake.

[exboyfil]

20. I thought the same thing

Releasing your taxes is not a requirement to run for President.

[jberryhill]

22. My favorite is "How about if we require a psychological fitness test?"

Because, yeah, what we need is the "Bureau of Who Is Allowed To Run For Office" which will only be staffed by the highest-minded political appointees.

But I've realized that many people seem to operate under the remaining childlike notion that there are "adults in charge of things" somewhere who make sure all of the rules get followed.

I guess it is sort of a natural thing, since we spend a good deal of our lives as minors within the context of families, schools and other institutions that we simply trust to be under the control of "the people in charge of that sort of thing". From there, they go to work for similar hierarchical organizations where there are still "people in charge of that sort of thing".

They don't realize that once you get into the wider world, things operate on a totally different basis. What people can do is limited only by what they can get away with doing, and that whatever justice there is in the world is a dim circle of light around a flickering candle in a vast darkness.

[Farmer-Rick]

21. And yet there are laws that require the IRS to turn over to Congress his tax returns

Yet, the Supremes are ignoring that law. And have blocked subpoenas from being executed. They are slow walking the whole thing for Trump.

They pick and choose what laws they will support or even rule on depending on what their master wants.

It's not about impartial judges of the law. It's about the whims of one fat man.

[jberryhill]

23. That has nothing to do with whether a state can require it for ballot access

[Farmer-Rick]

27. It has a lot to do with how the Supremes rule.

They have been making bizarre rulings that hinge on rediculus arguments every since they voted in W.

There was the weird anti abortion rulings, the anti civil rights ruling, the corporations are people ruling. The whole Bush v. Gore was a partisan coupe by the right wing judges and they are still stoomping on our democracy.

They may have been able to come up with good legal arguments for supporting the requirement to file your tax returns if you want to run in an election. If it was applied fairly and consistently, it would not be similar to Jim Crow laws. But they didn't even give it a 2nd thought.

Look at the legal and logical jirations they went thru to vote in W. If they can ignore law and precident for W. They can do it to get some info on a presidential candidate. Or they can just be impartial for a change.

[jberryhill]

28. The Supreme Court never had their hands on this case

I'm sorry, but this is just random ranting here with no connection to reality.

https://calmatters.org/blogs/california-election-2020/2019/11/california-trump-tax-return-law-struck-down/

Why California’s top court just struck down the state’s Trump tax return law

IT. WAS. THE. CALIFORNIA. STATE. SUPREME. COURT.

You want to know who appointed them? Do you give a shit who appointed them?

Here's the decision:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S257302.PDF

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger and Groban concurred.

Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger and Groban were appointed by Jerry Brown.

FOUR out of SIX of the judges who struck down this law were appointed by Jerry Brown.

Do you know who Jerry Brown is?

Sick of this reflexive bullshit.

You are literally just making stuff up.

[jberryhill]

31. And let me introduce you to one of the people you just smeared

One of the majority Democratic-appointed justices who struck down this law at the CA Supreme Court is Leondra Kruger:



Some of her qualifications....

Harvard, Yale; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice (2013–2014)

Hmmm..... Deputy Assistant Attorney General from during 2013 and 2014.... Hmmm.... just whose administration do you suppose that was?

Tell me more about "Jim Crow laws" anonymous internet guy.

[jberryhill]

4. Is that Constitutional?

The qualifications to be president are:

" No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Can a state impose additional requirements beyond those?

What other things can a state require?

For example, in addition to tax returns for some arbitrary number of years, can a state require a candidate to provide:

1. A birth certificate

2. Academic transcripts

3. Medical records

4. Biological samples for genetic and disease testing

All of those are things that voters might want to know about a candidate. Are some of them okay, and some not okay to require?

[oldsoftie]

12. Unless its an urban myth, hasnt trump sealed ALL academic records? ALL of them?

I mean, how bad were you in 3rd grade that you need to ban THAT?
And these same people used to go apeshit about Obama not releasing college transcripts

[jberryhill]

17. That is bullshit

It's interesting how the same dumb stuff is circulated regardless of who is in office.

Just like your medical records, your academic records don't need to be "sealed". They are already private information which cannot be disclosed absent your consent or a court order.

Neither Trump nor Obama, or even you for that matter, needs to take any action to protect their confidential academic records.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."

Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.

Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):
School officials with legitimate educational interest;
Other schools to which a student is transferring;
Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
Accrediting organizations;
To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.

[oldsoftie]

24. Yes, they're private. But YOU can release them. Trump threatened anyone who MAY leak them:

https://time.com/5540152/donald-trump-michael-cohen-academic-records/

Michael Cohen: “When I say con man, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores,” Cohen said Wednesday. “The irony wasn’t lost on me at the time that Mr. Trump in 2011 had strongly criticized President Obama for not releasing his grades.”

If he hadnt made such a big deal about Obama releasing HIS, it wouldnt matter. But its just another example of his hypocrisy.

My mistake using the term "sealed' talking about trump.

[jberryhill]

25. As well he should

Obama never consented to the release of his academic records either.

There's nothing wrong with telling people to obey the law, or reminding them that there will be consequences for violating it.

Yes, people can release whatever information they want. You can post your social security number on DU if you want to.

But if someone does not consent to the unauthorized release of their legally protected data, they are perfectly within their rights to tell anyone who might do so that there will be consequences.

[oldsoftie]

30. You are right. And I certainly appreciate your objectivity. Its usually lacking here.

My main point was trumps hypocrisy. He pressed Obama to release just his college records, but he wont release ANYTHING
It just took me awhile to make that clear!

[beachbumbob]

6. SC will rule it invalid

[AncientGeezer]

35. California SC already did

[dweller]

7. link pls

nt


✌🏼

[SmartVoter22]

13. It was an old link

It was posted in July 2019, in the Sacramento Bee newspaper.
The appeals court out it on hold. I didn't check the article's publishing date and thought this was current.
My apologies for this oversight.

Here is the link to the original article:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article232697722.html

[duforsure]

19. They will soon face major cuts from trump to try and hurt them for this

He'll have many people for him devising ways to hurt California, of corse claiming it's from something else like he always makes up BS for.

[Danascot]

26. New York was also set to require release of tax returns

Here is a link dated 3/4/20 to a pdf of an amici curiae brief from the Electronic Privacy Information Center in support of Cyrus Vance Jr's, NY County DA, petition to SCOTUS for release of Trump's tax returns. So apparently, in New York, it's still going through the process. I have no insight into whether the SC will take it up or has taken it up or will deny it or postpone a ruling until after the election.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_mbzv_IXoAhVbQ80KHXDvC40QFjADegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.epic.org%2Famicus%2Ftrump-taxes%2FTrump-v-Vance-EPIC-Amicus.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0GgQAETmAtQMu-WqQF1LGb