Hawaii Bill on Presidential Tax Returns Advances

On March 18, the Hawaii House Judiciary Committee passed SB 94. It requires general election presidential candidates to post their latest federal income tax return on their own web page. It also forbids presidential electors from voting for anyone who has not done that.

The vote was 6-2. The two “no” votes were the Speaker of the House, Calvin K. Y. Say, and the legislature’s longest-serving Republican, Cynthia Thielen.


Comments

Hawaii Bill on Presidential Tax Returns Advances — 3 Comments

  1. Here we go again! Another patent unconstitutional qualification for the office of President of these United States. Just let Hawaii become an independent, socialist state.

  2. Perhaps HI will merge with RED China or RED Russia ???

    Each regime would LOVE to CONTROL Pearl Harbor.

  3. The written testimony is quite interesting.

    https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2019/Testimony/SB94_SD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_03-11-19_.PDF

    The Attorney General says the bill is unconstitutional (they say “may” violate the Qualifications clause, but this is lawyer-talk advising a client). They specifically cite ‘Powell v McCormick’ and ‘Term Limits, Inc v.Thornton’. They equivocate slightly by suggesting ‘Anderson v Celebrezze’ or ‘Storer v Brown’ may provide refuge.

    Are Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg hackish enough to back such an interpretation?

    The AG testimony says the effect of the bill “is to preclude candidates otherwise qualified underythe U.S. Constitution from being placed on the ballot.”

    Since the bill would require self-publication it is effectively a poll tax (see ‘Lubin v. Panish’) and violates the 1st Amendment (‘Gralike’).

    The Tax Foundation of Hawaii suggests that the bill would violate Article I, Section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution, the right to privacy. It notes a distinction between confidential disclosure and public disclosure,

    One person suggested that even if the Supreme Court found that it was not constitutional to keep candidate names off the ballot, that it would be OK to not permit electoral votes for them.

    Alan Burdick, the plaintiff in ‘Burdick v Takushi’, said the bill is unconstitutional, unworkable, and unnecessary. It is unworkable because it would not require reporting of entities wholly or partially controlled by President Trump,and since it would be on the candidate website, could not be validated.

    Burdick said it is unnecessary because Trump’s returns would be disclosed under subpoena (presumably leakedd?). Burdick also suggested that the bill would be in conflict with the national popular vote scheme since it could prevent Hawaii electors from voting for the national popular vote leader.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.