The California Assembly Elections Committee consultant has posted her nine-page analysis of SB 27, the bill to require presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns or be omitted from any presidential primary ballot. Use this link. Then choose the top line, which is “June 17, 2019 – Assembly Elections & Redistricting.”

The analysis says that it is unclear whether or not the bill violates the U.S. Constitution.

The bill also includes gubernatorial candidates.

The analysis does not mention the problem that the California Constitution appears to bar this bill, as to presidential candidates. The California Constitution, Article II, sec. 5(c), says, “The candidates on the (presidential primary) ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California.” This provision was interpreted in LaRouche v Eu in Sacramento Superior Court in 1992. That decision put Lyndon LaRouche on the Democratic presidential primary ballot, after the Secretary of State had excluded him. The decision says that whether a candidate is “recognized” depends on such things as whether he or she is on the primary ballot of other states, whether he or she has run before, whether he or she has a significant level of support, and whether he or she has qualified for primary season matching funds.

It is clear that if this bill is signed into law, and President Trump does not release his tax returns, he would still be eligible to be on the California presidential primary ballot, based on the criteria set forth in LaRouche v Eu. SB 27 would very likely be held to violate the California Constitution, if he were to sue. On the other hand, the bill does not bar him from filing as a write-in in the Republican primary, and it is plausible he would be a write-in candidate.