California Republican Party Files Brief in State Supreme Court on Presidential Tax Returns-Ballot Bill

On September 12, the California Republican Party and its state chair filed this brief in Patterson v Padilla, the case over whether the State Constitution bars the legislature from requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns.

The brief depends on the repeated attempts of former State Senator Al Alquist to reform California’s presidential primary so that all recognized candidates would automatically appear. Alquist started this mission in 1967, but he was repeatedly frustrated when Governor Ronald Reagan vetoed his bills on the presidential primary. Finally he resorted to a state constitutional amendment, which could not be vetoed. The brief points out that when the bill putting the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot was passed by the legislature in 1971, the analysis of the bill said the amendment, if enacted, meant “The Secretary of State would be required to place all publicly recognized candidates for President on the primary ballots.” The ballot pamphlet for question 4 made similar statements.

Comments

California Republican Party Files Brief in State Supreme Court on Presidential Tax Returns-Ballot Bill — 5 Comments

Demo Rep on September 13, 2019 at 8:29 am said:

*RECOGNIZED* = VOID FOR VAGUENESS — 1 AMDT, DUE PROCESS
Jim Riley on September 13, 2019 at 4:51 pm said:

It has been used for the past 11 presidential primaries in California.
John McCready on September 13, 2019 at 5:10 pm said:

I am guessing the 1971 passed Constitutional ballot initiative was NOT passed, as then SB 27 would NEVER have passed. What was the final result of the ballot initiative?
Jim Riley on September 13, 2019 at 9:49 pm said:

Proposition 4 was passed by 61.4% to 38.6% margin.

Those supporting SB 27 totally disregarded the California Constitution.

You have heard the adage, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; and when neither are pound the table. Alex Padilla needs to wear a helmet.
Demo Rep on September 13, 2019 at 10:12 pm said:

Evidently it also needs to be repeated that the overriding responsibility of this Court is to the Constitution of the United States, no matter how late it may be that a violation of the Constitution is found to exist.
Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 165 (1957).
—-
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).

A law must be tested by its operation and effect. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708-709 (1931); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., supra, 514 U.S., at 831.