Law Professor Derek T. Muller has published a scholarly paper about presidential tax returns and various laws and proposals to force presidential candidates to reveal them. Here is a link to the summary. The summary page has a link to the paper itself.
The paper has the complete history of which presidential candidates have released their returns in the past, and when in the cycle they have done so. The paper reveals that “tax return” is a surprisingly imprecise term.
I read this several days ago with great interest. Muller makes the case for the unconstitutionality of requiring tax returns appear to be very compelling. But his argument rests on a mostly unstated assumption. If a specific rule is not about election procedures then it must necessarily be a “qualification” for the office. There is, in Muller’s view, no third kind of rule. Without any explicit statements about why there cannot be a third kind of rule, I find this unpersuasive in spite of Muller’s competence and eloquence.
Thanks for reading and the kind words even if you disagree, Bob! Part IV.A of the paper really focuses on this–that is, there are certain kinds of “process” rules that may legitimately affect “qualifications,” (i.e., a “third kind” of rule that is both a qualifications rule and a “manner” rule) and, in those cases, they are appropriate “manner” restrictions. As long as they are legitimate process rules, they can affect qualifications. I think that’s the best way to synthesize both the Constitution’s structure and the scope of the state’s power to alter the “manner” of holding elections.
By “third kind of rule” I meant rules that are neither “manner” restrictions nor “qualifications”. I did not mean rules that might be a mixture of the two. No one thinks that requiring the publication of tax returns is a “manner” restriction. I don’t see it as a qualification either.
Suppose Congress passed a law requiring the IRS to make public the tax returns of all persons registered with the Federal Election Commission as candidates for public office. Would that violate the qualifications clause? (Granted, it would change existing federal statutes about confidentiality of tax returns.) If so, why? If not, then why does requiring candidates to make public the same information violate the qualifications clause?
None of this affects the California state constitutional issue — which I thinks is a stronger basis for challenging the new California statute.
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.
Term Limits = a ballot access case.
—-
*RECOGNIZED* = VOID FOR VAGUENESS — 1 AMDT, 14-1 DUE PROCESS
About 30 plus cases in Constitution Annotated
https://constitution.congress.gov/conan/browse/
Wow! Great post, Demo Rep! Cogent, coherent and to the point. More, more!
ANTI-DEMOCRACY GERRYMANDER MATH 0000001 – 25 PCT CONTROL
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED GERRYMANDER AREAS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = ANTI-DEMOCRACY OLIGARCH REGIMES
= USA CONGRESS, ALL STATE LEGIS, MANY LOCAL REGIMES —
— SINCE 1618 [VA] / 1776 / 1789.
— whoever/whatever making the AUTOMATIC ANTI-DEMOCRACY minority rule single member district schemes —
with much, much, much worse primary math.
—
Remedy since 1840s (REPEAT 1840s) —
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION —
NOT EXACT —- PARTY MEMBERS = TOTAL MEMBERS X PARTY VOTES / TOTAL VOTES.
BOTH MAJORITY RULE [DEMOCRACY] AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION.
—-
Standard last resort to get REAL Democracy = REVOLUTION.
————-
https://files.elfsight.com/storage/c98035dd-59ef-4b06-8e5b-c8d4dd555d9d/7f88292d-d6df-4f1c-9f0c-5f52e9d61a9e.pdf
The Worst Partisan Gerrymanders in U.S. State Legislatures [USC Schwarzenegger Institute 2019]
—-
The CA Legislature [now full of RED communist party robot hacks] is a bit worse due to the combined effects of the rigged CA gerrymander commission and the top 2 primary — more NONvotes if not 1 D and 1 R in each gerrymander district.
—
The 9 math MORONS IN SCOTUS have set the stage for Civil WAR II in Rucho v Common Cause, 18-944 (27 June 2019) – Blank check to have rigged political concentration camp [gerrymander] districts.
Dred Scott 1857 Civil W-A-R I = Rucho 2019 Civil W-A-R II
Too many legis/exec/judic morons/idiots/retards to count.
—-
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
I guess it was too good to last!
CO should be at a Donkey 2020 Prez candidates TV debate asking questions / adding one line zingers ???!!!
Higher TV / internet ratings for the show ???
Bob, the qualifications clause is to protect voters and give them a free choice. So a law requiring presidential candidates to have their tax returns made public by the IRS would not have anything to do with being a qualification, because it wouldn’t inhibit the free choice of voters. It wouldn’t affect ballots.
ALL ballot access stuff is a *QUALIFICATION* / requirement to get names on ballots – by definition.
Con Law 0001 —
DIRECT=INDIRECT
—
How about a ballot access *QUALIFICATION* / requirement that a person has proof of landing on the Moon or Mars, traveled around the world in 80 days or less, etc. ???
In the CA case – a *QUALIFICATION* / requirement that a person has been a very good RED communist since age 18 by doing very good communist actions —
— taking at least XXX dollars in income and assets away from those evil Elephant job producing capitalists by force and threats of force.
ALL the add on ballot access stuff is a paper DIRECT ATTACK on the USA Const by the RED COMMUNISTS in the CA regime —
— heading for a physical attack — as at Fort Sumter, SC Apr 1861.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
FIRST SHOT = DOOOOM for slavery oligarchs – cost 750,000 DEAD, tens of thousands maimed for life, paper money, inflation, USA takeover of USA economy, insane annual deficits and govt debts —
STATISM in action.
Reminder —
Lincoln in 1860 was NOT on the *private* ballots in 9 slave States [plus no ballots in SC] —
NO printer in such States risking death and destruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election
about 90 pct down page
—
NUTCASE in White House ???
– quite ready to declare that the CA regime is in rebellion against the USA Const ???
Anyone who wanted to vote for him could write it on a piece of paper. No need for a printer.
Richard, if I were unwilling to release my tax returns — unwilling enough that I would not do so even to win federal office — then it wouldn’t matter to me or to my supporters whether the requirement to release them were imposed on the IRS or on me personally. As a purely practical matter, if it’s a “qualification” when imposed on me personally, then it has the same effect as a “qualification” if it’s imposed on the IRS instead.
To reiterate from a previous thread, I think the federal constitutional question is probably a close call — in spite of arguing only one side of it here. But I don’t think the state constitutional question is very close at all.
Ed Ng: In Oklahoma write in votes are illegal. Presently there are only 3 parties recognized by the State. Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian. There is no space for write in candidates. If one writes in a name instead of the printed choices then that ballot is invalid and will not be counted.
Ed Ng: It is possible that write in votes were not allowed in some States in 1860 as they are not allowed in some States now.
EN-
How many States now that —
AA do NOT count / look at write-in votes ???
BB count / look at write-in votes ONLY IF total WI are more than apparent name on ballots winner ???
14-2 violations — with write-in votes in 1860-1868 ???
Bob, it is clear from the comments of the founding fathers that US House elections were to allow the people to select anyone they wished (if they were at least 25 and a resident of the state on election day and a citizen). This was a very radical idea at the time. Every single state require state legislators to be property owners, yet US House members didn’t need to own property.
The whole point was to give freedom to voters. So if the IRS is required to reveal the tax returns of presidential candidates, that has nothing to do with voting freedom.
It would have been impossible for any state to ban write-in votes in 1860 because there were no government-printed ballots. All ballots were privately made, and any voter could prepare his own ballot. There were no petitions, no filing fees, no declarations of candidacy. Government and ballots had nothing to do with each other.
All votes were write in votes. Some were printed, some hand written. The problem Lincoln had in Southern states was that there were no organized slates of electors for him, which was what the printers distributed. But anyone who wished to vote for him could write his name and the name of a number of their friends who would wish to be electors for him. This did not happen because the votes were public, not secret, and because both the people voting for and agreeing to be electors for Lincoln would have faced too much backlash. Besides, someone had to count those votes, and so it’s possible some people did vote for Lincoln but were not counted.
It’s possible may be that there just were not sufficient means of communication for the few scattered Lincoln supporters to know of each other and a willingness to serve as electors for him. And expressing any such willingness in public, or even casting such a vote, may have been tantamount to suicide.
From the 1860 wiki
Lincoln pcts in slave States with ANY Lincoln ballots
DE 23.7
KY 0.9
MD 2.5
MO 10.3
VA 1.1
What percent of all precincts in each State with ZERO Lincoln ballots ???
How many of the Lincoln ballot printers in such 5 States got killed / wiped out ???
—-
Known / R PARTY HACK Lincoln 12th Amdt Prez elector slates in how many States ???
Have to write-in Elector names / addresses if no printed ballots [NOT just Abe. Lincoln, ILL] ???
1866 USA Congress took note of the 5+9+1 States in writing 14-2 ???
1866 USA Senate spent days / weeks in May-June 1866 about each word in 14-2.
Delayed pressure to 1888-1890 to get *official*/govt ballots ???
Voters should be allowed to download official ballots before election, print in any alternative preferences in mandatory write in spaces, mark the ballots, and bring or mail the completed ballots to the voting places. Write in candidates could pre-print their own ballots with their names on them, and pass them out to supporters.
WZ –
Oregon and other sane regimes — ALL paper mail ballots.
How many States having write-in spaces for ALL 12 Amdt Prez Electors in such State – esp larger pop States — # USA Reps + 2 ???
2016 WI spaces in ME and NE gerrymander USA Rep districts ???
Also – any stuff for declared WI 12 Amdt folks — 1 or more ???
—
ABOLISH THE WHOLE ROTTED STINKING EVIL MINORITY RULE EC SUPER-MESS.
—-
USA ELECTOR = USA CITIZEN, 18 + YRS OLDE
NONPARTISAN APPV – PENDING CONDORCET
HOW MANY STATES SURVIVE WITH DIRECTLY ELECTED GUVS ???
There is nothing in the “manner” clause that requires a state to print the names of candidates on its monopoly ballot. Congress can certainly prohibit states from printing candidate name son the ballot. It is legitimate for a ballot to be an open all write-in ballot with the voter free to write-in any name he/she pleases regardless of the person’s “qualifications.” The Constitution already provides that unqualified persons may not hold office. There no need for a state legislature with partisan bias to pre-screen candidates for qualification to receive votes from qualified voters. If a voter is qualified, then anyone for whom the voter wishes to vote is “qualified” to have their name written-in on the ballot.
If the states have a monopoly of printing ballots, those ballots must be content neutral and only an all write-in ballot is content neutral. Just count all the names voters write-in and publish the results. Stop casting rotten ballots.