On November 21, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in Patterson v Padilla, finding that the new law requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose their tax returns if they want to be on a presidential primary ballot violates the California Constitution. The opinion is unanimous.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
the opinion is wrong in my view.
It’s a very thorough opinion. What part of it do you disagree with?
richard
if filing tax returns is too much, then so is harsh petitioning requirements.
One more super-MORON junk op
— due to the MORON so-called lawyers and the much, much, much worse CA HACK Supremes
[who must/should know much better about BASIC Con Law stuff – even when the MORON lawyers on all sides are brain dead]
*recognized* = void for vagueness
U.S. v Davis, 588 US _ (2019)
Slip op p 4
II
Our doctrine prohibiting the enforcement of vague laws rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers. See Dimaya, 584 U. S., at ___–___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 4–5); id., at ___–___
Slip op p 5
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 2–9). Vague laws contravene the “first essential of due process of law” that statutes must give people “of common intelligence” fair notice of what the law demands of them. Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926); see Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 638 (1914). Vague laws also undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers and the democratic self-governance it aims to protect. Only the people’s elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to “make an act a crime.” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812). Vague statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the creation of the laws they are expected to abide. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357–358, and n. 7 (1983); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89–91 (1921); United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876).
—-
criminal void for vagueness = civil void for vagueness
See also USA Const Anno – esp in 1 Amdt cases – and the mystification of the 1 Amdt since 1968 in ballot access cases.
Much too difficult for the MORONS in the CA insane asylum to have EQUAL nom petitions for prez primaries in CA — that *modicum of support*.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/189/
Munro v. Socialist Workers, 479 U.S. 189 (1986)
Possible total chaos if a lawyer with any brain cells NOW attacks the *recognized* scheme.
This case is not about whether it is burdensome to reveal tax returns. This case is about the meaning of the California Constitution, which says that all “recognized” candidates should be put on one of the presidential primary ballots. The case is about the meaning of “recognized”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
ALL sorts of 1 Amdt CIVIL void for vagueness SCOTUS ops.
richard
yes, and the State requires candidates to file a petition to get on the ballot, to be “recognized”, just as the state requires candidates to file taxes to be recognized.
this reminds of the Term Limits US Supreme Court case. They said that term limits were an unconst limit on candidacy rights, [adding qualifactions] but not harsh petitioning rules.
The US Term Limits decision says petitions are needed for orderly election administration, but that term limts have nothing to do with administering an election. That is the difference between petitions on the one hand, and these requirements that don’t relate to administration of elections, such as tax returns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
richard;
liberal petition requirements are needed for orderly elections. not the frequent reality. if the court in Term Limits said so, i wont see hypocrisy.
As it stands, the court has upheld harsh petitioning rules, while acting like it respects candidacy as a right.
The tax returns are no more necessary, then harsh fee and petitioning requirements. but, the court acts like the liberty interest at stake is very different.
had the california court struck down the tax returns rule and said that harsh ballot access rules are also, at least, suspect then i could see the legal reasoning.
as it stands, the state court defined ‘recognized’ to void a light buden, while keeping silent about harsh petitioning/fee burden.
What is a *harsh* versus an EQUAL petition *burden* ???
@EB,
California does not have harsh petition requirements for presidential primaries.
Try again.
@DR,
See ‘US v Davis’
“Vague laws contravene the first essential of due process of law’ that statutes must give people ‘of common intelligence’ fair notice of what the law demands of them”
Stipulation: when you are raving you are not exhibiting evidence of common intelligence.
TOTAL raving and lack of common intelligence in the JUNK CA Sup Ct op —
unanimous MORONS — each now qualified to be a SCOTUS ballot access MORON.
@DR,
Since you failed to file your amicus brief, you have forfeited any moral or ethical right to complain.
You retain a first amendment legal right tyo foam.
I disagree about the California ballot access rules.
Since when do know-it-all HACK Judge MORONS read ANY briefs any more ???
This is the new DARK AGE of NON/DIS *information* with the current crop of top EVIL MORONS/HACKS.
See the upcoming CNN show about Trump LIES.
Where was/is the JR amicus brief — esp about void for vagueness in 1 and 14 Amdt cases ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California
Guv HACK appointments – retention stuff.
It shows.
—
NONPARTISAN APPV for ALL judges.
@EB,
What parts of the ballot access rules for the California presidential preference primary do you disagree with?
@DR,
The vagueness doctrine has not been applied to cases other than criminal cases or where there was a civil penalty.
The test for “vagueness” appears to be whether or not an alleged offender of common intelligence could understand the law. This sounds like a variation of the reasonable man test.
“vagueness” is not a matter of exuberant declamation. You have failed to explain by which criteria the California Constitution was vague. You have not explained what would happen if the constitution was found to be vague. You have not explained which party in the present lawsuit should have argued that the constitution was vague.
@DR,
I’ll throw you a bone. The Cuellar concurrence was political hackery. It does not belong in a lega l opinion.
Is this correct: 26,500 (Independents) or (for one of several parties) From each congressional district, 1% of registered party members or 500, whichever is fewer?
Then I think that the Independents number is too high. i also object to the Congressional distribution rule. how long do candidates have to submit petition?
void for vagueness –
see USA Const Anno — index
vague – see ANY 99 cent dictionary.
save time and effort –
vague
/vāɡ/
adjective: vague; comparative adjective: vaguer; superlative adjective: vaguest
of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
[3 more adjectives]
Remedy – Nom Pets – by court order if CA gerrymander hacks did not instantly enact nom pets law.
ALL parties should have raised the vagueness issue – esp the CA SOS top hack.
ALL CA Sup Ct hack judges should have raised the vagueness issue.
Will A-L-L Zillion FEC Prez candidates be *recognized* ???
Last second ACLU case coming to bring down the entire CA ROT – by any of those Zillion FEC Prez candidates who is NOT *recognized* by the CA SOS ballot access monarch/tyrant ???
Mere 987 FEC Prez candidates as of 10 seconds ago.
ALL going to be *recognized* by the top HACK CA SOS ???
Bloomberg just filed.
Will he be *recognized* — regardless of ZERO Donkey debate appearances ???
How high/low ratings for the Weds Donkey ***debate*** ???
@EB,
The standard for ballot access for the presidential primary is so liberal, that perhaps no candidate has attempted to petition.
There were 39 candidates in 2016. Because of its late date, some candidates withdrew before the June Primary.
You are mixed up a bit on the requirements. The 500 per CD is for an uncommitted slate to the Democratic convention. The Republican requirement is 1% per CD with no cap. Because of low Republican registration in some districts, the requirement is less than 500 in 8 districts, and because of no cap, a maximum of 1918.
There is no distribution requirement for the AIP, P&F, and Green Parties.
Divisions 6 and 7 of the Elections Code are stupid, and should be nuked, and start over from the bare rocks and cockroaches, but that does not make them unduly harsh.
@DR,
Bloomberg has qualified for primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas. He satisfies one of the criteria in California. He will be recognized if he file the form in California.
You do realize that Keith Judd was recognized in 2016, don’t you?
@DR,
You have not addressed the issue of whether the vagueness doctrine applies in cases other than criminal cases or where civil penalties are involved.
You have not addressed the SCOTUS definition of vague as not understood by an alleged offender of common intelligence. “common intelligence” not equal to “ravings of itinerant crank”.
Judges should not go hunting for issues not raised by litigants.
Why should Alex Padilla have raised the issue.
Why should the Republican party have raised the issue.
JR –
You obviously have NOT looked at the USA Const Anno — esp 1 Amdt void for vagueness CIVIL cases.
US v Davis does NOT list ALL the void for vagueness cases going back to 1776.
JR – Why should Alex Padilla have raised the issue [???]
Because he allegedly took an Art VI oath to defend the USA Const.
Way too many SLIME so-called lawyers in the USA to count ???
— much worse than the ambulance chaser TV lawyers ???
— who at least win some tort cases against those evil rotted insurance bizs — even in jury cases.
In more sane States —
SOME top EXEC hacks ask State ATTY GENS about the legality of various mere laws and regs
AND SOME EVEN go to court and ask for declaratory judgments about the legality of such various mere laws and regs.
Classic example – ex Mich Atty Gen Kelley issued an opinion declaring the Mich Const stuff about Mich legislature gerrymanders was UN-constitutional – BEFORE SCOTUS issued its June 1964 op on the general subject.
Kelley was THE longest serving State Attorney General (AG) in the United States – 37 years – 1962-1999.
It took until Nov 2018 to remove the Mich Const UNCON language.
@DR,
Michigan redistricting language was clearly bizarro. The new stuff is not much better.
“vague” is not equal to “ravings of itinerant crank”. Provide some concrete discussion of why a person of common intelligence would think the constitution vague.
Sorry See ALL those SCOTUS ops about vague stuff.
———–
vague
/vāɡ/
adjective: vague; comparative adjective: vaguer; superlative adjective: vaguest
of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
[3 more adjectives]
—
Quite bad enough having other vague adjectives –
4 Amdt reasonable
8 Amdt cruel, unusual
keeps SCOTUS as 5-4 super-legislature.
4 Amdt UN-reasonable
6 Amdt speedy
etc.
How about THE EXTREME CASE ??? –
NEW LAW-
SEC. 1 ONLY VOLKS WHO ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE GUV/LEADER AND HIS/HER APPOINTED STOOGES/HACKS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ***RECOGNIZED*** MASTER RACE SHALL HAVE ANY LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND/OR IMMUNITIES.
SEC. 2. THE GUV/LEADER SHALL ORDER ALL ***UN-RECOGNIZED*** NON-VOLKS TO THE NEAREST DEATH CAMP FOR PROCESSING.
SEC. 3. ALL ***RECOGNIZED*** RESISTANCE SHALL BE FUTILE AND BE COUNTERED BY ***RECOGNIZED*** DEADLY FORCE.
SEE GOOGLE HOLOCAUST.
@DR,
That is not the text of the California Constitution, is it???
Please try to submit a concrete argument why you believe the California Constitution is vague. The burden of proof is on you.
Obviously because the word *recognized* is VAGUE
— as in ALL the SCOTUS cases finding VAGUE words and phrases.
Next case ???
@DR,
That is weak, even for yourself.
DR: Your Moron, DR representing Emperor Norton and similarly placed individuals, obviously “recognized” is “vague”.
Judge: Case dismissed.
JR ain’t a judge I presume ???
How many JR wins in SCOTUS about EQUAL ballot access and/or vague words and phrases ???
ANY effort to look at that giant Const Anno ???
2018-2019 Supp coming out shortly.
Entire format being changed – due to too many editorial comments by Con.Anno. editors.