On November 21, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said he will drop his pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit over whether the new California law on tax returns and presidential candidates is constitutional. Because the law violates the State Constitution, according to the California Supreme Court’s November 21 ruling, it is a moot point as to whether the law also violates the U.S. Constitution. UPDATE: the Secretary of State here asks that his appeal be dismissed, but he also wants the Ninth Circuit to erase the U.S. District Court order.
Last month a U.S. District Court had ruled that the law violates the U.S. Constitution. Even if the state could persuade the Ninth Circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court, the law still couldn’t go into effect because of the state constitution.
A victory for ballot access. If you can restrict ballot access for lack of some reporting requirement, there is no end to what restrictions and reporting requirements that the state can pile on as a condition for ballot access.
Did the plaintiffs demand $$$ damages — for violation of USA Const ???
OR – one more case of USELESS so-called lawyers ???
Damages are not always the appropriate remedy.
Damages are always ONE of the remedies for torts.
Blackstone’s commentaries – Book III – 1760s.
regular damages – negligent torts
punitive damages – intentional torts
state of mind = FACT question – esp in jury trials
— for HUNDREDS of YEARS
regardless of any USELESS New Age lawyers.
@DR,
Since the intent was to injure the Republican Party by depressing voter turnout, you might be right about the punitive damages.
The RDLF complaint requests legal fees, and other relief which court determines necessary and proper. Judicial Watch is representing other plaintiffs. Would they not seek additional damages?
I suppose now that the law is enjoined, 14-2 reduction of representation is off the table.
I see it as a victory for hypocrisy more then fair ballot access.
@EB,
1. What is your definition of hypocrisy?
2. Who do you see as being the victors? Remember there were 5 sets of plaintiffs.
3. Why do you think them hypocritical?