On February 12, the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB 94, which requires presidential candidates for the general election to reveal their tax returns. It also says that no presidential elector may vote for someone in the electoral college who has not revealed his or her income tax returns.
The House Judiciary Committee had already passed an identical bill, HB 712, but neither vote has had a floor vote yet.
This is essentially an unconstitutional qualification for the office of President of these United States.
Bob has it right.
What if a party runs a slate of unpledged electors?
One more OLIGARCH machination.
ALL state legislatures are ANTI-Democracy minority rule OLIGARCH regimes —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY.
Govts of, by and for the OLIGARCHS —
regardless of Lincoln’s comments in Nov 1863 at Gettysburg, PA
— used to brainwash millions/billions.
—
PR and AppV
The Hawaii Attorney General testified that the measure was likely unconstitutional, citing congressional precedents.
The measure would require the candidate to post the returns on the Internet for free public access. This likely constitutes a poll tax (see Lubin v Panish, Harper v Virginia Board of Elections, and Bullock v Carter). Since it would likely be subject to DOS attacks and hacking, the cost would likely run into the tens$$$ of thousandS$$$. It also is compelled speech in violation of the 1st Amendment.
That is interesting, Jim. Thank you.
Walter, no party in Hawaii has ever tried to run a slate of unpledged presidential electors. If one tried, probably the state would either refuse the request, or it might print a blank spot on the ballot with that party’s name (in the presidential part of the ballot), so virtually no one would vote for that slate. In 1960 a Michigan party, the Independent American Party, was on the ballot and ran an unpledged slate. So Michigan printed a blank spot on the ballot with the party label, and it only got .02% of the vote because most voters assumed there was nothing to vote for.
HB 712 is not identical to SB 94. HB 712 would also apply to gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial, and mayoral candidates (Hawaii does not have cities. The chief executive officer of each county is styled as ‘mayor’. HB 712 would also require submission of the tax returns to the elections office for publication, perhaps avoiding the poll tax issue.
To be fair, the AG did not say that that the bill was likely unconstitutional. She used more lawyerly language of ‘possibly’ being unconstitutional, but did cite Powell v McCormick and Term Limits Inc v Thornton, and distinguished these from Storer v Brown, and Anderson v Celebrezze.
The testimony is available on the SB 94 bill page, over on the right side. All testimony is in one PDF file.
ANY Elephant Prez candidates ever go to HI — even in TV attack ads ???
Will Trump order the USA military out of HI — to bankrupt the HI regime ???