On March 19, the California Senate Elections Committee passed SB 27. This is the bill to require presidential candidates in primaries to reveal the last five years of their income tax returns. It does not apply to write-in candidates, and California permits write-ins in presidential primaries. The vote was 3-1.
How come NO required videotape of life since Age 1 second ???
RED COMMUNIST TYRANTS at work.
As I have mentioned previously, this is a blatantly unconstitutional added qualification for the office of President of these United States.
I was the only person who testified against it.
The vote was 3-1-1 and not just 3-1
At least the gerrymander oligarchs are doing their rotted machinations barely in time for SCOTUS to rule in 2019-2020.
Super-possible CRISIS actions in lower courts — who have some dim idea of Nov 1860-Apr 1861.
What pathetic state senators California has. Specifically Mcguire, Weiner, Stern, and Umberg. Kind of makes you wish for a senator who is only involved in gun-running and bribery. Did Senator Yee report this income on his 1040?
Alabama statutes regarding statement of econonomic interest exclude federal offices (17-5-2 and 36-25-2). Does Gowri Ramachandran have a cite for a case? It appears that there is a lot of litigation regarding when and to whom SEI are filed with, and courts putting candidates back on the ballot. I found one article where a candidate claimed a 1994 case that the statute did not apply to municipal candidates. Ramachandran did not appear very sure.
Her claim that it is merely procedural would appear to be contrary to ‘Cook v Gralike’. Gralike could easily have complied with the law. In fact, if he did nothing, he would get disparaging text next to his name on the ballot.
Could California print: “Disclosed Federal Income Tax Form” or “Did Not Disclose Federal Income Tax Form” next to each candidate’s name? NO!!! That would clearly violate ‘Gralike’.
Effectively, there is no difference between that and printing on the ballot the names of candidates who comply and excluding those who don’t. A responsible SOS would provide that explanation on the ballot and in the voters pamphlet.
The bill clearly violates the California Constitution (Article II, Section 5(c)). The constitution requires the state to hold a presidential preference primary, and further that the names of recognized candidates be placed on the ballot. While the legislature might provide for parameters for the SOS making a finding that a candidate is generally recognized, those parameters can not be contrary to the intent of the constitution.
The bill also violates ‘Democratic Party v Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette’ If Kamala Harris refuses to release her 1040 forms (did she and her husband file jointly? Is that a requirement in a community property state like California?), it would violate DNC rules if California prevented from receiving delegates.