Erwin Chermerinsky, Dean of the U.C. Berkeley School of Law, has this op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, saying that the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their tax returns is constitutional.
The op-ed does not mention the California Constitution, which tells the Secretary of State to put all “recognized” candidates for a party nomination on one of the presidential primary ballots.
The op-ed says the law does not violate the U.S. Constitution because any presidential candidate is free to reveal his or her tax returns. However, that ignores court decisions which have struck down other requirements for ballot listing (for federal candidates) that were voluntary. The 10th circuit decision Campbell v Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229 (2000) said Colorado could not keep a congressional candidate off the ballot just because he refused to register to vote. He was entirely free to register; he was a resident of Colorado.
The highest state court in Maryland, the Court of Appeals, ruled in 1950 in Shub v Simpson, 76 A. 2d 332, that Maryland could not keep a congressional candidate off the ballot because she refused to sign a loyalty oath.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Backstrom v Kiffmeyer, A04-1647, in 2004, that Minnesota could not keep a congressional candidate off the Republican primary ballot on the grounds that the candidate lived in Rome, Italy. He was free to come home to Minnesota, but he chose not to.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Schaefer v Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031 (2000) that California could not keep a congressional candidate off the ballot on the grounds that he wasn’t registered to vote in California. He had homes in both California and Nevada, but chose to be registered in Nevada. He could have changed his registration to California, but chose not to.
IVN should add an additional claim based on this constriction on the right to an open primary.
IVN should also seek to reduce California representation in the US House to a single member based on this abridgement of the right to vote under the 14th Amendment.
E.C. – one more useless *expert* ???
Mess is a throwback to the 1950s RED SCARE stuff —
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the ABCXYZ Party ???
Are you an Enemy of the People if you have an above average Net Worth ???
YES answers = NO ballot access 4 U.
There is no right to an open primary. Fourteenth amendment.
JR-MV
How many classes of Electors-Voters in 1866-1868 ???
How many primaries in 1866-1868 ???
Considering that the income tax is applied in an unconstitutional manner, and that there is evidence that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, I would say this is unconstitutional.
Also, where in the Constitution is revealing one’s income tax return listed as a qualification for being elected to or golding the office of President?
Revealing one’s birth certificate is a constitutional requirement, since only Natural Born citizens can become President, but there is no constitutional basis for revealing one’s income tax filing.
Should read, “holding the office of…” above.
I hope that sitting judges in the mold of Chermerinsky declare the law constitutional and Trump is not on the California ballot. If by chance that happens, it would expose the judicial system for what it is: fraudulently partisan — just as partisan as the legislatives and executive branches. More broadly, maybe enough people will wake up and recognize that the entire government as constituted today is a fraud – none of the branches follows the rules set out in 1787 that took effect in 1789. Our “republic” or, if you prefer, “democracy”, is very, very broken.
Historically situations like this end in violent overthrow of the government. Maybe we can find a non-violent way? How about dissolution into a few smaller countries? (1) Hawaii, Cal, Oregon and Washington, (2) all other states west of the Mississippi, (3) all other states south of the Ohio River, and (4) Illinois-Wisconsin east to Philly and Maryland, then north to Maine. And split up Virginia one more time – give DC and surrounding counties to Maryland, and rejoin the rest with West Virginia. Can this be accomplished by Constitutional Amendment? IMO, Yes.
States cannot constitutionally require that presidential candidates disclose birth certificates, tax returns, or anything else (in my humble opinion) as a condition of ballot access. I disagree with Dean Chemerinsky on this one.
DW – 1787 top secret Fed Conv and the 9 Art VII State regimes just ignored the olde 1777 Art Confed.
Result – DEAD AC after NC and RI surrendered.
—
Obvious possible regimes
RED West Coast (west of Continental Divide)
West of Miss R (east of CD)
East of Miss R (west of App. Range)
RED East coast (east of AR)
Try to have each regime in ONE Time Zone.
Possible more N/S splits — ie possible 8 regimes at least.
Possible mutual military defense ONLY – rotate CIC.
Lots of moving vans, planes and trains – to get away from RED/BLUE regimes.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
@MV,
When a state abridges or infringes on the right to vote of any male citizen over the age of 21, their representation in the House of Representatives is proportionately reduced.
14th Amendment and USC.
459 U.S. 107
Correction:
450 U.S. 107
Demo Rep – I do not advocate an Article V convention. The dissolution amendment would be initiated by CONgress and ratified by the states just like all other amendments. IMO, the first step (adopted by CONgress) will be much harder than getting 38 legislatures to confirm. Maybe someone like Rep. Amash, who has no future in CONgress, can introduce it just to get the discussion started? The process will take a few decades to happen, but as time goes by I believe that increasing numbers of citizens will see the wisdom of an amicable divorce.
DW — USA does NOT have *decades*.
See the RED communist donkey Prez candidate so-called debates Tues/Weds
—- RED communists wanting 100 plus pct taxes / TOTAL control of everything / every body.
Sorry – almost NO amiable political divorces EVER –
Brits vs USA 1775-1784
USA Freedomites vs Slavers 1860-1865.
The USA CRISIS 3 is NOW.
Considerable FORCE in most political *marriages* / unions [larger regime formations] –
England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.
450 U.S. 107 — internal clubby group machinations — see also later EU op 1989.
Ballot access of 12th Amdt Prez Electors a totally separate matter —
BUT 14-2 mention of elected Prez Electors — and other officials.
Original 14-2 applied to ALL offices – Senate amended to apply to specified offices.
The USELESS executive/judicial hacks in the USA regime have failed to enforce 14-2 since 1868 —
too many USELESS public and private lawyers to count.
The CA regime is now quite akin to the 1918 Lenis commies in Russia or 1933 Hitler nazis in Germany –
PURGE all opposition – ONE party state regimes.
@DR, MV,
2 USC 6. This is enforceable by a court.
If LaFollette were applicable, then California could not prevent Republicans associating with Donald Trump.
California should use Proportional Approval Voting to choose its 55 electors. It could winnow the field to 110 candidates in the primary.
NO ENFORCEMENT OF 14-2 AND ITS LAW VERSION — 2 USC 6 — SINCE 1868.
SEE CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED.
USELESS USA DOJ AND SCOTUS.
USA CONGRESS MINORITY RULE OLIGARCHS CONTINUE IN POWER — SINCE 1789.
ALL USA LAWS / TREATIES – OF, BY AND FOR THE OLIGARCHS — AND THE SPECIAL INTEREST LEFTIST/RIGHTIST GANGS WHO NOMINATE THEM.
MEDIA — EVEN MORE STUPID THAN THE 9 SCOTUS MATH MORONS.
—–
PR AND APPV AND TOTSOP.
@DR,
2 USC 6 (or its previous version) was added by the 1872 apportioment bill, which also set the uniform election date, including the runoff provision, and fequired used of paper ballots.
Before the 1870 Census there had been legislation that would have the census inquire into whether the franchise for male citizens over age 21 had been abridged or infringed. This never made it into final legislation, so they were still operating under the law for the 1860 Census. The director of the Census Bureau directed local administrators.to make general inquiries.
This produced pretty useless information. Only a few states made an accurate count of imbeciles, idiots, insane, and illiterates, and the information was pretty useless. An attempt was made to adjust apportionment populations (multiply by 99%), but this made no difference, and in event the apportionment in law can not be derived from application of any formula.
As a result Congress stuck 2 USC 6 into statute, where a court is free to apply it.
1870 Census did collect info on and report the number of adult male USA citizens in a separate column.
BUT- self-reporting – somewhat olde dubious records of FATHER ALLEGIANCE chains [natural born / naturalized] since 19 Apr 1775 [Mass]- 4 July 1776 [most other States].
Various LEGAL foreign residents via earlier treaties – 1783 Brit Peace Treaty, 1803 Louisiana, 1819 Florida, 1848 Mexico, etc. and more LEGAL immigrants undergoing naturalization process [mainly 5 years residence in USA BEFORE taking ALLEGIANCE Oath to USA Const].
@DR,
Did the Secretary of Interior have legislative authority to add the columns, and dfid he regard the results reliable or trustworthy?
A bill requiring the 14-2 info was in a major Congress report [41 Congress, 2 Sess, H Reps No. 3][Rep. Garfield Report- later 1880 Prez] Jan. 1870] about the Census – noting 14-2.
Bill NOT enacted. Part of bill in the 1872 Law — esp now 2 USC 6.
Apparently the top Census person did it based directly on 14-2 – deemed ratified in July 1868.
See Intro comments to 1870 Census.
Vague olde 1850 law about what questions were to be in each Census.
IE – Census in Const ONLY for USA Reps among States 14-2 and any possible USA DIRECT Taxes 1-9-3.
ALL other questions are UN-constitutional — more subversions of the States.
The USELESS lawyers in the recent Census – USA Citizen question case did NOT note the following–
See 41st Congress, 2d Session, H Reps Report No. 3
NINTH CENSUS JAN. 18, 1870 [GARFIELD] REPORT, PP. 1, 52, 53, [58-70] ESP pp. 62, 63, 66, [71-93] [93-99].
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1870/dec/garfield-report.html
——
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1872/dec/1870a.html
[1870 Census PDF]
See 1870 Census Vol I, pp. xv, xxviii, Table XXIII, pp. 618, 619.
See 1872 Apportionment Act, 17 Stat 28, Sec. 6 at 29, now 2 USC 6.
MORON failure to update Sec. 2 in the 19 (female) and 26 (age 18) Amdts.
—
NON-enforcement of 14-2 — one more DISASTER FAILURE of the USA executive branch.
@DR,
Table XXIII (23) only shows the number of citizen males over 20. Also read page xxviii carefully.
I don’t think that the Secretary of the Interior ever published the data. During the debate on the apportionment bill, a table was included (Congressional Globe, Page 83, Dec. 1871) that was obtained from the secretary.
Most notable is that 5.8% of Rhode Island 21+ male citizens have their right to vote abridged. Most others were well under 1%, some as low as 0.1%.
The federal government should provide identity documents to all persons, and when a person changes his state of residence report that to state election officials and be automatically registered to vote. Election districts could be continuously updated based on adult citizen population.
I think Congress could interpret 14-2 as being modified by 19 and 26.
At least 2 BAN folks look at research.
Whether or not the 14-2 *right to vote* is violated is a LAW matter for a Court to determine
— properly NOT in the Census table. See 1870 Census intro comments.
Class action stuff – notice, etc. problems. Fraction problem – 0.5 plus/minus.
—–
POSITIVE Uniform definition of Elector-Voter = USA Citizen, 18 + yrs olde in ALL of the USA.
Repeal olde negative language – including 14-2.
@DR,
You might be interested in ‘The Right to Vote and Judicial Enforcement of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment’ by Arthur Earl Banfield in the Cornell Law Review, Fall 1960.
The proper finding would be that California’s new law is an abridgement of the right to vote, and to sanction the state by reducing its representation in Congress to one representative.
If the federal government had a registery of citizens and aliens, it could require a state to register all citizens over 18, or explain the reason for not doing so. They could use this number to adjust the apportionment numbers. The registry would also facilitate the taking of the census.
Congress could also require districts be based on citizens over age 18.
Congress has obvious power to daily record the Nation-State [citizenship] status of ALL folks in the USA for MILITIA purposes – quite separate from any Census [which is NOT needed].
CA statists LOVE having ILLEGAL INVADERS [aka illegal / *undocumented* immigrants ] be counted in each Census – to get more USA Reps.
Also easier to win in gerrymander districts with below average number of LEGAL voters.
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1733&context=clr
Banfield 1960 pdf