It is likely that more lawsuits will soon be filed against the new California law that requires presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns. At least one such lawsuit will probably be based on the California Constitution, which says that the Secretary of State will put “recognized” candidates for a party nomination on a presidential primary ballot.
That part of the California Constitution was interpreted in 1992 in LaRouche v Eu. A Superior Court in Sacramento ruled that Lyndon LaRouche was a recognized candidate for the Democratic nomination, because he had qualified for the Democratic presidential primary in other states that year, had been on the California Democratic presidential primary in 1988, and had raised some money for his campaign. This case shows that the Secretary of State does not have unfettered discretion to decide which candidates are “recognized”. Here is the 3-page LaRouche v March Fong Eu.
California put that into its constitution in reaction to presidential primaries during the 1960’s in California, when leading candidates chose not to file in California for political reasons. In 1960, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy did not file in the Democratic primary in California because Governor Pat Brown asked them not to. In 1964, no presidential candidate filed for the California Democratic primary. In 1968, neither Richard Nixon nor Nelson Rockefeller filed in the California Republican primary, because Governor Ronald Reagan asked them not to.
3 pg op – ye olde worn out typewriter ribbon.
*recognized* = UNCON void for vagueness- civil and esp criminal.
ZERO discretion in election law >>> ALL YES or NO stuff — flowcharts.
The constitution does not say that a candidate for president be seeking the nomination of a political party. Ross Perot and John Anderson were generally recognized throughout the US. The legislature or SOS can not add an additional qualification. Refusing to recognize a candidate because he is an independent, is indistinguishible from not permitting an independent candidacy in the general election.
California could use the format used in 2000, with addition of other recognized candidates.
The Los Angeles Times has an editorial in opposition to the new bill requiring tax returns from candidates for President https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-07-30/
It appeared in the print edition today (August 1) along with an opinion column by Erwin Chemerinsky in support of the new law. There is also a news article about lawyers disagreeing on whether the new law is constitutional.
The Los Angeles Times coverage does not even mention the state constitutional issue, unfortunately.