As already noted, on September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England stated from the bench that he will enjoin the new California tax returns-ballot bill. Although he hasn’t released his written opinion yet, from his remarks, he seems likely to use statutory preemption, rather than the U.S. Constitution, as the basis for his opinion.
5 US Code Appendix 107(b), part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, says, “The provisions of this title requiring the reporting of information shall supersede any general requirement under any other provisions of law or regulation with respect to the reporting of information required for purposes of preventing conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest.”
That federal law applies to all federal employees, including elected ones like the President. Because the President is already required to comply with the disclosures included in the act, and because the federal law expressly says that its provisions supersede any other laws on disclosure, therefore California’s law is preempted.
Courts are supposed to decide cases without resorting to a judgment of constitutionality or unconstitutionality, if they can do so. So it seems Judge England will use the preemption argument to avoid having to issue an opinion about constitutionality. That reasoning would also apply to the laws of any other states, if any other states pass such laws. The bills in other states (unlike California) always applied to the general election ballot. Thanks to Scott Lay for this news. He observed the September 19 oral argument in Sacramento.
USA law does NOT apply –
“conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest”.
CA law is a STATE ballot access *law* –
which blatantly violates Prez qualif in USA Const Art II.
How many seconds to SCOTUS ???
A smart judge
THE TYRANTS IN THE USA CONGRESS/STATE LEGIS CARE ONLY ABOUT STAYING IN POWER.
MEANS – RIGGED BALLOT ACCESS AND RIGGED ELECTION METHODS AND RIGGED GERRYMANDERS.
NOTICE *RIGGED*.
—
PR AND APPV AND TOTSOP – TO END TYRANNY IN THE USA
That would be an indefensible justification. The Ethics in Government Act only applies to federal personnel (i.e., incumbents) and would not apply to those challenging incumbents. It would only pre-empt part of California’s disclosure requirement and only to the extent it applied to federal incumbents. Interpreting federal law in this fashion would itself violate the First Amendment by discriminating in favor of federal incumbents and providing them an advantage (protection from state disclosure laws) not available to challengers. The Court would be creating an unnecessary constitutional problem. The cleaner way is to simply rule that California cannot require disclosure under the Constitution’s qualifications clauses as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Official primaries have been part of the election ***process*** / system since 1888.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Classic
1941
One more void for vagueness op —
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/09/24/appeals-court-says-michigan-speech-code-chill-speech/2427595001/
Appeals court says UM speech code could ‘chill’ speech