Law Professor Vikram David Amar has this commentary on Verdict about California’s tax returns-ballot law, which was enjoined last month by a U.S. District Court. Amar says that now that he has read the opinion, he is more certain than ever that the California law is constitutional. He says that the U.S. Constitution lets states impose any barriers to presidential candidacies that they wish, because the states have complete control over how to choose presidential electors (unless the states discriminate on the basis of race, sex, class, or age).
That viewpoint ignores the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, and numerous other courts, have struck down state ballot access laws affecting presidential candidates. Amar only mentions one of them, Anderson v Celebrezze, and grudgingly admits that perhaps states do not have complete control over qualification deadlines.
But courts have also struck down presidential candidate ballot access laws that required too many signatures, or a county-based distribution requirement, or that required presidential candidates to have chosen their vice-presidential running mates when they start petitioning, or which required a loyalty oath, or a requirement that the presidential candidate not be a felon. They have also struck down laws that required the selection of presidential elector candidates early in the process, or which restricted who could circulate a presidential petition, or which completely banned independent candidacies, or which made the requirements more onerous in the middle of the petitioning season.
As a courtesy to Professor Amar, I posted a comment under his article eight hours ago, but the web page that hosts his article has not posted my comment yet.
Did the Prof detect 14-2 ???
Is the Prof trying to get appointed to be one more USA HACK Judge ???
— noting his past CA leftwing skoool connections.
I think this professor is wrong.
I think that the Professor has a point. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down certain candidacy based restrictions but upheld many other, tough ones. There is no consistency. I think that the court needs to say, “the First Amendment protects candidacy” and be consistent about it.
AGAIN- SCOTUS HACKS HAVE SCREWED UP 14-1 EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS SINCE 1968.
CON LAW 000001 —- DIRECT = INDIRECT
IE — NOOOO INDIRECT ADD-ON CON QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICES.
WILL THE SCOTUS HACKS DETECT THAT THE USA IS A CIVIL W-A-R FOG STATUS — AS IN 1857-1861
DUE IN LARGE PART TO THE DRED SCOTT OP IN MAR 1857
— PLUS THE SLAVE STATE BALLOT ACCESS DEATH STUFF FOR ELEPHANTS IN NOV 1860 ???
There is also the CA RED communist machination to extend the regime’s jurisdiction outside of CA —
ie Any Trump tax stuff is USA and only in limited States where he has income from assets
— may be ZERO income from CA sources ???
What is next ballot access requirement —
a 100 percent videotape of life since 0.0001 second born ??? — with 100 percent copies of ALL paperwork in such life.
Vikram Amar is playing a deeper game here. He’s one of the founders of the National Popular Vote plan, and one of the essential aspects of the plan is that each state can assign its electors anyway it wants, even if it means disregarding the voters in the state.
Amar isn’t going to want any court ruling that says voters in a state have a right to select the electors through some kind of election.
NPV = One more RED communist scheme to overthrow 14-1 and 14-2 in the USA Const.
Have votes OUTSIDE a State determine results INSIDE such State.
NO definition of Elector in the NPV scheme — would permit RED communist regimes like CA having RED China persons be voting for USA Prez/VP.
Basic a RED communist terrorist scheme posing as a *fix*.
—
USA Elector-Voter — USA Citizen, 18 + yrs olde in ALL of the USA — even in RED CA.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP