Five Connecticut Democratic legislators have introduced HB 6575, which says that presidential candidates must release their last three federal income tax returns, or they may not have any presidential elector candidates on the ballot. The Connecticut general election ballot doesn’t now list candidates for presidential elector, but the ballot does say “Vote for Presidential Electors” (and then the presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names are listed). Here is the text, which is very short.
The bill’s reference to presidential elector candidates appears to be an attempt to insulate the bill from the principle that states cannot add to the qualifications for federal office that are listed in the U.S. Constitution. However, that probably wouldn’t work. If a state were to pass a law saying no presidential candidate under the age of 40 could have eligible presidential elector candidates, surely that would not be constitutional. In U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated term limits for members of Congress, the proponents of term limits tried to save their law by making it a ballot access restriction, but the U.S. Supreme Court still invalidated those laws. Those laws said that anyone could be a write-in candidate for congress but no one could have his or her name on the ballot who had already served several terms, but that didn’t work. Thanks to Andrew Rule for the news about the bill.
I agree. Unconstitutional.
Now, that said, Connecticut’s various political parties possibly could adopt such a measure for primaries or caucuses. But that will never, ever happen.
I expect a couple of ramifications, if this is upheld:
1. Some states will then require Presidential candidates to produce birth certificates, health records, and college transcripts to be on the ballot.
2. Parties will circumvent these requirements with stand-in candidates in those states.
@Walt
I say someone file a bill to require candidates to also release their internet histories too, just to show how ridiculous this is. Suppose a person does not have to file a tax return (they make nothing or next to it) Are they now going to be barred from running since they don’t have a return to release?!
Probably not bar them from running, but the premise in this legislative proposal is that the public has a right to know info like this before they cast their vote.
Really? So our franchise as citizens (voters), our right to cast a ballot for a candidate nominated in a national party convention, is to be determined by the hyper-partisan legislature of the State of Connecticut? Ridiculous.
Yet another of the hundreds if not thousands of examples of “progressive” pols filing bills not worth the paper they’re printed on so that they can go back to their districts and show what tough guys (both genders, please) they are.
Does anyone wonder why fewer and fewer people have faith in the government? What is in the water up there in the State Capitol?
@Mark Dunlap
I would still find more informing and enlightening their internet histories than their tax returns.
Totally Constitutional. CT should vote this in as will other states. In this global economy it is imperatvie that we know who our leaders are indebted to. Christ – the right went nuts when Clinton didn’t release her Goldman speech but it is silence on the billions of loans that Trump owes who knows how many countries.
This is great. All presidents have released their taxes – full disclosure- so we can know if there are conflicts of interest. Except Trump. Therefore everyone believes he is a Russian puppet. This stops the US from being in a situation where their president is basically being blackmailed and not working for citizens but a foreign power.