The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Patterson v Padilla on November 6, at 9 a.m., in Sacramento. This is the case on whether the California Constitution prevents the state from requiring presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns, if they want to be on a presidential primary ballot.
Although a U.S. District Court already enjoined the law on federal constitutional grounds, the state is appealing the federal case. The State Supreme Court case is based on the state constitution.
See my Oct 14 postings.
Do State Sup Cts note SCOTUS ops —
even if NOT noted by ANY lawyers in State cases ???
For the viewers —
what parts of the CA Const are being violated according to plaintiffs ???
Article II Section 5(c)
CA Const
Art. II
(c) The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
—-
NO deadline dates – esp for the *petition* clause.
ZERO mention of any income tax filing stuff.
*recognized* clause — still void for vagueness – see other postings.
The State can argue that part of being a recognized candidate, is doing what is done my most candidates.
typo
CA Const
Art. II, Sec. 5
M+D —
Do most candidates make *deals*, take bribes, grant *favors* – esp behind closed doors —
so as to make them *recognized* by a CA SOS H-A-C-K ???
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
@DR,
The petition requirements are in statute.
See Division 6 of the Elections Code.
Mike and David, most presidential primary candidates in recent California presidential primaries have not released their tax returns. For example, in 2016, there were 12 Libertarians, 5 Greens, 3 in the Peace & Freedom primary, and 7 in the American Independent primary, and out of those 27 candidates in minor party presidential primaries, I believe only Gary Johnson showed his tax returns.
Furthermore, the term “recognized” was already defined in a Cal. Superior Court decision in 1992, LaRouche v Eu. The court said “recognized” refers to whether the candidate has qualified for the primary ballots of other states, has raised a fair amount of money, and whether the candidate had run for president in the past. The state did not appeal this decision.
What if the *test* for ballot access for ALL offices was being *recognized* by a HACK officer – USA, State or Local ???
Every rotted *test* upheld by the moron courts can [and will] infect ALL election areas.
@DR,
What do you think????
Almost too many rotted party HACKS in the courts to count.
How many 18 April 1775 Paul Revere type folks ready to rock and roll ???
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
It has been a political miracle that the gerrymander oligarchs in ALL States/DC have NOT [yet] copied ALL the rotted ballot access stuff upheld by the SCOTUS hacks in their various MORON ballot access cases since 1968.
BAN can report on such EVIL rotted stuff and which cases —
like reporting on the rise of the SS in Germany in 1933 onwards.