The News Tribune, daily newspaper for Tacoma, Washington, here editorializes against the concept of requiring presidential candidates to reveal their tax returns or be omitted from presidential primary ballots. There is no such bill, but some legislators have said they intend to introduce such a bill next year.
On August 21, the California Supreme Court issued an order for the Secretary of State to explain why the court should not strike down the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose their income tax returns. The Court also expedited the case. The state’s response is due September 4, and the California Republican Party and its state chair, Jessica M. Patterson, must respond to the state’s filing by September 11. Patterson v Padilla, S257302.
The Court also directed both sides to discuss the legislative history of the part of the California Constitution that tells the Secretary of State to put “recognized” presidential candidates on presidential primary ballots. And it wants information from the Secretary of State about how past and current Secretaries have decided who is “recognized.” The court wants all the internal measures and protocols on that subject. This will be fascinating. Secretaries of State prior to the current incumbent have always let the qualified minor parties simply tell the Secretary of State whom to list. But the incumbent Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, broke that tradition in 2016. He disallowed many of the names suggested by the American Independent Party. Also he refused to let the Peace & Freedom Party list Jill Stein on its primary ballot. He has never publicly explained why he did that, but presumably he will be required to explain.
It seems somewhat likely that the California Supreme Court decision on this matter will be quicker than the decision of any federal court, in the federal challenges to the new California law.
On August 21, the Eighth Circuit said it will not stay the July 2019 decision of a U.S. District Court that enjoined the new Arkansas ballot access law. The order does not identify which three judges handled the case. It is very short and says, “The motion for a stay pending appeal has been considered and is denied. The motion for an expedited appeal is granted and the case will be set for oral argument during the week of December 9-13 in St. Louis, Missouri.”
This order means that the Arkansas Libertarian Party is on the ballot for 2020. Theoretically if the state won its appeal that will be argued in December 2019, the party could be removed. However, it is extremely likely that the Eighth Circuit will not reverse the U.S. District Court; otherwise the Eighth Circuit would almost surely have granted the Secretary of State his request for a stay.
The Burlington County Times, a daily newspaper published in Willingboro Township, New Jersey, has this op-ed, opposing bills to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns or be omitted from ballots. The op-ed is by Joshua Kramer.
Earlier this year, the Texas legislature passed a law that candidates from parties that nominate by convention must pay a filing fee. However, the law did not say whether it was just the convention nominees who needed to pay the fee, or whether anyone seeking the nomination of a convention party must pay the fee.
On August 21, the Texas Secretary of State posted these instructions on his web page. It says anyone who seeks the nomination of a convention party must pay the fee when he or she files the notice of candidacy. The new instruction also says that the fees are due December 9, 2019. The instruction says that the candidates may circulate a petition in lieu of the filing fee, but that would also be due on December 9, 2019. As of August 20, the Secretary of State has not released the petition forms for that type of petition. Statewide candidates need 5,000 signatures and most district office candidates need 500 signatures.
The entire law that requires convention party nominees to pay filing fees is already being challenged in U.S. District Court in Austin, in Miller v Doe, w.d., 1:19cv-700. Thanks to Art DiBianca for the link.
