Rocky De La Fuente Asks U.S. District Court in San Diego Not to Transfer His Tax Returns-Ballot Case to Sacramento

On August 15, Rocky De La Fuente asked the U.S. District Court in San Diego (the Southern District) to retain his presidential tax returns-ballot lawsuit in that city. The state of California is trying to persuade the judge in San Diego to transfer De La Fuente’s case to the U.S. District Court in Sacramento (the eastern District). See the 15-page brief.

De La Fuente points out that his lawsuit was the first lawsuit to be filed against the new California law that requires presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns. Therefore, he argues, if the five cases are to be consolidated, they ought to be consolidated in San Diego, not Sacramento. Furthermore, he points out that De La Fuente and his tax account both live in San Diego, and both are expected to be witnesses, and it is therefore far cheaper for the witnesses to hold the trial in San Diego, not Sacramento, which is 550 miles away.

Also, De La Fuente points out that the state itself (in its brief in the State Supreme Court) suggests that only a presidential candidate has standing to challenge the California law. Of the four cases pending in federal court in Sacramento, only the one filed by President Trump includes a presidential candidate. This suggests that the two federal cases filed by De La Fuente and Trump are the two strongest federal cases, and it would be arbitrary to consolidate these two cases in Sacramento, versus San Diego.

Finally, De La Fuente points out that all these lawsuits are time-sensitive, and already his San Diego case is moving along faster than any of the Sacramento cases.

Indiana Ballot Access Case to be Argued August 29

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt will hear Schmitz v Marion County Board of Elections, s.d., 1:19cv-3314, on August 29, Thursday, at 2 pm. This is the case over whether signatures on an independent candidate petition are valid if the signer is a registered voter in the proper jurisdiction, but the address on the signer’s registration record differs from the address used on the petition.

The hearing will determine whether independent candidate John Schmitz will be on the November 2019 ballot for Mayor of Indianapolis.

Veteran California Politics Columnist George Skelton on California’s Tax Returns-Ballot Law

George Skelton, California’s veteran politics reporter, writes here for the Los Angeles Times that the new California law requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns is just “petty politics.”

Also, the Mail Tribune, the daily newspaper for Medford, Oregon, here editorializes against the idea. The Mail Tribune responded to a recent statement by Oregon Governor Kate Brown, saying Oregon ought to pass a law on this subject next year.

Washington State Presidential Electors Granted More Time to File Cert Petition

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted Washington state’s “disobedient” 2016 presidential electors more time to file their petition for cert, in Chiafalo v Washington. This is the case over whether the state can fine presidential electors $1,000 if they vote for someone in the electoral college who didn’t receive the most popular votes in the state. The State Supreme Court had upheld the law in May 2019. The cert petition would have been due August 21, but now it is due October 20.