Joel Fox, who runs Fox & Hounds Daily, a California politics web page, writes here about another consequences of the California tax returns-ballot law. If it is upheld and President Trump does not appear on the 2020 Republican presidential primary ballot, that will probably discourage Republican turnout. And that, in turn, could skew the results of the statewide ballot measures that will appear on the March 2020 ballot.
Also see this Fox & Hounds column by Tony Quinn, which ran on August 13.
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.
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.
The First Circuit will hear Lyman v Baker, 18-2235, on September 10, Tuesday, in Boston. This is one of the four cases that challenges the practice of electing presidential electors at-large.
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.
