On July 30, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 27, which requires presidential primary candidates who want to have their names on the ballot to file five years of their federal income tax returns. Here is the Governor’s statement.

The Governor quoted three attorneys who say the bill is constitutional. One of them, Theodore Boutrous, said, “It will apply to any candidate for President, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent.” This is factually incorrect. The bill has no effect on independent presidential candidates, because it only relates to candidates running in a presidential primary, and independent presidential candidates have no connection with California’s presidential primary. Also the bill does not pertain to write-in candidates (in either the primary or general election), nor to party presidential nominees who appear on the November ballot.

Neither the Governor, nor any of the three attorneys he quoted, even mentions the California Constitution, which says in Article II, sec. 5(c), “The candidates on the (presidential primary) ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California.”

On July 29, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Davis v Guam, 17-15719. The issue was whether Guam could hold a plebiscite and limit the voting to individuals who are descendants of people who were living in Guam in 1898, the year control passed from Spain to the United States. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the U.S. District Court that the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars that limit on which voters can vote. The 15th amendment says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for the news.

President Trump filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on July 23, to stop New York state from giving copies of the President’s recent state tax returns to a Congressional Committee. Trump is a resident of New York state so his state income tax return is a New York return.

The case, Trump v Committee on Ways & Means and Letitia James (Attorney General of New York) was assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, because attorneys for the President said McFadden already is handling the lawsuit Committee on Ways & Means v U.S. Department of the Treasury. Attorneys for the president said Judge McFadden should get the New York case because the two cases are related. Committee on Ways & Means v U.S. Department of the Treasury is the case in which congress is demanding that the U.S. Treasury reveal the President’s federal return.

On July 25, Judge McFadden, who is a Trump appointee, said the two cases are not related, so the new lawsuit against New York state was then randomly reassigned. It went to Judge Carl J. Nichols, another Trump appointee.

On July 29, Judge Nichols ordered the two sides in the New York case to try to come to an agreement about how to proceed. The chair of the Ways & Means Committee of the U.S. House still hasn’t said whether he intends to ask New York state for the state income tax return. If Congressman Richard E. Neal (chair of the Ways & Means Committee) suddenly requests the state income tax return, and New York quickly submits it to him, the worry is that the President will not have had a chance to contest that action in court. So, the two sides need to settle whether or not Neal wants the state return, and then they need to settle on a quick procedure to resolve the lawsuit. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news.