As already noted, on September 19, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England stated from the bench that he will enjoin the new California tax returns-ballot bill. Although he hasn’t released his written opinion yet, from his remarks, he seems likely to use statutory preemption, rather than the U.S. Constitution, as the basis for his opinion.

5 US Code Appendix 107(b), part of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, says, “The provisions of this title requiring the reporting of information shall supersede any general requirement under any other provisions of law or regulation with respect to the reporting of information required for purposes of preventing conflicts of interest or apparent conflicts of interest.”

That federal law applies to all federal employees, including elected ones like the President. Because the President is already required to comply with the disclosures included in the act, and because the federal law expressly says that its provisions supersede any other laws on disclosure, therefore California’s law is preempted.

Courts are supposed to decide cases without resorting to a judgment of constitutionality or unconstitutionality, if they can do so. So it seems Judge England will use the preemption argument to avoid having to issue an opinion about constitutionality. That reasoning would also apply to the laws of any other states, if any other states pass such laws. The bills in other states (unlike California) always applied to the general election ballot. Thanks to Scott Lay for this news. He observed the September 19 oral argument in Sacramento.

On June 20, the New York legislature passed A8228/S6532. It eases the deadline for registered voters to switch parties. Current law says they can’t vote in the 2020 primaries if they hadn’t joined the party by October 2019. The bill changes that deadline to February 14, 2020. The presidential primary is in April and the primary for other office is June; the February 14 deadline would apply to both primaries.

For a reason not understood by me, the legislature has never sent that bill to the Governor. Perhaps some commentator can shed some light on why.

On September 19, Chris Graveline filed this brief in U.S. District Court in Michigan, in his ballot access lawsuit. He was an independent candidate for Michigan Attorney General in 2018. He sued to overturn the requirement that he submit 30,000 valid signatures. The U.S. District Court enjoined the law, partly because no one had successfully completed the statewide independent petition in Michigan since 2004. Now the case is in the phase in which the courts will determine if the requirement is unconstitutional.