On September 12, Rocky De La Fuente filed this response brief in the combined federal cases challenging the California tax returns-ballot law. Even if you don’t normally read briefs, consider reading this one, because it has some interesting concepts that have not been raised by other briefs. At the end of the brief, De La Fuente points out that the oft-repeated claim that all presidential candidates nowadays reveal their tax returns is not true. He points out that in 2016, the only minor party presidential candidate who revealed her tax returns was Jill Stein (Green Party nominee), and she only released one year’s worth of returns.
On September 12, President Trump filed this response brief in Trump v Padilla, e.d., 2:19cv-1501. This is the case in U.S. District Court over whether the new California tax returns-ballot law violates the U.S. Constitution.
On August 31, Earl C. Ravenal died. He was an expert on foreign policy and had sought the Libertarian Party presidential nomination for 1984. On the fourth ballot, he lost by one vote to David Bergland. Ravenal was 88 and lived in Rhode Island, although he had second home in Maryland, and he died there. See this obituary. Thanks to Andy Craig for the link.
Darcy Richardson has decided not to seek the Reform Party presidential nomination, according to a comment he posted at Independent Political Report on September 12.
On September 12, the California Republican Party and its state chair filed this brief in Patterson v Padilla, the case over whether the State Constitution bars the legislature from requiring presidential primary candidates to reveal their income tax returns.
The brief depends on the repeated attempts of former State Senator Al Alquist to reform California’s presidential primary so that all recognized candidates would automatically appear. Alquist started this mission in 1967, but he was repeatedly frustrated when Governor Ronald Reagan vetoed his bills on the presidential primary. Finally he resorted to a state constitutional amendment, which could not be vetoed. The brief points out that when the bill putting the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot was passed by the legislature in 1971, the analysis of the bill said the amendment, if enacted, meant “The Secretary of State would be required to place all publicly recognized candidates for President on the primary ballots.” The ballot pamphlet for question 4 made similar statements.