California Presidential Tax Returns Bill is Amended by Author

On April 10, California State Senator Mike McGuire amended his SB 27, the bill to require presidential primary candidates to submit copies of five years of income tax returns to the Secretary of State, or suffer being left off the primary ballot. The amendments give the Secretary of State less discretion, compared to the original version of the bill. The original bill let the Secretary of State decide what to redact, but the amended bill specifies the information that may be redacted. For example, the amended bill says the presidential candidate is free to redact the names of any dependents and their social security numbers. Here is a copy of the amended bill, that highlights the amendments.

The amended bill also removes the Secretary of State’s discretion about the deadline for submitting the income tax returns, and makes it 98 days before the primary, which would be in late November 2019, for the 2020 presidential primaries. Thanks to Ronald Paulinski for this news.

California Party Labels Case Moves Ahead

U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte has set a scheduling conference for May 31, Friday, at 10 a.m., in Soltysik v Padilla. This is the case that challenges California law on ballot labels. If a candidate for Congress or partisan state office is a member of a qualified party, the candidate’s party of registration is printed on the ballot next to his or her name. But if the candidate is a registered member of an unqualified party, no party label can appear. The plaintiff is a registered Socialist.

Californians to Defend the Open Primary, which had intervened in this case from the beginning on the side of the state, has now dropped out of the case. Californians to Defend the Open Primary includes the Independent Voter Project, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable.

California Bill, Making Initiative Process More Difficult, Advances

On April 10, the California Assembly Elections Committee passed AB 1451 by 5-2, a party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed. It bans paying petitioners on a per-signature basis. It also requires 10% of the needed signatures to be collected by volunteers. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Initiative Proponents Sue City of Salem, West Virginia, for Removing Initiative to Decriminalize Marijuana Inside City

On April 10, the proponents of a city initiative to decriminalize marijuana inside the city of Salem, West Virginia, filed a federal lawsuit against the city. Even though the initiative had enough valid signatures, the city removed it because city officials felt if the initiative passed, it would not be a valid law because marijuana possession is illegal in West Virginia. The case is Hyman v City of Salem, n.d., 1:19cv-75.

West Virginia does not have the statewide initiative process, but some cities have city initiatives. The Salem initiative requirement is very difficult. It took the signatures of 10% of the registered voters, but the petition was checked and it does have enough valid signatures. The lawsuit was filed only two days after the city rejected the initiative. The election is June 4, 2019, so this case will move rapidly. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Kleeh, a Trump appointee.