California Secretary of State Posts Income Tax Returns for All Sixty-One Gubernatorial Candidates on her Webpage

The California Secretary of State has posted copies of the income tax returns of all sixty-one gubernatorial candidates on her webpage. See the link here. Write-in candidates need not disclose their income tax returns, and in any event the deadline for write-in candidates to file is not until May.

Eight candidates filed an affidavit that they did not file income tax returns in any of the last five years.

No other state requires candidates for any elective office to have their tax returns made publicly available. In California, governor is the only such office. The law for presidential candidates was declared unconstitutional in both federal and state courts in 2019.

Superior Court Refuses to Put Butch Ware Back on California Primary Ballot

On March 26, a California state trial court refused to put Butch Ware back on the California primary ballot. Sacramento Superior Court, Ware v Weber, 26WM000074. An appeal is planned. The court order merely says that Ware’s request is denied “for the reasons stated in the oral argument”.

See this news story, which says that the judge skirted the issue of whether the tax returns law is unconstitutional. The law had been passed in 2019 and it covered presidential and gubernatorial candidates, but the part of the law relating to presidential candidates was struck down that year by both the State Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court Judge.

California State Appeals Court Won’t Put Che Ahn on Ballot as Candidate for Governor

On March 25, the California State Appeals Court refused to put Che Ahn on the ballot as a gubernatorial candidate. Ahn v Superior Court, C105918. Ahn was kept off the ballot because he didn’t file his income tax returns for the last five years with the Secretary of State.

The Court did not explain its reasoning.

Arizona Independent Party Will Appeal Court Decision that Said it Can’t Change its Name

This news story says the Arizona Independent Party will appeal the decision that it can’t change its name. The ruling yesterday ignored all the precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court about freedom of association. It ignored all the history of parties that have changed their names in the past. Even the two major parties have changed their names in the past, but none of that got into the court’s seven-page decision.

It is the essence of freedom that individuals and groups decide for themselves about their name. Can one imagine a government telling a church that it can’t change its name?