Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s very well established that states can keep presidential candidates off their ballots.
If they can keep a presidential candidate off the ballot due to failure to submit the required paperwork - and they can - why would requiring tax returns be different?
After all, you are not required to vote only for the candidates listed on the ballot. You can vote for anyone you damn well please, and your vote will be tallied for that person.
You make a good point. Trump not appearing on a ballot really isn't denying him a vote, it just makes it inconvenient to select him as a write-in candidate. If he were to comply with a legal stipulation that all candidates release their tax information he will have eliminated that inconvenience for those who wish to vote for him.
What folks seem to overlook is this is his problem. The requirement would be for every candidate. If Howard Schultz (whose net worth is arguably greater than Trump's) officially gets into the race he'd have to release the info. Same with Jeff Bezos if he were to get into politics. I don't hear any crying about that possibility.
Stop with the jive that your boy is somehow so special that rules shouldn't apply to him.
(Same goes with all his henchmen who ignore congressional subpoenas)
You make a good point. Trump not appearing on a ballot really isn't denying him a vote, it just makes it inconvenient to select him as a write-in candidate. If he were to comply with a legal stipulation that all candidates release their tax information he will have eliminated that inconvenience for those who wish to vote for him.
What folks seem to overlook is this is his problem. The requirement would be for every candidate. If Howard Schultz (whose net worth is arguably greater than Trump's) officially gets into the race he'd have to release the info. Same with Jeff Bezos if he were to get into politics. I don't hear any crying about that possibility.
Stop with the jive that your boy is somehow so special that rules shouldn't apply to him.
(Same goes with all his henchmen who ignore congressional subpoenas)
Other candidates may have to release their tax returns but this is clearly about getting Trump's returns. Nothing else. The Democrats demanding them want them so badly they will attempt to change the law in order to get them. Does this not really look bad to you?
Honesty, I'm surprised someone hasn't leaked them from the IRS. If we're to trust the IRS, why not just have every candidate audited and a go or no-go published by them? We've seen what the media do with things of this nature. Look no further than Maddow's stunt when she got an old tax filing. Oh, the bombshell that was.
Also, it needs to be kept in mind that this kind of thing can come back and bite those Democrats right square in the butt. Harry Reid and the nuclear option is a good one that immediately comes to mind. Call it what you want but, I don't think this is a can of worms that needs to be opened.
The other thing is there are probably a lot of people who are now at the point that they don't care if there was a smoking gun found that proved Trump did something illegal. The Democrats have been after him so hard that it really makes them look childish and vindictive. The Republicans who were after Obama weren't much better. But, we're in the here and now. This whole mess just looks bad. Fight the man on policy but get past all of this gotcha crap that has been going on. Seriously, it seems like the democrat platform is now Free Stuff, Orange Man Bad. Is that really what you want of your politicians?
As to write ins. I don't know about other states but for Maryland a name can't just be written in. The person whose name is written in has to be registered by the Board of Elections (state Board for federal offices, County or municipality for local offices) as a write in candidate for the vote to count.
If this actually gets any real traction it'll be kicked to the USSC which I can see ruling that any impediments other than those in the Constitution to be listed as a candidate (some states require a political party to have received a certain percentage of the vote last time) to be unconstitutional for at least the President.
As to write ins. I don't know about other states but for Maryland a name can't just be written in. The person whose name is written in has to be registered by the Board of Elections (state Board for federal offices, County or municipality for local offices) as a write in candidate for the vote to count.
So what you're saying is there is already a precedent and means for state election boards to stipulate the terms in which a candidate may appear on a ballot. That's the crux of this whole kerfuffle.
Just because Trump doesn't like it doesn't make it any less legal. Again, if he and his supporters feel put upon by this, it's grievance of their own choosing. You yourself indicated the structure to accept or reject is already in place.
I suspect it may go to the SCOTUS but the real question is, in time for the 2020 election?
It’s very well established that states can keep presidential candidates off their ballots.
If they can keep a presidential candidate off the ballot due to failure to submit the required paperwork - and they can - why would requiring tax returns be different?
After all, you are not required to vote only for the candidates listed on the ballot. You can vote for anyone you damn well please, and your vote will be tallied for that person.
A filing deadline is quite a bit different from having to disclose private information that hasn't had to be previously disclosed. A citizen should have a right to privacy in this area, which is a constitutional right under Roe. v. Wade. If the states can't prove why a candidate should have to produce these documents under the law, then it will be thrown out.
So what you're saying is there is already a precedent and means for state election boards to stipulate the terms in which a candidate may appear on a ballot. That's the crux of this whole kerfuffle.
Just because Trump doesn't like it doesn't make it any less legal. Again, if he and his supporters feel put upon by this, it's grievance of their own choosing. You yourself indicated the structure to accept or reject is already in place.
I suspect it may go to the SCOTUS but the real question is, in time for the 2020 election?
If it does make its way to the Supreme Court and there isn't time for a decision before the 2020 election they'll have to place an injunction on it and prevent the states from removing him from the ballot until the case is decided. That means the earliest possible time such a law can come into effect for a presidential election is in 2024.
Twenty states are considering laws which will require presidential candidates to release their tax returns if they wish to appear on that state's ballot. Trump has steadfastly refused to release his taxes.
Before the Trumpsters cry "unconstitutional," be aware that the Constitution grants the states the power to administer and conduct all elections in the manner of their own choosing.
maybe the red states will required all Presidential candidates to release their college transcripts and medical records and drug used to be on the ballot......LMAO!!!
Sounds good. Has Trump released his college transcripts? It would be extremely funny if red states forced Trump to release the transcripts he had Cohen work so hard to keep hidden.
A filing deadline is quite a bit different from having to disclose private information that hasn't had to be previously disclosed. A citizen should have a right to privacy in this area, which is a constitutional right under Roe. v. Wade. If the states can't prove why a candidate should have to produce these documents under the law, then it will be thrown out.
It would be extremely funny if the GOP overturned Roe V. Wade resulting in getting Trump kicked off the ballot.
All these years we've heard the GOP is all about state's rights. It's interesting how that has changed under Trump.
It would be extremely funny if the GOP overturned Roe V. Wade resulting in getting Trump kicked off the ballot.
All these years we've heard the GOP is all about state's rights. It's interesting how that has changed under Trump.
Nothing has changed. States are already limited regarding what they can do with elections. A state couldn't say they are not going to allow a black man on the ballot. I guess you would say they should be allowed to keep a black person off the ballot, in order to be consistent. A state could say they are only going to allow a white Christian man on the ballot. Would that be alright with you?
This will go to the SCOTUS and be overturned because States cannot set arbitrary qualifications for someone to become President. If this were allowed these TDS sufferers will proceed with all manner of laws that effectively keep all Republicans off ballots.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
