Eleanor Finch
California's Trump tax return rule, which would have required presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns before appearing on the primary ballot, has been deemed unconstitutional and voided by the state's Supreme Court. The law, passed by Democrats in California's Legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, was aimed at U.S. President Donald Trump, who broke with tradition by refusing to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign. The ruling by the California Supreme Court justices was based on concerns that the law could open the door to future requirements for medical and psychiatric records, school report cards, and other invasive demands. The decision sparked legal challenges and discussions about the role of states in regulating presidential elections and the importance of transparency in a candidate's financial status.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Ruling | Unconstitutional |
| Reasoning | The law would set up illegal new rules governing who can seek the presidency and violate a 1972 voter-approved amendment guaranteeing that all recognized candidates must be on the ballot. |
| Previous Action | A federal judge had temporarily blocked the law in response to a lawsuit by Trump. |
| Supporters | Newsom, Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law), Supervising state Deputy Attorney General Jay Russell |
| Opponents | Justice Ming Chin, Justice Joshua Groban, Gov. Jerry Brown, Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, Judicial Watch, California Republican Party, Secretary of State Alex Padilla |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
California's Trump tax return rule struck down
California's Trump tax return rule, which required presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns before appearing on the primary ballot, has been struck down by the state's Supreme Court. The law, which was passed by a supermajority of Democrats in California's Legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, was aimed at U.S. President Donald Trump, who broke with tradition by refusing to disclose his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the law was unconstitutional and violated the state constitution, which makes clear that it is the voters who must decide whether a presidential candidate's refusal to publicly share tax returns will have consequences at the ballot box. The court also expressed concern that the law could lead to an ever-escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates, including the demand for medical and psychiatric records or school report cards.
Supporters of the law argued that publishing tax returns was just another administrative step, similar to a signature-gathering requirement or paying a filing fee. They believed that it was important for voters to have access to information about a candidate's financial status and potential conflicts of interest. However, critics of the law, including constitutional law experts and former Governor Jerry Brown, warned that it was likely unconstitutional and could set a problematic precedent for state-level requirements for presidential candidates.
The ruling was a result of several lawsuits filed against the law, including one by President Trump himself, who argued that the law violated the constitution by creating new rules governing who can seek the presidency. The California Republican Party and chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson also challenged the law, claiming that it singled out Trump and could lower voter turnout in the primary election.
The decision by the California Supreme Court means that President Trump does not have to disclose his tax returns to appear on California's primary ballot. The state had previously been barred from enforcing the law by a federal judge, who temporarily suspended it while lawsuits were litigated.
The US Constitution: Liberty's Legal Definition
You may want to see also
The U.S. Constitution and qualification requirements
The U.S. Constitution lays down a concise list of qualifications for presidential hopefuls. A candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. This is outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, often referred to as the Qualifications Clause.
The natural-born citizen requirement, as explained by Justice Story, is to protect the country from ambitious foreigners seeking the presidency and to prevent corrupt interference from foreign governments. This requirement, however, does not apply to foreign-born individuals who immigrated to the colonies before 1789 and became U.S. citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption in 1789. This exception includes the children of U.S. citizens born overseas.
The age and residency requirements are in place to ensure that presidential candidates have the necessary maturity and commitment to the country. The 14-year residency requirement also gives the public a full opportunity to know the candidates and for the candidates to be aware of the country's issues.
In addition to these qualifications, candidates must register with the Federal Election Commission once they raise or spend more than $5,000 for their campaign. This includes naming a principal campaign committee to manage campaign funds.
Federalism's Role in Constitution Expansion
You may want to see also
The legality of state-level requirements
Supporters of the law argued that publishing tax returns was an administrative step, similar to signature-gathering or paying a filing fee. They believed it was within California's constitutional right to determine how electors are chosen. Additionally, they claimed that tax returns provided crucial information for voters to evaluate candidates' financial status and potential conflicts of interest.
However, opponents of the law, including constitutional law experts and former Governor Jerry Brown, raised concerns about its constitutionality. They argued that it could lead to an escalation of differing state requirements for presidential candidates, impacting their ability to appear on ballots. Governor Brown vetoed identical legislation in 2017, expressing worries about the political implications of individual states regulating presidential elections.
While California's Trump tax return rule was ultimately struck down, the debate highlights the complex legal considerations surrounding state-level requirements for presidential candidates and the potential conflicts with federal law and constitutional qualifications.
The Constitution: Guarding Against Tyranny
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![California Probate Code [2025 Edition]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51i2yMhJOZL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The role of the California Supreme Court
The California Supreme Court played a pivotal role in the debate surrounding the constitutionality of the state's Trump tax return rule. The court was tasked with deciding whether the law, which required presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns before appearing on the primary ballot, was valid.
The California Supreme Court justices expressed scepticism towards the law during hearings. They questioned whether such a requirement could open the door to future demands for medical and psychiatric records, school report cards, birth certificates, and even loyalty oaths. The court also considered the potential impact on voter turnout and the possibility of an "ever-escalating set of differing state requirements" for presidential candidates.
In November 2019, the California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law, deeming it unconstitutional. The lead opinion, delivered by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, affirmed that it is the voters who must decide whether a candidate's refusal to disclose tax returns will have consequences. This decision aligned with the concerns raised by former Governor Jerry Brown and constitutional law experts, who had warned of the law's potential unconstitutionality.
The ruling sent a strong message, suggesting that similar attempts to regulate presidential elections at the state level would likely face legal challenges and be deemed unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court's decision was a significant moment in the ongoing debate surrounding the transparency of presidential candidates' tax returns and the role of states in setting qualifications for the presidency.
Exploring Universal Male Suffrage in the 1793 Constitution
You may want to see also
The impact on voter turnout
California's Trump tax return rule, which requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to appear on the state's primary ballot, has sparked legal challenges and debates over its constitutionality and impact on voter turnout.
The rule, aimed at forcing President Trump to release his tax returns, has been criticised by some as an attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout and unfairly influence the election. The law was struck down by California's highest court, with the ruling stating that it is the voters' decision whether a candidate's refusal to disclose tax returns will affect their vote. This ruling reinforces the principle that voters have the right to choose their preferred candidates without additional qualifications imposed by the state.
Supporters of the law argue that it does not prevent any candidate from appearing on the ballot, only adding an administrative step of disclosing tax returns. They believe that tax returns provide crucial information for voters to make informed decisions, ensuring leaders meet certain standards. However, critics argue that the law could lead to states imposing various additional requirements on candidates, creating inconsistent qualifications across the nation.
The impact of the rule on voter turnout is complex. On one hand, it could encourage voter participation by providing more transparency and accountability from candidates. Voters may appreciate having access to candidates' tax returns, enabling them to make more informed choices. This additional information could lead to increased engagement and turnout, especially among voters who value financial transparency.
On the other hand, the rule could potentially discourage voter turnout, particularly among supporters of candidates who refuse to disclose their tax returns. If a candidate, such as President Trump, is absent from the ballot due to non-compliance with the tax return requirement, their supporters may feel disenfranchised and less inclined to participate in the election. This could result in lower voter turnout for that particular candidate's party. Additionally, the perception of unfair qualifications or attempts to manipulate the election process may also impact overall voter enthusiasm and participation.
In conclusion, while California's Trump tax return rule aims to provide voters with more information, its impact on voter turnout is multifaceted. It may encourage turnout by offering transparency but could also discourage participation by limiting ballot options and potentially suppressing specific political affiliations. The interplay between transparency, fairness, and voter engagement is complex, and the ultimate effect on voter turnout may depend on various factors, including the preferences and perceptions of the electorate.
The US Congress: Constitutional Design and Dynamics
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
California passed a law that would require presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns before appearing on the primary ballot.
This law was passed by a supermajority of Democrats in California’s Legislature and signed by new Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. It was a blatant dig at the GOP president, Donald Trump, who broke with a precedent set in 1976 by President Jimmy Carter following the Watergate scandal by not releasing his tax returns during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The law was passed to shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interests. Gov. Newsom also stated that the U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen.
The law was challenged in court by Trump, the Republican Party, and a few California voters on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution by setting up new rules governing who can seek the presidency. It was also argued that the law might open the door to future requirements of medical and psychiatric records or school report cards.
The California Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
