The DNC and/or state orgs should change their rules

[Gothmog]

75. Again you need to read the material posted

First, your claims about the DNC lawsuit are wrong. The court dismissed this lawsuit for valid reasons that you either did not understand or ignored. For example, most litigators should know that you can file class actions in federal court under diversity jurisdiction if you satisfy certain simple pleading requirements. If lack of diversity was the sole reason for dismissal, the court could have ask the idiot attorney who filed this case to correct this defect by a simple change to the pleadings. Again, I strongly disagreed with your analysis of this ruling
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/tedious-legal-analysis-of-the-decision-in-the-fraud-suit-against-the-dnc/

As to ballot access law, your questions were answered if you read the materials posted. However let me help. Your JPR profile claims that you are from New Jersey. You do know that the New Jersey legislature passed a ballot access law which required the disclosure of tax returns. This bill was vetoed by Christie. https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/03/christie-poised-to-do-trump-a-favor-by-vetoing-nj-tax-return-requirement-110599

New Jersey’s Democrat-controlled Legislature passed a bill (S3048) last week that would require presidential candidates to release their tax returns on order to get on the ballot in the state in 2020 and beyond. Trump has refused to release his returns, breaking decades of tradition.

If signed, New Jersey would be the first state to enact such a law, though 22 other states have similar legislation pending. But it’s almost certainly not going to be signed — at least not this year. Christie is widely expected to veto the measure, which passed with only minimal Republican support. His office did not respond to a request for comment.

Once Christie is gone, this law will be passed and signed

Even if Christie vetoes the bill, as expected, it may make a comeback once he leaves office in January. After eight years of Christie, whose approval rating in the latest poll is 19 percent, Democrats are favored to win back the governor's office. And the frontrunner, Democrat Phil Murphy, would sign the bill, his spokesman, Derek Roseman, said.

I note that California also adopted such a law that was vetoed. Mass. may be adopting a similar law by voting on this in the 2018 general http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-ma--presidential-candidates-tax-returns-20170906-story.html

A proposed Massachusetts ballot question that would require presidential candidates to release their tax returns from the prior six years to secure a spot on the state primary ballot cleared a key hurdle Wednesday.

Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey certified the question, saying it passes constitutional muster. That clears the question to go before voters next year, provided that supporters can collect the tens of thousands of signatures needed to get on the ballot.

Come 2020, there will be likely be several such laws adopted in blue states. Trump will sue to invalidate these laws and there will be a mass revolt if any democratic candidate joined trump in fighting these laws.

I volunteer in the real world on voter protection issues and have been in charge of war rooms for several races. This is not a hard area of the law. Here is a rather basic law review article that may explain the concepts and discusses the case where ballot access laws that limited a congressman to three terms and a Senator to two terms were held invalid. https://www.uclalawreview.org/candidate-disclosure-ballot-access-bills-novel-questions-voting-disclosure/ This concept is important

Contrary to its treatment of congressional elections, the “Constitution expressly delegates authority to the States to regulate the selection of Presidential electors.”26 The Court has made clear that this does not insulate presidential ballot access restrictions from ordinary First and Fourteenth Amendment analysis.27 Nonetheless, the Constitution’s broad delegation of power to the states with respect to presidential electors suggests that the historical and textual analysis of U.S. Term Limits may not apply to presidential elections. After all, the Supreme Court has held that states are not required to hold elections for the presidency whatsoever.28

I agree with the conclusion of this law review article

Conclusion

In response to a novel rejection of the strong norm supporting personal financial disclosure of presidential candidates, states have developed novel solutions intended to provide their voters with the necessary information to make informed choices about our president. These novel solutions raise unique legal questions about the limits of state power to restrict ballot access for presidential candidates. But these questions are answerable by looking to our well-established law regarding ballot access measures and financial disclosure. If states choose to enact these laws to provide voters with better access to candidates’ financial information and conflicts of interest, they stand on strong constitutional footing to do so.

I note your concerns about New York closed primary rules. I would love to see Texas close its primary and adopt party registration requirements. The Texas GOP likes the current system but there is hope that we can make changes when Texas turn blue (and Texas will turn blue).

The question that I have for you is what should the reaction be if a candidate for the Democratic nomination joins trump in fighting these ballot access rules? Could you support a candidate who is wiling to adopt trump's positions on anything? I suspect that many members of the Democratic party would not be happy to support a candidate who is working with trump on this issue.

As for me, I will draft and proposed some rules for the Texas Democratic Party that will make if very difficult for a candidate to run in Texas without providing their tax returns. I expect to have a fun time at the 2018 state convention.