Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

djg21

(1,803 posts)

15. It's a essentially a First Amendment issue

Reply to PBC_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2019, 04:47 PM

Nov 2019

Voters have a right to vote for a candidate of their choosing, and may penalize a candidate for not disclosing tax information by declining to vote for the candidate. The disclosure of tax returns always has been customary, but not a legal requirement.

I know this was addressed under the State Constitution rather than the US Constitution, but the rationale is analogous. And it’s probably not wrong, despite the fact that we would have preferred a different result.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California Supreme Court says law requiring presidential candidates to turn over tax returns is inva [View all] PBC_Democrat Nov 2019 OP

I don't understand this at all (the ruling). What about the overriding concern of conflicts of ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2019 #1

State Constitutional Amendment perhaps Raven123 Nov 2019 #2

Have no details on the rationale but if it was unanimous, then Goodwin Liu agreed. CincyDem Nov 2019 #3

My Opinion On This Is BirdandSquirrel Nov 2019 #4

Exactly. Not surprised at this at all. I thought it was stupid for the governor to push it. You still_one Nov 2019 #7

Supremacy Cause... LovingA2andMI Nov 2019 #5

Legal Basis BirdandSquirrel Nov 2019 #6

What we need is a transparency law over who provides the money to anyone that cstanleytech Nov 2019 #8

We did until Citizens United ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #14

Expected DetroitLegalBeagle Nov 2019 #9

I don't disagree with you - do you anything about that court's discussions ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #12

The requirements are pretty simple DetroitLegalBeagle Nov 2019 #18

Thanks! ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #29

I think we all knew this stood no chance anywhere. BlueTsunami2018 Nov 2019 #10

They would be right in regards to the general election. LiberalFighter Nov 2019 #11

Final presidential candidates need to have security clearance !! TryLogic Nov 2019 #13

Except that the authority for issuing a clearance is the executive. Igel Nov 2019 #28

Apparently there needs to be some sort of structural change. TryLogic Nov 2019 #31

It's a essentially a First Amendment issue djg21 Nov 2019 #15

Here is what the judges decided ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #16

Associate Justice Josh Groban?! n/t TheRickles Nov 2019 #22

That's what it said ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #23

Yes, I was just joking about the similar name. Thanks for this info on the "other" JG. n/t TheRickles Nov 2019 #25

So much for states' rights bucolic_frolic Nov 2019 #17

Vehicle inspections aren't in the Constitution Polybius Nov 2019 #32

Dude, it's the Constitution. The Law of the Land. The Court had no choice in the matter. Nitram Nov 2019 #33

The constitution provides the requirements, not the states Cicada Nov 2019 #19

Trump has been mucking with the 9th OneCrazyDiamond Nov 2019 #20

Supreme Court has ruled on this. Twice. Doormouse Nov 2019 #21

it will probably require an amended constitution to include such a requirement. nt yaesu Nov 2019 #24

Bad News. zentrum Nov 2019 #26

Should have listened to Jerry Brown Jake Stern Nov 2019 #27

Good ruling Polybius Nov 2019 #30