NJ Senate passes bill that would keep Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases his tax returns

[catbyte]

TRENTON, N.J. — President Donald Trump could miss out on being on the 2020 ballot in New Jersey if he doesn’t disclose his tax returns under a bill now advancing.

The Democratic-led state Senate passed legislation Thursday inspired by the Republican president’s failure to disclose his tax returns.

The measure requires presidential and vice presidential candidates to release five years of federal tax returns to appear on the state’s ballot.

Trump broke with decades of tradition by refusing to release his income tax filings during his 2016 campaign. He said it was because he is being audited.

Democrats have used the issue to raise questions about what might be in the documents.

The bill goes to the Democratic-led Assembly. If the measure is passes there, it would head to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

Republican Gov. Chris Christie previously vetoed the legislation.

https://pix11.com/2019/02/21/nj-senate-passes-bill-to-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot-unless-he-releases-his-tax-returns/

[msongs]

1. federal office. one might think states have no jurisdiction nt

[scheming daemons]

2. There's no such thing as a federal election

Every presidential race is 50 separate elections, completely managed by the individual states.

[stopbush]

16. Bingo

[williesgirl]

3. Every state should do this.

[onetexan]

4. This is why i love Dems having trifecta control

[madville]

5. Could work to his advantage in a weird way

He's not going to win a state like New Jersey regardless, so stay off the ballot in a few solid blue states and he can basically say the popular vote means nothing if he doesn't need any of those states in the Electoral College total. You could have a scenario where he wins the electoral college with 10-15 million less votes than his opponent.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Which means

Nothing to most of the activist and party community I know and work with in NJ to bring change.

We are one of the last primaries, and we don't register in the General Election. Obama came here in 2012 because of Sandy. We are only 9 million people - and we get very little back for what we pay in. We were hit the hardest by the SALT cap.

We have nothing to lose.

In the scenario of that huge a loss of the popular vote - does it wake others up to the dire need for electoral reform?

I also think - we can't guarantee Trump will be in the ballot at all in 2020.

[OnDoutside]

8. On the other hand, if he's not on the NJ ballot, it may well drive down Republican turnout,affecting

downballot races.

[WillowTree]

6. May or may not pass constitutional muster.

I suspect this will wind up in front of the Supremes.

[Shrek]

15. Seems pretty clear

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

[scheming daemons]

17. States already have their own requirements for being on the ballot.

It is why some candidates end up not on the ballot in all 50 states (Jill Stein, Johnson, etc.).


Constitutionally, elections are state jurisdiction - not federal - and they can set any standards they want for being on the ballot.


Also remember... you are voting for electors, not directly for the President.

[hughee99]

18. So a state could require that a candidate release all medical records,

Pay a $10 million dollar fee, be at least 70 years old, be white, or be a member of the Democratic Party?

I don’t think the state has as much authority to set the standard as you do. I expect there may be some sort of 4th amendment argument and I’m not sure the law will stand.

[WillowTree]

19. In the end, it remains to be seen, doesn't it?

[bullwinkle428]

20. Exactly - just an additional job for his team of lawyers.

[tritsofme]

9. All of these sort of bills are incredibly vulnerable to challenge.

States are generally prohibited from imposing stricter eligibility requirements for federal candidates than are listed in the Constitution. For instance in US Term Limits v Thornton, state imposed term limits on federal candidates were ruled unconstitutional.

Should a state enact such a law, I would expect it to be under injunction and inoperable through the 2020 cycle, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Great news. I didn't know states could do this. nt

[JHB]

11. They can try, but it will still have to pass a court challenge. nt

[JHB]

12. This would have kept Romney off too...

...assuming it had been done back then and passed the inevitable court challenge.

Remember, it was rMoney's fig-leaf disclosure (and a leaf chewed down by caterpillars to near nothing, at that), and Republican acceptance of it, that paved the way for Trump blowing it off entirely.

[padah513]

13. I would have made it ten years

And made sure the years are consecutive. I can see some joker skirting the law and cherry-picking which returns to release and which ones not to release.

[MichMan]

14. Why just President and VP ?

Why isn't it required of all Federal, State & local candidates ?

[hughee99]

22. Good question.

While I don’t think this will survive a court challenge, if it’s a good idea, why would it not be a good idea for everyone?

[MichMan]

23. Apparently a good idea when it only applies to others, not themselves

[onetexan]

21. New York just followed suit

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/politics-on-the-hudson/2019/02/22/president-trump-would-have-release-his-income-taxes-if-new-york-bill-approved/2949277002/