Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:02 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
For statewide elections (Governor, US Senator, President), I'm fine with that. In your example I don't think it's good policy (whereas basic financial disclosure for major elected office holders is good policy), but at least if 51% of the voters prefer candidate A, who is barred from the ballot for (insert stupid reason here), the natural recourse is for those same 51% of voters to get very angry and vote out the same state legislators that put the law into effect.
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
  #252  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:07 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
Same way you vote state legislators out that have horribly gerrymandered the districts so its impossible for the other side to ever have a majority of seats even if they get more votes. Oh, wait... tell you what, you get your side to stop that and we'll drop this. Deal?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #253  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Same way you vote state legislators out that have horribly gerrymandered the districts so its impossible for the other side to ever have a majority of seats even if they get more votes. Oh, wait... tell you what, you get your side to stop that and we'll drop this. Deal?
We don't have to make a deal. The courts are going to get you to drop this (but probably not until after California has spent a foolish amount of taxpayer money in a doomed bid to defend their unconstitutional law).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-01-2019 at 04:09 PM.
  #254  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:15 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We don't have to make a deal. The courts are going to get you to drop this (but probably not until after California has spent a foolish amount of taxpayer money in a doomed bid to defend their unconstitutional law).
You didn't think that was a serious offer did you? I was just illustrating the selective outrage of your side. You only care about something that effects elections and proper representation when it could negatively affect your party. Just wanted that to be clear.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-01-2019 at 04:17 PM.
  #255  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:41 PM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Well, looks like California is diving head first into this idea to keep Trump off the ballot.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...turns-n1036286

I suspect this will age about as well as Harry Reid's decision to go nuclear in the Senate
If there's one thing we should have learned from McConnell refusing to even consider Merrick Garland, it's this: If Democrats even think about the possibility of doing something, the Republicans will proceed to do that thing right up to the limits of the Constitution.

I wouldn't worry about the Republicans taking advantage of this new situation- I guarantee they were already planning to.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #256  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightnin' View Post
If there's one thing we should have learned from McConnell refusing to even consider Merrick Garland, it's this: If Democrats even think about the possibility of doing something, the Republicans will proceed to do that thing right up to the limits of the Constitution.



I wouldn't worry about the Republicans taking advantage of this new situation- I guarantee they were already planning to.
Exactly. This is a knife fight, politically speaking, if not worse. You don't win a knife fight by worrying about the rules.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #257  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:46 PM
YamatoTwinkie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How do you vote people out when the powers that be keep your preferred candidate off of the ballot??!? That's the whole issue here!
That's why I limited it to statewide elections only (Governor, US Senate, President). There wouldn't be any ballot access restrictions permitted on your local state legislator, for example. The 51% angry majority could still vote their preferred candidate at that level, and get the "Only candidates with orange skin may be permitted on the ballot" state law revoked. Although on further reflection, this probably wouldn't work with a sitting governor with veto power, so I'd modify it to only allow ballot access restrictions on US Senate and Presidential elections.
  #258  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:08 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I'm clarifying for the confused UltraVires why he should have to.
Quote:
Financial disclosures (mostly) answer those concerns. Why would the voters, the hiring authority for presidents, not be entitled to the same information and the same confidence when they make their hiring decision?
You've lost me. You said voters should have a financial disclosure from Trump before the election. They did.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...isclosure.html
  #259  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:46 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You didn't think that was a serious offer did you? I was just illustrating the selective outrage of your side. You only care about something that effects elections and proper representation when it could negatively affect your party. Just wanted that to be clear.
Much in the same way that Republicans are perfectly happy for states to waste taxpayer money defending blatantly unconstitutional laws (usually involving forcing Christianity on people or restricting abortions) until the state involved is California.

Last edited by Gyrate; 08-02-2019 at 05:46 AM.
  #260  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:24 PM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West shore Lake Michigan
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricksummon View Post
The California law only requires tax returns to be on the primary ballot, not the general election ballot. That might be enough to avoid constitutional issues, since primaries are an invention of political parties and aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
Wait a second.
Quote:
primaries are an invention of political parties
How come the state gets to create laws about who political parties get to put on their party ballots for party delegates to the party convention? Shouldn't that be strictly up to each of the parties?

Primaries IMHO should be funded by the parties except around here thay tack on many local issues and offices such as dog catcher and school funding referenda. Those are why the taxpayers fund them.
__________________
This place is beginning to feel like a tin foil hat convention.
  #261  
Old 09-20-2019, 03:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
A judge has granted a preliminary injunction.
  #262  
Old 10-01-2019, 10:21 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,139
And confirmed, with the judge calling the law unconstitutional. An appeal is expected. Iím gonna guess 3-0 in the appeals court to uphold this ruling.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ked/index.html
  #263  
Old 10-02-2019, 10:06 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,854
There is no constitutional basis to require tax returns. It has merely been a custom since Nixon. A state cannot add requirements to be on the ballot beyond what the Constitution allows, so if you're 35+ and a natural-born citizen, it doesn't matter if you're the most transparent or the most opaque candidate in history, you can't be kept off the ballot.
  #264  
Old 10-02-2019, 02:52 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppaSan View Post
Wait a second.
How come the state gets to create laws about who political parties get to put on their party ballots for party delegates to the party convention? Shouldn't that be strictly up to each of the parties?
The party has every right to say, "If the state doesn't run the primary the way we want it to, then that primary doesn't count."

In fact, that's pretty much what the Republicans did in, IIRC, 2000, when California had its first "open Presidential primary"; the Republicans "requested" that the state give two sets of counts for the Republican Presidential primary vote - one that counted all voters, and one that counted only registered Republicans (which was the one used to allocate California's delegates) - and the state agreed.
  #265  
Old 11-22-2019, 12:40 AM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,395
The California Supreme Court unanimously granted a writ of mandate that forbids enforcement of provisions of a recently enacted state law that attempted to force Trump to disclose his tax returns to gain ballot access. (Ruling in pdf at link.) This is a ruling in the state courts, separate from the injunction granted by a federal court judge mentioned above by HurricaneDitka, and only addresses presidential candidates.

Translated to plain English, Trump won and does not have to publish his tax returns to be on the primary or general election ballot in California.

The ruling hinges on interpretation of article II, section 5(c) of the California state constitution. This section requires the ballot to list candidates on a primary ballot who are "recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States" unless such candidate has filed an affidavit of non-candidacy.

The state argued that the state could imposed requirements such as disclosure of prior tax filings in order for a candidate to be a "recognized" candidate. The court rejected this reasoning as the relevant language had been added to the state constitution by a ballot initiative back in 1972 that was clearly aimed at ensuring that all candidates who are "recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States" be included on the ballot. The court reasoned that no reasonable interpretation of that language would allow that failure to disclose tax returns with state officials would mean that a candidate is not a recognized candidate throughout California or throughout the United States.

This ruling does not address federal constitutional questions which were previously discussed in this thread.
  #266  
Old 11-22-2019, 10:54 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,427
Apart from anything else, the law is fucking stupid because it doesn't accomplish anything. Trump wasn't going to get any electoral college votes from the states where this legislation can be passed, and keeping him off the ballot will depress Democratic turnout because he's deeply hated by Democrats.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017