Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:15 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,835

Blue states propose measures to keep Trump off of 2020 ballots (unless he releases tax returns)


A number of blue states are proposing laws that would prevent a candidate from appearing on the presidential ballot unless he releases his tax returns.

https://www.salon.com/2019/04/26/blu...m-2020-ballot/


This would be an interesting Constitutional issue - whether a state can pass a law that restricts a candidate's presence on the ballot this way in a presidential election.
  #2  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:42 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,965
When are they going to realize that the only way to defeat Trump is to fucking vote him out? I'm suffering from "desperate loophole fatigue" here....talk about trying to squeeze blood from a proverbial stone.
  #3  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:54 PM
kanicbird is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
When are they going to realize that the only way to defeat Trump is to fucking vote him out? I'm suffering from "desperate loophole fatigue" here....talk about trying to squeeze blood from a proverbial stone.
The courts seemed to help defeat some of Trump's initiatives, also some resistance of congress and the states. Impeachment is also a legal option. Not to mention that God could take him out in a heartbeat. All legit ways besides voting that could end his initiatives or reign.
  #4  
Old 05-04-2019, 07:59 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,604
Seems like a bill of attainder
  #5  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:10 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,818
The states that could pull this off are probably not states that Trump would carry anyway, I would imagine, so it might not make any difference.
  #6  
Old 05-04-2019, 08:59 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Seems like a bill of attainder


How? It has no retroactive effect and imposes no penal liability.

If passed, it says "This is a condition for you to be in the ballot next year."

There may be issues with it, but not seeing the connection to attainder.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #7  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:09 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,816
I think it's probably legal: After all, states already do have plenty of other laws limiting ballot access by various criteria, and it seems like a state itself would be the ultimate authority on what basis the state is allowed to use to limit ballot access.

But that said, it's probably bad optics and hence politically unwise.
  #8  
Old 05-04-2019, 09:59 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,870
In no way does this ban Trump from running for president anymore than it would ban anyone else from running for the office.
  #9  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:02 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
The states that could pull this off are probably not states that Trump would carry anyway, I would imagine, so it might not make any difference.
For Trump. It would hurt down ballot Republicans though. I very liberal and I think that it's a chickenshit move.
  #10  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:06 PM
betterlifethroughchemistry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
For Trump. It would hurt down ballot Republicans though. I very liberal and I think that it's a chickenshit move.
Totally agree - complete chickenshit move and I'm not liberal nor a Trump fan...you want him out of office? Fine, get a candidate that can beat him, that's what people want, not some stupid loophole crap that pisses off logical/reasonable people and gives a platform for his supporters to scream about...
  #11  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:10 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
For Trump. It would hurt down ballot Republicans though. I very liberal and I think that it's a chickenshit move.
Good point. Then I suppose those down-ballot Republicans might even pressure Trump to release his taxes. The real Trump butt-lickers might even have to run a real campaign.
  #12  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:15 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,856
If the intent is to keep Trump off the ballot, that is indeed dumb. If the intent is to force him to release his taxes, that won't work, either. However, if the intent is a state-led attempt to make it a requirement for future presidents, then I'm all on board.

Keeping Trump off the ballot accomplishes nothing. I don't think it would even mess up downballot races, as that would only work if Republicans refused to vote entirely. I suspect Trump's fervent supporters would write him in, and the rest would simply not vote, or even vote for his opponent, but still vote for Republicans. There is no way the Republicans would push a "boycott the ballot" drive, so that won't happen.

And I think Congress getting his taxes makes more sense than expecting this to force Trump to release them. And, come on. If they want to leak them to the public, it's not hard to do. Hell, get some Trump appointed person involved, and everyone will just assume it was their fault.

Last edited by BigT; 05-04-2019 at 10:17 PM.
  #13  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:31 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
When are they going to realize that the only way to defeat Trump is to fucking vote him out? I'm suffering from "desperate loophole fatigue" here....talk about trying to squeeze blood from a proverbial stone.
If voting against him was a viable option, he wouldn't be President now.
  #14  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:37 PM
Iggy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,395
I know there are differing opinions on the matter but I am doubtful of its constitutionality.

In a Supreme Court case Torcaso v Watkins the court was confronted with a challenge to a state law that placed a restriction on office holders to profess a belief in God. The court unanimously overturned that state law but not on the No Religious Test clause. Instead the court ruled:

Quote:
The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution.
The court did ground their judgment in Torcaso in the First Amendment Freedom of Religion, but one of the few lines of reasoning that the justices could agree upon was that states could not pose an additional requirement on officeholders.

Further, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton the high court ruled that states cannot set limits on qualifications for Congressional office, term limits in that case, beyond what is in the Constitution. The state law it specifically overruled was a provision in the Arkansas state constitution that barred ballot access for Congressional races to those who had served more than the specified limit in Congress already. It would not be a hard leap of logic to apply such prohibition on state created limits to the qualifications to hold the office of the President.
  #15  
Old 05-04-2019, 10:43 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
In no way does this ban Trump from running for president anymore than it would ban anyone else from running for the office.
Technically, it wouldn't be banning Trump from running for President. It would just be some states banning him from appearing on the ballots in that state because he didn't comply with that state's election laws. Which is something states do all the time now. Granted, the candidates from the two major parties don't usually get left off the ballots.

In New York, for example, there were four presidential candidates on the 2016 ballots; Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. There were several other people running - Darrell Castle, Rocky De La Fuente, Richard Duncan, Rocky Giordani, James Hedges, Tom Hoefling, Chris Keniston, Alyson Kennedy, Laurence Kotlikoff, Gloria La Riva, Mike Maturen, Evan McMullin, Monica Moorehead, Rod Silva, Peter Skewes, Mimi Soltysik, Dan Vacek, and Jerry White - but none of them met the legal standards to be on the ballot in New York.
  #16  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:19 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
I know there are differing opinions on the matter but I am doubtful of its constitutionality.

In a Supreme Court case Torcaso v Watkins the court was confronted with a challenge to a state law that placed a restriction on office holders to profess a belief in God. The court unanimously overturned that state law but not on the No Religious Test clause. Instead the court ruled:



The court did ground their judgment in Torcaso in the First Amendment Freedom of Religion, but one of the few lines of reasoning that the justices could agree upon was that states could not pose an additional requirement on officeholders.

Further, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton the high court ruled that states cannot set limits on qualifications for Congressional office, term limits in that case, beyond what is in the Constitution. The state law it specifically overruled was a provision in the Arkansas state constitution that barred ballot access for Congressional races to those who had served more than the specified limit in Congress already. It would not be a hard leap of logic to apply such prohibition on state created limits to the qualifications to hold the office of the President.
But, again, we have to keep in mind that neither Trump nor anyone else is "running for President" on any state ballot. When you see the name Trump on the ballot and mark it, state law says that means that you are voting for the slate of electors on file in the state election official's office who have pledged to vote for Trump. The office that is being voted upon is elector.

The Constitution imposes qualifications on electors as well, so it seems that Thornton would apply equally as well by prohibiting a state from denying ballot access to an elector who had pledged to vote for particular candidate as that is an additional qualification the Constitution does not require.

However, states do this all of the time. If I am a citizen of state X, and in all ways meet the Constitutional requirements for elector, but I pledge for, say, Rick Perry, then there is no way I can get on the ballot. But that is fair, you might say, because that is simply a ballot access law designed to weed out candidates who do not have a chance and make the ballot manageable lest a state be required to list hundreds and hundreds of crackpots. Fine.

But what if I want to be an unpledged elector and I think that enough people will trust my good judgment to vote for me and let me vote in the EC how I choose? As there is no mechanism to allow me to do that, isn't the state adding an extra qualification?

However, I do agree with your point. The Supreme Court has upheld ballot access laws for administrative reasons and/or to keep the ballot manageable, but has clearly shut down the attempt to do so because of policy disagreements. This is only about two steps removed from saying that no presidential candidate can qualify for the ballot unless he is a Republican, taken a pledge to support a balanced budget amendment, or any number of things.
  #17  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:24 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,835
An interesting side effect of this is that Trump could win the Electoral College narrowly but lose the popular vote nationwide by a staggering margin - say, 15 or 20 percent.
  #18  
Old 05-05-2019, 05:30 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
An interesting side effect of this is that Trump could win the Electoral College narrowly but lose the popular vote nationwide by a staggering margin - say, 15 or 20 percent.
Theoretically possible, but unlikely. To do so, he would have to capture all of the large states like New York and California, which are reliably blue.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 05-05-2019 at 05:30 AM.
  #19  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
This seems so obviously short-sighted, I'm surprised there's not more / stronger opposition to it from Dems.
  #20  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:43 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
The states that could pull this off are probably not states that Trump would carry anyway, I would imagine, so it might not make any difference.
What's keeping a state like Ohio or Wisconsin from doing the same thing to a Democratic candidate for whatever reason? Do you really want to go down this road, and do you want to give Republicans this idea? Seems like an insane strategy to me.
  #21  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:47 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,589
Fear Itself, maybe you missed Velocity's point? Imagine a situation where Trump wins all the same states he won last time and was barred from the ballot from every state he lost. He would still win the EC but would lose the popular vote massively.

Back to OP, I find it unlikely this will actually become a requirement in any states. Looks like posturing to get him to release his taxes, like he promised to do over and over again. I'm opposed to this kind of gamesmanship in general, whoever's doing it.

asahi, just curious what kind of stumbling blocks you think Ohio or Wisconsin could put in the way of a Democratic candidate that they couldn't meet, but a Republican one could.
  #22  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What's keeping a state like Ohio or Wisconsin from doing the same thing to a Democratic candidate for whatever reason? Do you really want to go down this road, and do you want to give Republicans this idea? Seems like an insane strategy to me.
There are no boundaries any more. It's been clear for years that the Republican leadership will do literally anything they think they can get away with for any sort of political advantage. In political terms, it's all out war with no rules. I see no reason to believe that anything the Democrats could do could blow back in a way that wouldn't have been just as likely without it.
  #23  
Old 05-05-2019, 07:55 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
asahi, just curious what kind of stumbling blocks you think Ohio or Wisconsin could put in the way of a Democratic candidate that they couldn't meet, but a Republican one could.
It could be for any reason -- they could make it up and then fight it out in the courts. Ultimately, I doubt it would survive a court battle, but that's not the issue. The real harm is that they could use it as a tactic to potentially sow confusion and doubt among voters about the legitimacy of elections, which is exactly what the Republicans want.
  #24  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:00 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are no boundaries any more. It's been clear for years that the Republican leadership will do literally anything they think they can get away with for any sort of political advantage. In political terms, it's all out war with no rules. I see no reason to believe that anything the Democrats could do could blow back in a way that wouldn't have been just as likely without it.
See, I disagree. The Democrats just won back control of the House. They made progress in state races. Democracy is ailing and the Republicans are acting in systematic and coordinated fashion to undermine it, but nevertheless, Democracy persists. That's where the focus should be, on campaigning about bread-and-butter issues and winning over the mainstream as Pelosi has said. The Democrats have become obsessed like Captain Ahab by insisting that impeachment bring him down. Their focusing way too much on the results of the last election when they should be doing what worked in 2018, which is focusing on the here and now.
  #25  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:15 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
In no way does this ban Trump from running for president anymore than it would ban anyone else from running for the office.
This. Everyone would need to release their tax returns.

Most white collar criminals are discovered by following the money. If this would help keep crooks out of the white house, what's the problem?
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #26  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
See, I disagree. The Democrats just won back control of the House. They made progress in state races. Democracy is ailing and the Republicans are acting in systematic and coordinated fashion to undermine it, but nevertheless, Democracy persists. That's where the focus should be, on campaigning about bread-and-butter issues and winning over the mainstream as Pelosi has said. The Democrats have become obsessed like Captain Ahab by insisting that impeachment bring him down. Their focusing way too much on the results of the last election when they should be doing what worked in 2018, which is focusing on the here and now.
I agree, and I don't see how the two are incompatible. Fight with every tool available in the process realm, just as the Republicans are doing, and focus on the "here and now" on issues to win elections.
  #27  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:24 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It could be for any reason -- they could make it up and then fight it out in the courts. Ultimately, I doubt it would survive a court battle, but that's not the issue. The real harm is that they could use it as a tactic to potentially sow confusion and doubt among voters about the legitimacy of elections, which is exactly what the Republicans want.
Such as? Can't be a religious test, can't be a racial or gender test. I'm trying to think of something that applies to Democrats that wouldn't apply to Republicans as well. Trump was the only candidate since Nixon not to release his tax returns, so that was a special case.
  #28  
Old 05-05-2019, 08:50 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,169
I donít think this is a good proposal, for the reasons cited above.

I think states would be more clever in prohibiting electors from voting for someone who hasnít released their tax returns. I still wouldnít be on board with that, but I think itís a sneakier way to achieve the same ends.
  #29  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:00 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Fear Itself, maybe you missed Velocity's point? Imagine a situation where Trump wins all the same states he won last time and was barred from the ballot from every state he lost. He would still win the EC but would lose the popular vote massively.
OK, I see now.
  #30  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:45 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,870
Everyone is assuming this is aimed at Trump in 2020. Maybe, just maybe, these lawmakers believe that financial transparency of candidates, a principle that we have believed in for quite a few decades now, should apply to the 2020 election and beyond. For all candidates. If this keeps a shady Democrat from running, I'm just as in favor of it. I see zero downside of this legislation.
  #31  
Old 05-05-2019, 09:58 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Everyone is assuming this is aimed at Trump in 2020. Maybe, just maybe, these lawmakers believe that financial transparency of candidates, a principle that we have believed in for quite a few decades now, should apply to the 2020 election and beyond. For all candidates. If this keeps a shady Democrat from running, I'm just as in favor of it. I see zero downside of this legislation.
It doesn't matter what their intentions are; what matters is how it's perceived and characterized, and it'll be viewed as an attempt to rig elections against Trump. It won't matter that it's in states that Trump won't win anyway; it'll play into the Republican victimization complex.
  #32  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:05 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,658
I support the mandatory release of federal (presidential and congressional) candidates' tax returns but I'm not a fan of this approach at all, and I hope it is struck down if it is enacted. Ballot access restrictions should not be used for anything other than administrative necessity (like some process to show a minimal amount of support, so that the ballot isn't impossible to read due to the presence of a thousand novelty candidates), and people should be permitted to vote for terrible candidates.

The whole idea of making the candidate release the returns is backwards and complicated and fraught with problems. I mentioned this in another thread, and while it unfortunately won't be possible for 2020, the solution is to make the IRS release the returns, automatically, the moment anyone files an election campaign with the FEC.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 05-05-2019 at 10:09 AM.
  #33  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:14 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It won't matter that it's in states that Trump won't win anyway; it'll play into the Republican victimization complex.
So what? So does everything. Everything Trump doesn't like is a Deep State Conspiracy Coup Attack and we shouldn't let that bullshit stop us from desiring (or requiring) transparency from our elected officials. I want every presidential candidate (hell, I'd be happy with every federal or state level candidate) held to this standard not NOT doing it because you're scared of Trump's tantrums is exactly what he wants.
  #34  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:28 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
. I'm trying to think of something that applies to Democrats that wouldn't apply to Republicans as well.
How about if some red states issued a requirement that the candidate release his long-form birth certificate before being allowed on the ballot.?
People would have gone ballistic.
Or demand DNA tests showing 50% heredity in a certain ethnic group for anybody claiming to represent that ethnic group?
(yes, they are sill ideas...but you get the idea)

I think it would actually be a good idea--in the future-- to require that tax returns be made public for all holders of public office . That would be good for the public as a whole, and not biased politically for or against any party.

But doing it this year, for this specific candidate, is obviously motivated by a blatant political bias. And it invites retaliatory actions, which will eventually cheapen the electoral process, and not be good for the public.

Last edited by chappachula; 05-05-2019 at 10:30 AM.
  #35  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:32 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
How about if some red states issued a requirement that the candidate release his long-form birth certificate before being allowed on the ballot.?
People would have gone ballistic.
Or demand DNA tests showing 50% heredity in a certain ethnic group for anybody claiming to represent that ethnic group?

....
I don't think people actually can release their own long-form birth certificate (if such a think really exists) -- it has to be done by the registrar, right? In any case, Obama got Hawaii to do that, right? I don't see how this is harder for Democrats than Republicans.

I don't think DNA is that specific. What candidates are claiming to represent a certain group anyway? I thought they represented Americans. I really don't understand this test, but I also don't understand why you think it would damage Democrats.
  #36  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:36 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Such as? Can't be a religious test, can't be a racial or gender test. I'm trying to think of something that applies to Democrats that wouldn't apply to Republicans as well. Trump was the only candidate since Nixon not to release his tax returns, so that was a special case.
If you're looking for ideas, how about disallowing any candidate who won't sign a 'no new taxes' pledge, or a promise to oppose abortion, or just a straight-up party affiliation test: Democrats need not apply?
  #37  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:39 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you're looking for ideas, how about disallowing any candidate who won't sign a 'no new taxes' pledge, or a promise to oppose abortion, or just a straight-up party affiliation test: Democrats need not apply?
Interesting. The last one would probably violate the freedom of association provision, right? The first two are interesting questions -- would that pass constitutional muster? Genuinely asking.
  #38  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:42 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
But doing it this year, for this specific candidate, is obviously motivated by a blatant political bias.
No, it's just good policy. People were demanding the returns back in the 2016 primaries where "political bias" wasn't a consideration.

Trump getting away with refusing to release them means that other candidates will also see that they don't need to and someone will always whine and say it's motivated against them. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing now.
  #39  
Old 05-05-2019, 10:43 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,816
How about this: A state publishes a list of recommended best practices for candidates, including (among other points) releasing their tax returns. Anyone can get on the ballot (subject to the same reasonable restrictions as exist now), but the ballot would also contain information about whether the candidates meet the best practices. So you might have
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Has not released income tax returns, has not held any prior governmental office]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [Meets all recommended best practices]
  #40  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:38 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
How about this: A state publishes a list of recommended best practices for candidates, including (among other points) releasing their tax returns. Anyone can get on the ballot (subject to the same reasonable restrictions as exist now), but the ballot would also contain information about whether the candidates meet the best practices. So you might have
Hillary Clinton (Democrat) [Meets all recommended best practices]
Donald Trump (Republican) [Has not released income tax returns, has not held any prior governmental office]
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [Meets all recommended best practices]
And when states start adding a 'no new taxes' pledge to their list of recommended best practices?
  #41  
Old 05-05-2019, 11:57 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,723
Imagine it's 1948 and the Dixiecrats of the Old South find a supposedly neutral way to keep desegregationist candidates off their ballots. How would you feel about such a stunt then?
  #42  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:14 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It doesn't matter what their intentions are; what matters is how it's perceived and characterized, and it'll be viewed as an attempt to rig elections against Trump. It won't matter that it's in states that Trump won't win anyway; it'll play into the Republican victimization complex.
Great. Then have it take effect in 2024.
  #43  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:41 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And when states start adding a 'no new taxes' pledge to their list of recommended best practices?
I don't think that slippery slope fallacies are a great reason to avoid good policy.
  #44  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
I don't think that slippery slope fallacies are a great reason to avoid good policy.
Would you have said the same thing about Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominees? It was a move that, I think, most Democrats would agree has bitten them in the ass. This one seems similarly foolish and short-sighted.
  #45  
Old 05-05-2019, 12:50 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you have said the same thing about Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominees? It was a move that, I think, most Democrats would agree has bitten them in the ass. This one seems similarly foolish and short-sighted.
I agree
  #46  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,156
Reid's partial elimination of the filibuster was inevitable -- it's good that the Democrats at least got some benefit out of it. Should have done it many years before. There are no more "norms" that can't or shouldn't be broken, in terms of political strategy, as long as it's technically within the rules. McConnell has proven that absolutely anything goes. The Democrats should fight with the same rules (or lack therof). Reid was wise to at least begin to recognize this... if only he had done so from the beginning, Obama would have gotten several more nominations through the Senate.

The idea that the Republicans are holding back, and would only go further if the Democrats did, is just so laughable that's it not even worth considering.

The filibuster helps the party that doesn't want to get things done. That's usually the party that doesn't really believe in using government to get big things done. The only reason the Republicans haven't gotten rid of the entire filibuster is under the desperate hope that the Democrats are afraid to when they get power... because the Republicans recognize that once we have universal health care, and a higher minimum wage, and some other would-be-popular policies, they'll never be able to get rid of them.

IMO, anyway.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-05-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:04 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you have said the same thing about Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominees? It was a move that, I think, most Democrats would agree has bitten them in the ass. This one seems similarly foolish and short-sighted.
The idea that Reid made McConnell remove the filibuster for other nominees or SCotUS nominees or that Reid had anything to do with McConnell obstructing Obama's nominees or the unprecedented multiyear "We're going to obstruct every things thing" period of McConnell's filibusters or the removal of blue slip rules or any of the other norms McConnell has torn down in a desperate grasp for power while the rest of the GOP sits and whistles is hilariously naive or disingenuous. McConnell hasn't let a single chance to claw power at the expense of the Senate go past him and the sole reason why we still have a legislative filibuster right now is because there's no good reason to burn that bridge while Democrats hold the house. Had the GOP held on in 2018, I have zero belief that McConnell wouldn't have torched that as well to pass Trump's agenda and seen zero evidence that I might be wrong.

If there's anything the past ten years has taught me, it's that the GOP will cry their eyes out over any supposed transgression and then do something ten times worse the second they get a chance.

NOT doing something that's good policy because the GOP might do something antidemocratic and shitty just means that you don't have the good policy in place when the GOP does something antidemocratic and shitty regardless. Not passing this law regarding taxes and ballots will make zero difference on whether or not the GOP legislature of some other state does their damnedest to restrict ballot access or voting to gain a political advantage.

Last edited by Jophiel; 05-05-2019 at 01:07 PM.
  #48  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:16 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
So what? So does everything. Everything Trump doesn't like is a Deep State Conspiracy Coup Attack and we shouldn't let that bullshit stop us from desiring (or requiring) transparency from our elected officials. I want every presidential candidate (hell, I'd be happy with every federal or state level candidate) held to this standard not NOT doing it because you're scared of Trump's tantrums is exactly what he wants.
Right. Trump bitches and moans about every god dam thing. He's a child as are most of his supporters. I really don't care how much they complain. Go right ahead and throw your tantrums, we won't be a country run by 5 year olds because they don't want to follow simple rules.

If you are afraid that scrutiny of your tax returns might expose crimes, don't run for office. Easy peasy. Or please do and face the appropriate consequences.

Who knows what's in Trumps returns. He hires idiots, so there could be a lot. Or perhaps nothing. I'm leaning towards nothing other than his lies about how rich he is. I'm guessing THAT is why he won't release them (not that he should have a say in the matter).

That means everyone, D/R or independent.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #49  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:33 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
If voting against him was a viable option, he wouldn't be President now.
Yeah, it probably doesn't matter how good a candidate runs against Trump. Now that he's president, there's little to stop social media propaganda from getting him a win. He won't win because the Democrats don't have a good candidate. He'll win because the same thing that happened in 2016 is now likely to happen again on steroids. Kicking Trump off the ballot is too obvious, and will look bad. The Democrats need their own propaganda machine.

This has nothing to do with getting a good candidate or "bread and butter issues." This is about manipulating stupid people who see the world through the lens of Facebook and Trump's twitter.
  #50  
Old 05-05-2019, 01:47 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,835
I think we are getting off-topic....

Back to it, I suppose we are going to see a Supreme Court ruling at some point on just how much control states have over who can appear on the ballot as a candidate and who cannot. I do wonder if, if blue states were to deny Trump appearance on the ballot, and SCOTUS ruled against the states, but the ruling came right before Election Day (not enough time to get Trump re-balloted?), what would happen?
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 07:05 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