And confirmed, with the judge calling the law unconstitutional. An appeal is expected. I’m gonna guess 3-0 in the appeals court to uphold this ruling.
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.
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.
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.
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.