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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t 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 hasn’t released their tax returns. I still wouldn’t be on board with that, but I think it’s a sneakier way to achieve the same ends.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]