# Can individual states determine what is required to be on a ballot for US president in their state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 12, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456 "2019-04-12T20:22:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/1 "2019-04-12T20:22:00Z")
Illinois is in the process of trying to pass a law which says any candidate for president must publicly release the last five years of their federal tax returns if that want a spot on the ballot. Illinois is not alone, [17 other states are considering similar measures.](https://www.mystateline.com/news/illinois-democrats-to-trump-show-tax-returns-or-be-barred-from-2020-ballot/1919139230) Is this legal/constitutional? It is not that I disagree with them in this case but it seems crazy if there ends up being a mish-mosh of 50 different states each with their own criteria for who is allowed on a ballot for US president in their state. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/2 "2019-04-12T20:42:58Z")
The constitution, as I recall, is pretty vague in its wording about how the states run their elections. As I recall states are given the right to run elections as they see fit but congress is allowed to regulate it through legislation. So it’s possible that Illinois could pass such a law and congress could try to override it. Good luck with that override, though. ---
**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/3 "2019-04-12T20:44:30Z")
I’ll admit that I only scanned [this article](https://newrepublic.com/article/147310/can-states-ban-trump-ballot-doesnt-release-tax-returns), but it seems that it hasn’t been tested for constitutionality in a court, so there’s no legal precedent one way or the other. Long story short, Illinois can do what at least 25 other states have done and give it a go and see if it holds up in court. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/4 "2019-04-12T21:42:25Z")
> [@HeyHomie](#): > > Long story short, Illinois can do what at least 25 other states have done and give it a go and see if it holds up in court. No state has done it yet. A number of states are _in the process of voting on it_. Concerning constitutionality, the closest precedent is [US Term Limits v. Thornton](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/779.html), and the reasoning within that opinion IMO makes it _very_ unlikely that the Court would sustain effective disqualification of presidential candidates by a state or states. _Thornton_ concerned members of Congress, and the Court found (a) that states have no power to add to the qualifications for service in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution; and (b) that disguising such qualifications as a ballot access requirement was a distinction without a difference. I see no reason why the same logic wouldn’t apply to the Presidency. In the unlikely event that such laws are upheld, be aware that other restrictions imposed by other states will follow, and members of this Board may find them less congenial, such as denial of ballot access to candidates “who fail to respect the sanctity of human life” or candidates who refuse to sign a pledge to enforce immigration laws. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/5 "2019-04-12T22:06:45Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > The constitution, as I recall, is pretty vague in its wording about how the states run their elections. Ain’t that the truth! “Presidential elections” are essentially simply a convention that has grown up over the years; they’re not really spelled out anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Now, in some countries (like the U.K.) “a convention that has grown up over the years” can effectively _become_ part of “the constitution”; since the United States has a written constitution we in _theory_ don’t do that sort of thing. [Article II, Section 1](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_2-3.html) says: > [@](#): > > The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows > > 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. It goes on to discuss how these Electors, duly “appointed” by the states, should vote; those procedures have in turn been modified by the [Twelfth Amendment](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendXII.html), but the [essential lack of] rules for how the states “appoint” Electors weren’t changed. (I’m going to go all 18th century and capitalize “Electors” in this post to distinguish them from “people who vote in an election” AKA “voters”.) The [Twenty-fourth Amendment](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#toc-amendment-xxiv) does refer in passing to “primary or other election for President or Vice President” and to elections “for [E]lectors for President or Vice President”. In reality, the idea of states “appointing” their Electors in any way other than by a democratic election is nowadays a complete non-starter. The idea that Electors should not be “faithless” is also now deeply entrenched; that is, Electors should essentially be automatons, simply reflecting the preference of the people who voted for them (essentially none of whom did more than push the button or punch the chad next to “Donald J. Trump” or “Hillary Rodham Clinton”, or at most “the slate of Electors who are pledged to vote for **Donald J. Trump** ” or “the slate of Electors who are pledged to vote for **Hillary Rodham Clinton** ”). But, in the original language about “Electors”, which has never been formally superseded, the Electors themselves elect the President. Period. By the original language of the Constitution, they could elect _anybody_ who meets the fairly minimal qualifications of being “a natural born citizen”, at least 35 years old, and a resident within the U.S. for fourteen years. By the actual language of the Constitution, the Electors could just go and pick someone none of us has ever heard of, completely of their own accord: > [@](#): > > Hello, is this Ms. Myrnah Hergensheimer?..This is the Electoral College…Well, ma’am, it just so happens that your niece is Facebook friends with Bob’s daughter-in-law, and we were looking at _your_ Facebook history, and you seem to have a really good head on your shoulders…Just a few quick questions, ma’am: Are you a natural born citizen?..I mean, you were born in the United States, right? And your parents weren’t foreign diplomats or anything like that?..Great! And have you been a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years?..Got it! Lived in Des Moines your whole life. And are you at least thirty-five years old?..Well, yes, ma’am, I know a lady doesn’t like to say, but…OK…Congratulations, Madam President-elect!..Yes, ma’am, of the United States of America…$400,000 a year, plus some expense accounts. And you get to live in the White House…Yes, you can bring Mr. Stripedy Boy and Madame Fluffywhiskers with you. (Of course the “Electoral College” never actually meets as a body; all three or fifty-five of them from that state meet together in their particular state capital, not all 538 of them from all over the country. But I guess they could e-mail each other, or Skype, or something.) Similarly, the Constitution is completely silent about _how_ the states “appoint” Electors. The state legislatures could choose them–originally that was often the case–but there doesn’t seem to be any reason why a state couldn’t go all Ancient Greece and appoint Electors by [sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition), sort of like jury duty: > [@](#): > > Dear Sir or Madam: > > Congratulations! You have been randomly selected as one of this state’s Electors for determining the next President and Vice President of the United States. Please return the attached post card as soon as possible if you are a member of the United States Senate or the United States House of Representatives, or if you hold any other Office of Trust or Profit under the United States. Otherwise, please report to the designated place in our state capital no later than 8:00 A.M. on December 14. _I_ don’t even see that there are any requirements that Electors themselves be citizens. Or that they be old enough to vote. A state could appoint a bunch of middle school kids and let them have a field trip. Or a state could appoint “illegal aliens” (or “undocumented immigrants”)–hey, I guess selecting the President of the United States is just one of those jobs Americans don’t want to do. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/6 "2019-04-12T22:14:57Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > … In the unlikely event that such laws are upheld, be aware that other restrictions imposed by other states will follow, and members of this Board may find them less congenial, such as denial of ballot access to candidates “who fail to respect the sanctity of human life” or candidates who refuse to sign a pledge to enforce immigration laws. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. This was exactly my thought. What a stupid and short-sighted move by Illinois. Even if they win, they won’t like the end result. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/7 "2019-04-12T22:19:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > This was exactly my thought. What a stupid and short-sighted move by Illinois. Even if they win, they won’t like the end result. Illinoisan here and I agree much as I wouldn’t mind candidates having to show their taxes for the last five years. That said note it is not only Illinois looking at this. At least 17 (someone said 25 above) other states are too. As I noted in my OP I think it would be madness to allow 50 states to each have their own rules for who gets on the ballot for US president. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2019, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/8 "2019-04-12T22:34:56Z")
It’s a great idea, and like many a great idea it would make for a very stupid law. Surely unconstitutional and I’d expect the vote to be 9-0 to void all such state laws. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2019, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-individual-states-determine-what-is-required-to-be-on-a-ballot-for-us-president-in-their-state/832456/9 "2019-04-13T04:34:26Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > No state has done it yet. A number of states are _in the process of voting on it_. > > Concerning constitutionality, the closest precedent is [US Term Limits v. Thornton](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/779.html), and the reasoning within that opinion IMO makes it _very_ unlikely that the Court would sustain effective disqualification of presidential candidates by a state or states. _Thornton_ concerned members of Congress, and the Court found (a) that states have no power to add to the qualifications for service in Congress enumerated in the United States Constitution; and (b) that disguising such qualifications as a ballot access requirement was a distinction without a difference. I see no reason why the same logic wouldn’t apply to the Presidency. > > In the unlikely event that such laws are upheld, be aware that other restrictions imposed by other states will follow, and members of this Board may find them less congenial, such as denial of ballot access to candidates “who fail to respect the sanctity of human life” or candidates who refuse to sign a pledge to enforce immigration laws. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. I tend to agree, but what adds a monkey wrench into the thought is that (as you know) nobody actually runs for president. The name of the presidential candidate on the ballot is a substitute for “slate of electors pledged to vote for this person.” The Electors themselves are the actual candidates. The only qualifications for elector are: 1) not a member of Congress and 2) not holding any office of profit or trust under the United States. By requiring that in order to be on the ballot for election to be elector, the states require that I be selected as a member of a declared candidate’s slate of electors and that I pledge my vote for that candidate. I cannot, in my state, nor to my knowledge any other, get on the ballot in any way, either by filing fee or petition, to be an undeclared elector. Hasn’t the state thus unconstitutionally added a requirement to be an elector? If not, then why couldn’t a state say, “An elector must pledge not to vote for someone who has not released tax returns.”