A Bill is being proposed in our state house that would bar electora from casting a ballot for a presidential candidate who didn’t release tax returns.
I doubt that’s Constitutional. Are they hoping to get this done before Monday?
It’s for future elections. It will probably come into effect I’m 2020 if it passes.
I don’t see how it would be unconstitutional; states aren’t even required to hold presidential elections in the first place.
NY and MA are doing the same thing. Lawrence Tribe says it would be constitutional.
Didn’t Arizona try something similar with candidates’ birth certificates? Anyone know how that worked out?
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to deny such candidates access to the ballot? That would be 100% constitutional and solves the problem without the drama of Electoral College uncertainty.
I don’t understand the question since that seems to me to be exactly what they are doing.
No, candidates get on the ballot just fine without releasing tax returns. The bill attempts to bar the electors from voting for them even though they won their state’s election.
OK. That’s the difference between the ME bill and the other bills. The other ones are designed to deny access to being on the ballot.
Do any states currently have laws that prevent their electors from voting for candidates for any reason? Not even asking about tax returns , has any measure that did something like this ever passed?
But if they do hold elections, they have to be compliant with the rest of the constitution. The argument against it is that the first amendment protects not speaking as much as it protects speech, and publication of one’s tax returns is compelled speech. If memory serves, the doctrine has been used to invalidate a state law prohibiting anonymous campaign literature, for instance.
It’s an interesting question, and I’m not sure I see a clear winner.