Federal Judge Puts The Kibosh On California’s Tax Return Law

Seriously, other than the moonbat California Democrats who passed it, who saw this coming? Everyone

California judge blocks law requiring Trump to submit tax returns to compete in state’s 2020 primary

A federal judge in California Thursday granted the Trump campaign’s request to block a new law that requires presidential and gubernatorial candidates to release five years of tax returns to run in the state’s primary elections.

The law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in July would have left the sitting president off of the ballot in California’s March 2020 primary unless he submitted five years’ worth of his tax returns by a Nov. 26 deadline, the Los Angeles Times reported. Under SB 27, Trump would be included on the general election ballot in November 2020. Oppoenents of the law argue depressed GOP voter turnout in the primary could discourage voters from showing up to vote for the president in the main race.

“We are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the court’s written order,” Trump’s attorney, Jay Sukelow, said in a statement, according to The Hill. “It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizens’ 1st Amendment right of association.”

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said he would issue a final ruling by the end of the month. He said he handed down an initial order from the bench to prevent the “irreparable harm without temporary relief” for Trump and other candidates should the law go into effect, according to the Times. (snip)

Trump’s lawyers said SB 27 would unfairly force the president to give up his right to privacy. Trump has already complied with federal law by submitting an annual report that provides an overview of his finances. The Ethics in Government Act (EIGA), which was enacted in 1976, applies to a range of high-ranking federal officials, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Like it or not, the Constitution says exactly what is necessary to run for President of the USA, and it doesn’t include providing tax returns (which, of course, were not something people had back then). Interestingly, SB27 does not require any other person running for an elected position at any other level to provide tax returns. It is just aimed at the president, which means it is specifically targeting Donald Trump. Shouldn’t the People know the tax returns of whomever is running for California governor? And the general assembly? How about federal Senator and Representative?

You knew this judicial outcome was coming, because it is a law targeting one specific person, which is not how our system works.

Under California’s so-called jungle primary system, all candidates, regardless of party, vie for the same elected office and the top two vote-getters move on to the general election. Since it was implemented in California in 2010, this system has often ensured a Democrat-on-Democrat general election battle in all but California’s most conservative areas. Depressed GOP turnout in primaries could mean even fewer Republicans move on to general elections.

So, that would effect the down ballot votes during the primaries. California Democrats found a very interesting way to depress the GOP vote, eh?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Federal Judge Puts The Kibosh On California’s Tax Return Law”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    I believe the Judge decided wrongly in this case. The constitution protects the election of the President in the General election. The process each party uses to select their candidates for that election are strictly up to the parties, not the states, the courts, the Constitution, or the federal government. Note that all of the smaller parties don’t bother with a primary. Their party leadership just show up for the general election with the required sign-up forms. Obama’s second term had no primary. Hillary had a fake primary in 2016 against a hand-picked sock puppet who was chosen specifically to make her look young and reasonable by comparison, even though the super delegate system guaranteed her a win.

    The judge should have decided that the parties have the sole discretion in how their candidates are selected, thus striking down all existing primaries that are not run by the parties themselves, at their own expense.

    As long as we are on the subject, I think a better system would be to count a primary vote as a general election for that same party, whoever that is. So there is less cross party-shenanigans in the primary if they knew they were committing their vote. If you want to vote in the Republican primary, you are committing your general election vote to the Republican candidate.

  2. John says:

    States rights?

    • formwiz says:

      You want an activist bench, you got it.

      But the judge’s point is pretty solid, not to mention the fact that it would be denying millions of Californians their vote.

      Wanna see the Rs come out for Trump in the Land of Fruits and Nuts? Try taking away their vote.

  3. John says:

    It is only temp!

    • formwiz says:

      Get ready to have you lol shoved up your ass. The courts have been standing up to this manipulation ever since the so-called Travel Ban.

      This will stand.


Bad Behavior has blocked 10048 access attempts in the last 7 days.