Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Donald Trump will not be on the ballot in California in 2020   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, President of the United States, tax returns, Bill Clinton, Presidential Tax Transparency, United States, state tax returns, presidential candidates, California State Assembly  
•       •       •

7728 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2017 at 2:15 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-14 11:50:37 PM  
"I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"
 
2017-09-14 11:53:23 PM  
This should be fun.
 
2017-09-14 11:56:50 PM  
Smells unconstitutional, but if not, West Virginia will soon have a penis requirement.
 
2017-09-15 12:03:22 AM  
That's fine. Not a problem. Then Trump doesn't even have to try for electoral votes in California. And if he's not in jail, the rabid Republicans that would like him again in 2020 could just write him in for the primary, skirting the taxy disclosy thingy.

img.fark.net
 
2017-09-15 12:25:53 AM  
What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.
 
2017-09-15 12:29:55 AM  

Tanqueray: Smells unconstitutional, but if not, West Virginia will soon have a penis requirement.


Probably constitutional. States have pretty broad discretion to set reasonable qualifications for candidates to appear on ballots in their, even in presidential elections and elections for other federal offices.
 
2017-09-15 12:32:41 AM  
The Republicans will have to resort to a write-in campaign.

/It's like a backdoor literacy requirement
 
2017-09-15 12:38:32 AM  
Would his campaign even care?  It's not like they're going to get anything out of Cali anyway.
 
2017-09-15 12:52:37 AM  
I'm not going to be on the ballot either, but you don't hear me bragging about it.

I declared that I was going to run in 2016, but only one person liked my Tweet, so I didn't bother.  I probably should have tried.

I'm still planning on voting for Lisa Simpson in 2020.  She's like a Bush/Trump/Clinton without being so embarrassing.

pbs.twimg.com
 
2017-09-15 12:53:15 AM  

Cyberluddite: What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.


What difference? As goes California, so goes the country.
 
2017-09-15 01:35:15 AM  

Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"


And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.
 
2017-09-15 01:46:33 AM  

Mugato: Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"

And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.


Are you saying Trump may not have been entirely truthful about his tax returns?

/where's my fainting couch?
 
2017-09-15 02:20:38 AM  

Mugato: Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"

And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.


Ah, but you forget about the primaries.  If he gets a stout challenger in the Repub primary race ceding California would be hard to overcome.
 
2017-09-15 02:24:16 AM  
serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?
 
2017-09-15 02:25:54 AM  
I like it, but Trump never stood a chance in Cali in 2016, let alone 2020.  Texas doing this would be fun.
 
2017-09-15 02:26:06 AM  

Tanqueray: Smells unconstitutional, but if not, West Virginia will soon have a penis requirement.


That runs afoul of equal protection due to gender discrimination.  This doesn't violate any constitutional laws, per se, as states have always been able to set ballot access requirements.
 
2017-09-15 02:30:02 AM  

Tanqueray: Smells unconstitutional, but if not, West Virginia will soon have a penis requirement.


Penis requirement is discriminatory. "Every candidate must how his/her tax returns" is not.
 
2017-09-15 02:31:01 AM  

Cyberluddite: What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.


Kobach says "Hold my beer".
 
2017-09-15 02:31:05 AM  
Wouldn't it be funny if this were to spread and become the litmus test that locked Republicans out of blue states forever
 
2017-09-15 02:31:14 AM  

log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?


I would think fairly likely.  States have very broad discretion when setting the requirements to appear on a ballot, even in a federal election.  (Think about how a third-party candidate might meet the requirements to appear on the ballot in state A, but not in state B.  Same deal.)  The only major limits would be if the proposed requirement discriminates on the basis of a protected class, or is otherwise in violation of federal law.  I don't see anything here that would run afoul of that.
 
2017-09-15 02:31:38 AM  

whither_apophis: The Republicans will have to resort to a write-in campaign.

/It's like a backdoor literacy requirement


But I wrote in Lord Dampnut...

Damn you, dysgraphia!!!
 
2017-09-15 02:37:56 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Mugato: Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"

And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.

Ah, but you forget about the primaries.  If he gets a stout challenger in the Repub primary race ceding California would be hard to overcome.


Yep.

Hey D2S - Wanna run? Cough up the 1040. Wanna be the first president since Chester A. Arthur to get primaried? Keep playing "catch me, fark me" with your returns.
 
2017-09-15 02:40:35 AM  

Last Man on Earth: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

I would think fairly likely.  States have very broad discretion when setting the requirements to appear on a ballot, even in a federal election.  (Think about how a third-party candidate might meet the requirements to appear on the ballot in state A, but not in state B.  Same deal.)  The only major limits would be if the proposed requirement discriminates on the basis of a protected class, or is otherwise in violation of federal law.  I don't see anything here that would run afoul of that.


Somehow I doubt, even as farked up as Cali is getting about their own self importance, the SC would allow this one to slide.  Functionally throwing out the rights of California voters who would be for Trump would be a direct violation of their voting rights - and if you want to guarantee a huge goddamn CF.  Not to mention the opposite - Federal elections ignoring a state would become somewhat of a Constitutional Crisis.
 
2017-09-15 02:47:49 AM  

log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?


Highly likely. States are given a lot of latitude in how they conduct their elections. Wanna be president? The requirements to be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years are in the Constitution. "No religious test" is in the Constitution. What's not in the Constitution is "the state's have to conduct their elections thusly..." As long as there's not literacy test, poll tax, or discriminatory basis for limiting access to the ballot, state's can pretty much run their elections as they see fit to run them.
 
2017-09-15 02:53:38 AM  

Bio-nic: Last Man on Earth: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

I would think fairly likely.  States have very broad discretion when setting the requirements to appear on a ballot, even in a federal election.  (Think about how a third-party candidate might meet the requirements to appear on the ballot in state A, but not in state B.  Same deal.)  The only major limits would be if the proposed requirement discriminates on the basis of a protected class, or is otherwise in violation of federal law.  I don't see anything here that would run afoul of that.

Somehow I doubt, even as farked up as Cali is getting about their own self importance, the SC would allow this one to slide.  Functionally throwing out the rights of California voters who would be for Trump would be a direct violation of their voting rights - and if you want to guarantee a huge goddamn CF.  Not to mention the opposite - Federal elections ignoring a state would become somewhat of a Constitutional Crisis.


Problem: Harm must occur before you have standing. In other words, you have to be told "No, you can't vote for Trump" to be able to sue.

An argument that undermines any claim of standing regarding an "I intend(ed) to vote for Trump" voter is the write-in vote, which any voter in California can cast.

This requirement to show tax returns is likely constitutional.
 
2017-09-15 02:55:50 AM  

Notabunny: Wouldn't it be funny if this were to spread and become the litmus test that locked Republicans out of blue states forever


Funny is the word I'd choose. Personally, I'd go with "karmic."
 
2017-09-15 02:56:38 AM  

DeadPhelps: Notabunny: Wouldn't it be funny if this were to spread and become the litmus test that locked Republicans out of blue states forever

Funny is the word I'd choose. Personally, I'd go with "karmic."


"... isn't the word I'd choose."

FTFM
 
2017-09-15 03:02:47 AM  
I submitted this, but then realized that this version of the bill hasn't passed the senate yet, so it still has to go back there before the Governor can sign it -- neither of which seem like significant obstacles (the senate passed a previous, stronger version a couple months ago, and I can't imagine Jerry Brown will step in to rescue Trump).

As for legal challenges, IANAL but I'd guess the CA GOP will try to overturn it based on it being overreach by the state in their ability to conduct their primaries, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
 
2017-09-15 03:06:13 AM  
They'll be in public thanks to Mueller by then
 
2017-09-15 03:07:56 AM  

Bio-nic: Last Man on Earth: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

I would think fairly likely.  States have very broad discretion when setting the requirements to appear on a ballot, even in a federal election.  (Think about how a third-party candidate might meet the requirements to appear on the ballot in state A, but not in state B.  Same deal.)  The only major limits would be if the proposed requirement discriminates on the basis of a protected class, or is otherwise in violation of federal law.  I don't see anything here that would run afoul of that.

Somehow I doubt, even as farked up as Cali is getting about their own self importance, the SC would allow this one to slide.  Functionally throwing out the rights of California voters who would be for Trump would be a direct violation of their voting rights - and if you want to guarantee a huge goddamn CF.  Not to mention the opposite - Federal elections ignoring a state would become somewhat of a Constitutional Crisis.


already happens.  Do you think NM gets any serious campaigning?  With a later primary and a low population, we're lucky if a candidate lands to refuel their plane before flying somewhere else
 
2017-09-15 03:09:02 AM  

WickerNipple: Would his campaign even care?  It's not like they're going to get anything out of Cali anyway.


Downticket races. Prima Donald's followers may not give a fark about their reps or local officials, and if he's off the ballot, why make the trip?
 
2017-09-15 03:10:55 AM  

DeadPhelps: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

Highly likely. States are given a lot of latitude in how they conduct their elections. Wanna be president? The requirements to be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years are in the Constitution. "No religious test" is in the Constitution. What's not in the Constitution is "the state's have to conduct their elections thusly..." As long as there's not literacy test, poll tax, or discriminatory basis for limiting access to the ballot, state's can pretty much run their elections as they see fit to run them.


but isn't a requirement to produce a tax return in effect a state adding additional criteria to become president? so effectively the requirements are be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years AND produce your tax returns.

not that i have any problems with that part in particular, but it seems to open up the possibility of other states making bizarre requirements of candidates before they can be on the ballot. for example imagine if Texas required candidates to declare in writing that man made climate change is a myth before they could be on the ballot.
 
2017-09-15 03:11:45 AM  
Wasn't one of the talking points that Trump won the popular vote if you ignore California? It seems like they don't even believe that California is a part of the United States anymore, so......I dunno.
 
2017-09-15 03:12:00 AM  

log_jammin: DeadPhelps: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

Highly likely. States are given a lot of latitude in how they conduct their elections. Wanna be president? The requirements to be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years are in the Constitution. "No religious test" is in the Constitution. What's not in the Constitution is "the state's have to conduct their elections thusly..." As long as there's not literacy test, poll tax, or discriminatory basis for limiting access to the ballot, state's can pretty much run their elections as they see fit to run them.

but isn't a requirement to produce a tax return in effect a state adding additional criteria to become president? so effectively the requirements are be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years AND produce your tax returns.

not that i have any problems with that part in particular, but it seems to open up the possibility of other states making bizarre requirements of candidates before they can be on the ballot. for example imagine if Texas required candidates to declare in writing that man made climate change is a myth before they could be on the ballot.


There are already far more requirements than that to get on the ballot in various states.
 
2017-09-15 03:13:54 AM  

log_jammin: DeadPhelps: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

Highly likely. States are given a lot of latitude in how they conduct their elections. Wanna be president? The requirements to be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years are in the Constitution. "No religious test" is in the Constitution. What's not in the Constitution is "the state's have to conduct their elections thusly..." As long as there's not literacy test, poll tax, or discriminatory basis for limiting access to the ballot, state's can pretty much run their elections as they see fit to run them.

but isn't a requirement to produce a tax return in effect a state adding additional criteria to become president? so effectively the requirements are be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years AND produce your tax returns.

not that i have any problems with that part in particular, but it seems to open up the possibility of other states making bizarre requirements of candidates before they can be on the ballot. for example imagine if Texas required candidates to declare in writing that man made climate change is a myth before they could be on the ballot.


states already require a number of things to be on the ballot.  For instance every candidate needs to submit a number of signatures from citizens of the state to be on the ballot.
 
2017-09-15 03:15:40 AM  

Abner Doon: There are already far more requirements than that to get on the ballot in various states.


well of course there are regulations and rules to follow with getting on a ballot in every state. I never said otherwise.
 
2017-09-15 03:16:22 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-15 03:16:24 AM  

Kevin72: That's fine. Not a problem. Then Trump doesn't even have to try for electoral votes in California. And if he's not in jail, the rabid Republicans that would like him again in 2020 could just write him in for the primary, skirting the taxy disclosy thingy.

[img.fark.net image 720x931]


In California,  a candidate for state or federal office isn't counted if they haven't registered with the election board.
 
2017-09-15 03:16:59 AM  

gilatrout: For instance every candidate needs to submit a number of signatures from citizens of the state to be on the ballot.


I get that. But this doesn't seem the same thing to me, which s why I asked my original question.
 
2017-09-15 03:19:19 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Mugato: Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"

And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.

Ah, but you forget about the primaries.  If he gets a stout challenger in the Repub primary race ceding California would be hard to overcome.


 Being eligible for the Republican primary is entirely at the discretion of the California Republican party.
 
2017-09-15 03:19:42 AM  

log_jammin: Abner Doon: There are already far more requirements than that to get on the ballot in various states.

well of course there are regulations and rules to follow with getting on a ballot in every state. I never said otherwise.


Okay, but you seemed to be doubting or at least questioning if extra requirements can be imposed. I mean obviously they can be, since a bunch already exist would be my point.
 
2017-09-15 03:22:11 AM  

Cyberluddite: What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.


This affects primaries. The Democratic primary was largely decided by red states in 2016. Even if they lose it in the general, Cali would be a huge win for a primary challenger.
 
2017-09-15 03:24:40 AM  

DeadPhelps: [img.fark.net image 425x200]


That IS the name of it.
 
2017-09-15 03:27:42 AM  
log_jammin:

isn't a requirement to produce a tax return in effect a state adding additional criteria to become president? so effectively the requirements are be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years AND produce your tax returns.


It's no more onerous than requiring all candidates to obtain 50,000 signatures on a petition in order to appear on the ballot.

not that i have any problems with that part in particular, but it seems to open up the possibility of other states making bizarre requirements of candidates before they can be on the ballot. for example imagine if Texas required candidates to declare in writing that man made climate change is a myth before they could be on the ballot.

That would be discriminatory. Science accepters and deniers both have the right to run for office. However, EVERYONE is supposed to file a tax return unless they earn less than the federal minimum. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to require a candidate to make public his/her tax returns.
 
2017-09-15 03:28:06 AM  
I mean, I'm glad, but also Trump has about a -173% chance of winning electoral votes in CA.
Now if some red state, or especially, say, Florida, implements something like this, then it would be effectual.

Of course, I honestly doubt Trump will be on the ballot anywhere anyway.
The GOP will primary the shiat out of him, or even just straight-up not give him the nomination for not adhering to party values.
 
2017-09-15 03:28:17 AM  

Abner Doon: log_jammin: DeadPhelps: log_jammin: serious question, how likely is this to stand up in court?

Highly likely. States are given a lot of latitude in how they conduct their elections. Wanna be president? The requirements to be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years are in the Constitution. "No religious test" is in the Constitution. What's not in the Constitution is "the state's have to conduct their elections thusly..." As long as there's not literacy test, poll tax, or discriminatory basis for limiting access to the ballot, state's can pretty much run their elections as they see fit to run them.

but isn't a requirement to produce a tax return in effect a state adding additional criteria to become president? so effectively the requirements are be 35 years old or older, a natural born citizen, and reside in the US for 14 years AND produce your tax returns.

not that i have any problems with that part in particular, but it seems to open up the possibility of other states making bizarre requirements of candidates before they can be on the ballot. for example imagine if Texas required candidates to declare in writing that man made climate change is a myth before they could be on the ballot.

There are already far more requirements than that to get on the ballot in various states.


States right now have few requirements - mostly relating to receiving a certain amount of signatures to be in the primary, then on having received a certain number of votes IN the primary to be on the ballot in the general. I don't know of any states that require candidates to release something in order to qualify (such as a long form birth certificate, for instance).  Although if T.R.U.M.P. passes CA, I would expect that some (other) states would start looking into things LIKE that..
 
2017-09-15 03:34:50 AM  

Tanqueray: Smells unconstitutional, but if not, West Virginia will soon have a penis requirement.


The fark are you talking about?  This is exactlythe kind of thing the founders explicitly intended with the original electoral college system.  It wasn't supposed to be "any chucklefark who's 30 years old and a US citizen can be president", those were just the bare minimum requirements.  The electors were initially supposed to be direct agents of the state goverments, meaning that getting electors was by design supposed to require that the candidate meet whatever requirements the states set forth for a majority of the states.

The fark kind of shiat education did you have, did the not even mention the federalist papers or literally any part of history between the 1770s and 1830s?  Jesus christ, man, this isn't even "failing high school" levels of idiocy, this is a level of ignorance that would normally require literally never having been to school a day in your farking life.

... oh, right, a lot of people actually haven't, I always forget about blatant child abuse home schooling.
 
2017-09-15 03:36:40 AM  

thecactusman17: Bonzo_1116: Mugato: Boo_Guy: "I keep telling you I'll release them when the IRS is done their audit!"

And the IRS said they don't have to finish the audit for him to release them.

And as others have said, he wasn't going to win CA anyway.

Ah, but you forget about the primaries.  If he gets a stout challenger in the Repub primary race ceding California would be hard to overcome.

 Being eligible for the Republican primary is entirely at the discretion of the California Republican party.


No. The party is allowed to choose its candidate. The state, however, sets what requirements must be met in order to have that candidate appear on the ballot. If any given candidate doesn't meet the requirements to appear on the ballot, then there isn't shiat the party can do about it. and one of those requirements can be "Make your tax returns, both federal and state, public no fewer than xxx days prior to the election."

Comply or pound sand.

Or, like many a GOP voter has said, "This is California. If you don't like it, LEAVE!"
 
2017-09-15 03:38:38 AM  

Cyberluddite: What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.


Yeah but if I vote third party again fewer farmers might call me a nazi.
 
2017-09-15 03:42:02 AM  

dailygrinds: Cyberluddite: What possible difference would that make? Trump would have almost exactly the same chance of winning California in 2020 with his name on the ballot as he would with his name off the ballot.

Yeah but if I vote third party again fewer farmers might call me a nazi.


Dammit - farkers, not farmers.
 
Displayed 50 of 198 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report