Here's Some Things to Know About Jack Smith Before His Testimony Today
Lefty Trump Supporter Wrecks the Political Class' Whining About Trump at Davos on...
New Hampshire Dem Senate Candidate Totally Melts Down Over This Question About ICE
This Exchange Between Old White Lib Women and a Black ICE Agent Was...
America's Murder Rate Plummeted In 2025 and No One Can Fully Explain It
Watch This Democrat Lawmaker Make a Fool of Himself Defending Jack Smith
This Primary Race Could Determine Who Dominates the Republican Party
Alleged Minneapolis Church Mob Ringleader Went on CNN Last Night. Here's What She...
AG Bondi Announces Arrests of Suspects Who Mobbed Minneapolis Church
Jason Crow: Democrats Plan to Impeach Trump If They Regain Power in November
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson Just Insulted Justice Clarence Thomas
Here Are the Details of President Trump's Greenland Deal
President Trump Formally Charters the Board of Peace in Davos As His Gaza...
Gavin Newsom Poses With His Sugar Daddy Alex Soros
Chris Cuomo Goes on Unhinged Rant Against Scott Jennings for Using the Term...
Tipsheet

California Gets Sued Over Election Law Requiring Presidential Candidates on Primary Ballot to Release Tax Returns

AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, Pool

California may have swiftly passed the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act, forcing President Trump and other presidential primary candidates to disclose their tax returns if they want to be on the 2020 ballot, but the challenges have already begun.

Advertisement

Judicial Watch announced Monday that it filed a federal lawsuit against the state on behalf of four California voters to block the law’s implementation.

If left unchallenged, the law would force those who wish to appear on California’s March 3, 2020 presidential primary ballot to publicly disclose their tax returns for the last five years, turning them over to California’s secretary of state by November 26.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure last year, questioning the constitutionality of such a law and arguing that it sets a “slippery slope precedent” that could pave the way for requiring other types of documents from candidates.

“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?" Brown asked at the time. "Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power."

The plaintiffs are ideologically diverse; two are Republicans, one is an independent, and one is a Democrat.

"No state or federal law has ever mandated that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns to qualify or appear on a ballot," the federal complaint says. "The voluntary release of presidential candidates’ tax returns is a recent, and partial, phenomenon, notwithstanding a current media narrative suggesting otherwise."

Advertisement

Related:

CALIFORNIA LAWSUIT

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the “nonpartisan concern” is “about the state running roughshod and attempting to amend the Constitution on its own.”

“California politicians, in their zeal to attack President Trump, passed a law that also unconstitutionally victimizes California voters," Fitton said. "It is an obvious legal issue that a state can’t amend the U.S. Constitution by adding qualifications in order to run for president."

The Constitution only requires a presidential candidate be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen, and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. 

In signing the law, Newsom released a statement arguing that California is “well within its constitutional right” to require the tax returns, issuing statements from three attorneys arguing the same.

"SB 27, which requires that presidential candidates disclose tax returns, is constitutional. It does not keep any candidate from being on the ballot so long as he or she complies with a simple requirement that is meant to provide California voters crucial information," wrote University of California, Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky. "This is the state acting to make sure that its voters have information that might be very important to them when they cast their ballots as to who they want to be President of the United States."

Advertisement

Judicial Watch clearly disagrees, with Fitton noting "the courts can’t stop this abusive law fast enough.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement