Live in WA? Trump May Not be on Your 2020 Ballot

[Ben]

The WA Senate passed a bill that would keep Trump off the ballot unless he releases his tax returns. They say this is constitutional, but I wonder about that. The tax return thing has only been going on for around 40 years. I don't know that there are any actual requirements other than US citizen and 35 years old.

Apparently 25 states have pushed this legislation. I don't know that any of the others have passed it yet. This is clearly a TDS move, and something that will someday bite these states in the ass, all because they wanted to "get Trump" now. In many of these 25 states, they're dissing 50% of their voters/taxpayers.

I find it interesting in that many (maybe all of?) these states are into the "kill the electoral college" thing. So they want to do the popular vote / "one person one vote" thing on the one side, but then tell their residents who that one person is?

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434412-washington-senate-passes-bill-that-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot

[Fly320s]

There is not a federal requirement for a candidate to release his tax info.  And there shouldn't be, in my opinion.

As you said, this is just TDS writ large.

[RoadKingLarry]

I find it interesting in that many (maybe all of?) these states are into the "kill the electoral college" thing. So they want to do the popular vote / "one person one vote" thing on the one side, but then tell their residents who that one person is?

Where else do we see that method of free and open elections?

 

[DittoHead]

Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.
Heck, they can require a valid birth certificate be provided too while they're at it. 

[WLJ]

Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.
Heck, they can require a valid birth certificate be provided too while they're at it.  

That's already been declared racist
And a possible carcinogen by the state of California    

[dogmush]

Democrats:

Trump is a threat to our Democracy!!

Also Democrats:

You rubes voted wrong, we need to make sure you can't do that again!!

[Hawkmoon]

Where else do we see that method of free and open elections?

 

A once-wealthy country whose name begins with 'V' comes to mind ...

Of course, if events in the U.S. follow that model, our 2020 election will "elect" Bernie, with AOC as veep, and then 40 countries around the world will recognize Trump as the legitimate president of the U.S.

[Brad Johnson]

No participation in a federal election with the stated candidates as voted by their respective constituents? Okay, then you also don't get to participate in federal programs or receive federal money.

Brad

[sumpnz]

Since we vote entirely by mail we'll go blue regardless of who is, or isn't, on the ballot.

[Hawkmoon]

No participation in a federal election with the stated candidates as voted by their respective constituents? Okay, then you also don't get to participate in federal programs or receive federal money.

Brad

Oh, hell. Don't put all the candidates on the ballot, your state's votes don't count. Congratulations, President Trump.

[Ben]

Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.

Not fine with me. States shouldn't be able to do that. I would never want to see an Obama or Hillary or communist kept off the ballot. Just because I wouldn't vote for them doesn't mean others don't have the right to vote their conscience or political beliefs.

As far as I'm concerned, there can be 100 presidential candidates on the ballot.

[Perd Hapley]

This seems like something that would get swatted down by the courts pretty quickly. If not, Trump will just release his tax returns.

I understand why people want to see politicians' tax returns, but the way some people make it some kind of moral failing on Trump's part? 

[DittoHead]

Just because I wouldn't vote for them doesn't mean others don't have the right to vote their conscience or political beliefs.

Write in should always be an option.

[Scout26]

Let me get this straight.

Even though there is no evidence of any wrong-doing.  I mean none.  Not even the slightest hint of a whiff any criminality.  As in a judge would laugh you out of court for the complete lack of any probable cause (other then severe TDS and Orange Man Bad). But the state (and the Democrat controlled HoR) want to go on a fishing expedition, so they are making their own rules on who is eligible for president (and VP, I presume) above and beyond what is called for in the Constitution (Native Born, 35+ Years Old, and a US Resident for 14 years).

Yeah, that will be a fun case to watch.  Violating Article II and the 4th Amendment.   That will go over well with the USSC.

[DittoHead]

I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.

[Firethorn]

I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious.

Actually, I consider it to be rather egregious.  Most current requirements aren't very bad.
1.  You have to register by a set date, maybe pay a nominal fee(I haven't seen one that exceeds $1k). 
2.  You need to come up with a nominal number of signatures to show that you might have a chance of winning.

Requiring the release of your 1040 is, I think, egregious because it really doesn't have anything to do with your campaigning for office.  I mean, at least a birth certificate requirement would be demonstrating that you meet the eligibility requirements for the office.

Really, I know that many past presidents have released it, but it's still information protected by various privacy rules.  I mean, random people can't petition the IRS for a copy of my returns.  They're properly considered private information.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.

Where do you draw the line, then? Can a state require a complete social media and web search history? List of all past romantic/sexual relationships? A 10,000-word essay explaining why the holocaust is a hoax and Hitler did nothing wrong?

[Ron]

I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.

Ahh, the old "why are you against this law, restriction, requirement, loss of privacy if you have nothing to hide?" canard.



Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

[DittoHead]

Where do you draw the line, then?

Is this a slippery slope argument or do you care where I personally would draw the line?
I think to get on the general election presidential ballot, candidates should be required to provide:

• Birth Certificate
• Full criminal history - anything down to speeding ticket since they turned 18
• College transcripts
• 10 years of tax returns
• Results of a simple, but standardized health screening including prescribed medications over the past 5 years. Something on par with what most workplaces are doing for health insurance these days.

And actually I wouldn't mind some SAT/ACT type tests & essays but concede that's probably egregious.

Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.

[MechAg94]

Is this a slippery slope argument or do you care where I personally would draw the line?
I think to get on the general election presidential ballot, candidates should be required to provide:

• Birth Certificate
• Full criminal history - anything down to speeding ticket since they turned 18
• College transcripts
• 10 years of tax returns
• Results of a simple, but standardized health screening including prescribed medications over the past 5 years. Something on par with what most workplaces are doing for health insurance these days.

And actually I wouldn't mind some SAT/ACT type tests & essays but concede that's probably egregious.

Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.

How about if we disallow anyone who uses DittoHead as an online name?   

I think the Constitution covered it.  Prove you were born here and 35 or over.  Other than that, I think some or most states require a major party nomination or a certain number of petition signatures.  I think that is just to weed out the nut jobs..... and fistful. 

Adding arbitrary requirements is just moving things closer to governments choosing who is "qualified" to run for office so we vote for the right people.  Who is "qualified"?  That all depends on who is in power at the time.

[DittoHead]

I'm not saying anyone who has a speeding ticket, or failed a college class, or has something shady in their taxes, or has high blood pressure should be disqualified - just that it needs to be disclosed to the public. There is a big difference.

[Pb]

Where do you draw the line, then? Can a state require a complete social media and web search history? List of all past romantic/sexual relationships? A 10,000-word essay explaining why the holocaust is a hoax and Hitler did nothing wrong?

Can a state require that all candidates must be a member of the Democratic Party?

[Ben]

Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.

With the caveat that the minimal constitutional requirements are the law of the land, the above is an example that makes an interesting debate topic.

Do I want a President that can't get past the same SF-86 process that I went through? The same might go for a drug addiction. A non-FOIAble process (SF-86s are currently exempt from FOIA, other than in a redacted format, AFAIK) to "apply" as it were, would likely eliminate a good number of presidential candidates. Would Kennedy have been President? Nixon? Clinton? Obama? Trump?

Though the negative part is that a portion of the SF-86 process relies on an investigator. What if the investigator's name is Peter Strzok?

Also, of the names I listed above, a large portion of the US population, at one time or another, considered them good presidents and were happy that they were elected, even if they couldn't have made it through the SF-86 process.

Which kind of leads us back to "minimal requirements". Otherwise we go to what we joke around about here once in a while - a comprehensive IQ test for every US citizen over 35, and whoever gets the highest score is dragged out of their home kicking and screaming and forced to be President. 

[DittoHead]

Though the negative part is that a portion of the SF-86 process relies on an investigator. What if the investigator's name is Peter Strzok?

I considered including in my list a requirement for filling out an SF-86 and disclosing any 'red flags' that came up, but decided that was excessive and agree that standardizing and eliminating political bias in what is a 'red flag' doesn't seem possible. So I left that off.

[makattak]

Which kind of leads us back to "minimal requirements". Otherwise we go to what we joke around about here once in a while - a comprehensive IQ test for every US citizen over 35, and whoever gets the highest score is dragged out of their home kicking and screaming and forced to be President.  

Then we'd just end up with the guy not smart enough to tank the test, or WORSE, the "smart" one who WANTED to be president.