There's nothing in the constitution about primaries because there's nothing in the constitution about political parties.
Many of the FF believed that political parties are of the debil.
If not for the liberal application of some social justice here, Bill Weld might win his first primary, and wow, what a doozy!
Many of the FF believed that political parties are of the debil.
If not for the liberal application of some social justice here, Bill Weld might win his first primary, and wow, what a doozy!
I've read somewhere the tax return requirement can be bypassed by running as a write-in candidate. It'd be interesting to see a ballot with no names on it, just a line to write in a candidate name. It'd also be the biggest nightmare ever for those that have to tally those ballots. And the lawsuits that would follow would make the old hanging chad controversy trivial in comparison.
You initially brought up the other scenarios. I simply pointed out that the Constitution clearly gives States the right, authority, leeway or which ever word doesn't trigger someone, to establish their own election procedures and policies, through both it's silence on the issue and direct verbiage. That especially applies to the extra-constitutional practice of political party primary voting. That's not "whataboutism", that's a discussion of the constitutionality.
Now, for some "whataboutism". Why would one be ok with financial disclosures for one political office balloting but not the office of President? Multiple states have established those, and they have withstood court challenge.
That wouldn't be a blanket rule, it would entirely depend on the State law in regards to write-ins. California could word it that any write-in who wins the vote would have to satisfy financial disclosures prior to the vote being certified, for example.
I'm not sure who you think is triggered. Quite simply my whataboutism reference goes like this. Some states have banned ARs. I would argue that's unconstitutional. Whereas, some people would argue or reference other liberal states and their restriction or outright ban on ARs as a foundation.
Now that we apply this scenario, I'm not getting a Dave like answer as to what would fly and I'm definitely not a Constitutional scholar. We are getting... "well other states do it" answers. Surely they give the freedom to establish election procedures, but what if some discrimination was established? This is being used as a political weapon against Trump, even though it will be fairly moot. From what I'm reading, the interpretation of using the ballot politically has been struck down several times from the SCOTUS.
If it applies equally, to all candidates seeking access, then what discrimination is occurring? Just because a candidate doesn't want to release his or her returns, doesn't mean that the requirement is therefore discriminatory. Now, if the measure was worded in such a way as to only target one person, or to target a group (perhaps saying republican candidates must do this, but excluding anyone else) then i could see it easily being struck down as discriminatory. But who knows what the courts will do.
But again, i too miss dave.
We all know they are targeting one person. What does financial status have to do with being on the ballot? I mean we could employ genetic testing next.... everyone one will be tested....but when we get the results and publish them.....promise we won't discriminate.
Perhaps. As i've maintained, i do not know where there is a limit. But, even if it's meant to target one person, group or activity, crafting a law in such as way as to be equal across the board has been shown to get some things around legal challenges.
And 'financial status' is certainly a board topic. It could be that a state decides it wants to keep candidates honest about their backgrounds and 'prove' the claims a candidate is making about their wealth or business prowess (in the case of trump). Or to show who does and doesn't actually pay federal taxes, etc.
Disclosing the information *could* show more about the person's honesty than just what his or her net income was at any given point. But again, i don't know if the courts will say that it is a reasonable and legal requirement or not. Nothing is forcing a candidate to turn over the documents, he or she just risks being left off the ballot. Clearly it matters more in a state like california than it would in iowa or oklahoma (in terms of electoral votes), but i don't know of any requirement for a candidate for president to be on the ballot in all states (though i admit there may be one somewhere).
But if we are going to start worrying about what is going on on the state level in terms of elections then i think there are broader concerns in terms of purging voting rolls, closing polling stations, etc than what is being required candidates to disclose.
"Because it harms Trump" is not an argument against the constitutionality of the act.
If it can be conclusively proved that it specifically and exclusively targets one candidate, then there might be a point...but since it applies to all candidates in a party primary and the constitution is silent on parties and primaries...I can absolutely see it surviving a court challenge.
If it can be conclusively proved that it specifically and exclusively targets one candidate, then there might be a point...but since it applies to all candidates in a party primary and the constitution is silent on parties and primaries...I can absolutely see it surviving a court challenge.
Similar threads
