SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – The bill requiring Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates to reveal five years worth of tax returns in order to appear on a California ballot will now go to Governor Newsom to sign or veto.

Senate Bill 27 is known as the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act. It passed both the Senate and Assembly with the vote along party lines. A similar version was vetoed by Governor Brown in 2017.

If SB 27 gets signed into law, two copies of the five most recent returns would need to be filed with the California Secretary of State’s Office at least 98 days before an election. One copy of the return would be identical to the version filed with the IRS. The other copy would be a redacted version that would be posted to the Secretary of State’s site within five days. The redactions would be reviewed by the Secretary of State to ensure they follow state protocol. Once the election is complete the tax returns will be removed from the website.

The law would apply to all Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates, regardless of party affiliation.

This bill is a response to the last Presidential election.

READ ALSO: Questions Raised About California Proposal To Push Back School Start Times

It states:

“The Legislature finds and declares that the State of California has a strong interest in ensuring that its voters make informed, educated choices in the voting booth. To this end, the state has mandated that extensive amounts of information be provided to voters, including county and state voter information guides. The Legislature also finds and declares that a Presidential candidate’s income tax returns provide voters with essential information regarding the candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, business dealings, financial status, and charitable donations. The information in tax returns therefore helps voters to make a more informed decision. The Legislature further finds and declares that as one of the largest centers of economic activity in the world, the State of California has a special interest in the President refraining from corrupt or self-enriching behaviors while in office. The people of California can better estimate the risks of any given Presidential candidate engaging in corruption or the appearance of corruption if they have access to candidates’ tax returns. Finally, the State of California has an interest in ensuring that any violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution or statutory prohibitions on behavior such as insider trading are detected and punished. Mandated disclosure of Presidential candidates’ tax returns will enable enforcement of the laws against whichever candidate is elected President. The Legislature finds and declares that compliance costs with this requirement will be trivial.”

California has a number of requirements for those running for other state offices but does not require tax returns to be disclosed:

  • Permits a person to have their name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the presidential primary election by either determination of the SOS that a person is a generally-recognized candidate or by circulating nomination papers, as specified.
  • Permits an otherwise qualified person to submit a statement of write-in candidacy as a presidential candidate for the presidential primary election, as specified.
  • Requires a candidate for Governor to abide by the following qualifications:
    a) A U.S. citizen;
    b) A registered voter and otherwise qualified to vote for that office at the time that nomination papers are issued to the person;
    c) Not have been convicted of a felony involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes; and,
    d) Not have served two terms in the office sought since November 6, 1990.
  • Requires a candidate for state office, no later than the final filing date of a declaration of candidacy, to file a statement disclosing their investments, their interests in real property, and any income received during the immediately preceding 12 months, as specified.
  • Requires an elected state officer, within 30 days after assuming the office, annually thereafter and after leaving office, to file a statement disclosing their investments, their interests in real property held on the date of assuming office, and any income received, as specified.

SEE ALSO: Youth Football Teams May Be Limited To Two Full-Contact Practices A Week

It has been customary for presidential candidates to release their tax returns, although it isn’t law. However, candidates for President and Vice President must disclose certain financial information to the Federal Elections Commission within 30 days of declaring their candidacy. That information contains financial ranges, not specific amounts, and a candidate doesn’t include homes, cars, and federal retirement plans.

The intention is to have this bill in place by the 2020 Presidential primaries, which take place on March 3. If the bill becomes law the tax returns would be due by November 26.

California is one of a number of states that have introduced legislation requiring candidates to reveal their tax information. A separate federal bill, the For the People Act, is also being debated. That bill would require a candidate to release ten years worth of returns. A question remains of whether this is allowed under the US Constitution. Per the analyses:

“While the courts have not ruled directly on this question, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on ballot access requirements for congressional candidates and has held that states and the federal government cannot add to the qualifications of Senator or congressional representatives outlined in the federal Constitution. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) 514 U.S. 779, held that Arkansas could not deny ballot access to congressional candidates who served more than three terms or to Senate candidates who served more than two terms, essentially striking down measures the state had enacted to create congressional term limits. Furthermore the court ruled that the U.S. Constitution set the exclusive qualifications running for federal office (including age and citizenship requirements), and that states do not have the authority to alter or add to the terms contained in them. The courts have also allowed states the authority to set reasonable conditions for candidates for federal elective office in order to ensure serious candidates appear on the ballot. Such conditions include common mechanisms such as a filing fee or
securing a sufficient number of voters’ signatures on a petition. However, such conditions cannot go further and set substantive conditions for who can run. In Storer v. Brown (1974) 415 U.S. 724, 732-733, the court upheld a California law that prohibited an independent candidate from running if he had registered with a party or voted in the preceding party primary and required candidates to complete a petition with 5% of signatures from the preceding general election, as specified. The court upheld the law as it applied to congressional candidates and affirmed that provisions that merely
regulate access to the ballot are constitutionally permissible even though those requirements are not contained in the relevant constitutional Qualifications Clause. In sum, Term Limits stands for the proposition that states cannot use ballot access provisions to add or alter the qualifications for federal elective office, while Storer affirms that provisions that merely regulate access to the ballot are constitutionally permissible.”

In the 2016 election, California had 172 Republican delegates and 551 Democratic delegates (475 pledged and 76 unpledged). The Republican delegates were pledged to support now-President Donald Trump after he won the primary with 74.7% of the vote. John Kasich came in second carrying 11.4% of the vote. In order to secure the Republican nomination for president, a candidate needed to secure a simple majority (1,237) of the 2,472 total delegates. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won California’s primary with 53.07% of the vote and secured 320 delegates (254 pledged and 66 unpledged). Senator Bernie Sanders got 46.04% of the vote and earned 221 delegates (221 pledged and 0 unpledged). In 2016, the Democratic candidate for president needed 2,382 of the parties 4,763 delegates to win the nomination.

Governor Jerry Brown vetoed similar legislation in 2017, writing:

“Although tax returns are by law confidential, many presidential candidates have voluntarily released them. This bill is a response to President Trump’s
refusal to release his returns during the last election. While I recognize the political attractiveness — even the merits — of getting President Trump’s tax returns, I worry about the political perils of individual states seeking to regulate presidential elections in this manner. First, it may not be constitutional. Second, it sets a “slippery slope” precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? 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? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.

  1. Michael Allen says:

    Seriously who cares? Trump won WITHOUT the help of CA voters…If this had been the law three years ago NOTHING would be different today, Trump would stil be the president and the cupcake generation would still be crying over spilled milk!

Leave a Reply