The following editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 30:
LOS ANGELES (Tribune News Service) — It’s understandable that Gov. Gavin Newsom would want to set himself apart from his predecessor and show the world that he’s not just Jerry Brown 2.0. But by signing a very problematic bill on Tuesday — one that Brown vetoed in 2017 — Newsom took a slap at Donald Trump that is hyperpartisan, probably counterproductive and perhaps even unconstitutional.
The Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act is clearly directed at Trump, who as a candidate bucked the modern tradition of releasing his tax returns during the campaign. The new law requires that candidates for president in California release five years of tax records before they can be included on the state’s primary ballot.
This means Trump must turn over his tax documents in the 2020 election or be left off California’s March primary ballot. Hah. Take that Mr. Trump. Will this damage Trump’s re-election bid? Of course not. No matter what happens in California’s primary, Trump’s name is likely to be on the November general election ballot in all states. And the only people hurt are the millions of California Republicans who will be denied the right to pick the candidate of their choice in the 2020 primary.
To be clear: Presidential candidates ought to share their tax documents with the public. But adding new requirements for candidates is a bad idea. If California adds this partisan requirement as a slap at Trump, what’s to stop red states from adding a requirement that candidates release their birth certificates? Will some states require candidates to release their health records? Do we really want every state to have its own requirements governing who can run for president? That’s a recipe for confusion.
If voters think a candidate should have released his tax returns, they can punish him or her at the polls on Election Day.
The new law also may be unconstitutional. As we have pointed out in editorials more than once, states have the authority to regulate some ballot access for federal elections. Beyond that it’s not clear if they even have the legal right to place further restrictions on presidential candidates beyond what is already required by the U.S. Constitution — that a candidate be 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen and a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years.
If other states take similar action, it may well deepen the partisan divide that has roiled politics and turned Americans against one another. How does that help?
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency. © 2019 Los Angeles Times.