California effort to expose Trump's tax return is vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown It was an almost brilliant plan cooked up by the California state legislature earlier this year. In an effort to see what other damage they might be able to inflict upon Donald Trump, legislators put together a bill which would require presidential candidates to release their last five years of tax returns in order to appear on the ballot. Having crafted the legislation and completed the requisite ceremony of patting each other on the back, all was in readiness for the Democrats’ victory celebration. That is, at least until they ran into an unexpected wall of opposition. Their own governor, Jerry Brown, has vetoed the bill and sent them back to the drawing board. Yes, he knows this proposed law would most likely backfire in their own faces, and anything the Left might think could tarnish a Republican candidate will most certainly destroy a Democrat one...
It wouldn't be Constitutional anyway. The Constitution establishes the requirements, not state governments.
Actually it is. The state legislature can send any electors they want. So, if they really wanted to, they could effectively set whatever requirements they want, although that would be rolling back somewhat the popular vote. If passed, that would make California the only state to set limits on who its residents can vote for when it comes to the presidential election (aside from the usual requirements of having to make an application and sometimes a fee, and come up with a certain number of signatures). In California the current requirement for independent candidates running for President is that they submit signatures from state residents equaling at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in the state.
Electors only apply to the general election and California is irrelevant to the Republican candidate for President.
Basically if state law did not approve of a candidate for some reason, people could write-in the candidate's name on the ballot but the state would not have to count those votes, and the state's electors would not have to vote for that candidate, even in the unlikely hypothetical case that candidate won the popular vote in that state. Under the U.S. Constitution the state (or more particularly its legislature effectively) has the ultimate say. If the people can vote for president, it's only because the state law says so. (and currently all 50 states have such a law) And of course you are right, California would be irrelevant to another Trump campaign. (although nothing is ever absolutely 100% certain)
Truth behind this, the crooks in the Cali gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex realized before it was "too late" that this kind of precedent might result in referenda requiring heightened disclosure to the public of THEIR OWN PET SCAMS AND DIRTY LAUNDRY. Bank on it.