New State Laws Passed in California
Election Tax Returns
In an effort to force our present president when running for re-election and future presidential candidates to release income tax returns, California passed SB249 Disclose Act. California became the first state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the state ballot.
Lawmakers sent Gov. Jerry Brown AB249 Friday requiring candidates to publicly share five years of returns.
This comes after President Trump’s refused to release his tax returns during the 2016 campaign. His actions sparked similar legislation in dozens of other states. The documents reveal income sources, tax exemptions, charitable donations and potential financial conflicts of interest.
Until Trump, every major presidential candidates has released their returns for decades.
Criminal Background Checks
In new legislation, California employers could not initially ask during the interview process if potential employees have a criminal history. AB1008 Employment Discrimination: Conviction History bill was sent to Gov. Jerry Brown. The California Assembly on Friday gave final approval to a bill that supporters say would mean more ex-felons could get jobs and stay out of trouble.
Democratic Assemblyman Kevin McCarty of Sacramento says AB1008 would allow employers to ask about criminal histories later in the process. It requires businesses with five or more employees to inquire into and consider convictions only after the applicant has received a conditional job offer.
California joins nine other states with similar restrictions on asking about criminal history. There was no spoken opposition as the Assembly agreed with Senate restrictions on a 41-25 vote.
California voters would know more about who’s paying for campaign advertising under AB249 just sent to Gov. Jerry Brown. AB 249 California Disclose Act requires ballot measure and independent expenditure committees to display the names of the top three donors.
AB249 also requires a clear disclosure of donors behind campaign committees having misleading names. The California Clean Money Campaign sponsoring the legislation said: “no other state disclosure laws reveals to voters more information about donors who increasingly hide behind a series of bland sounding political committees and groups to remove any identity of their contributions supporting candidates or new laws.”
Supporters say the bill will help voters make better decisions based on greater information.
Republicans say the bill should require labor unions to disclose individual members who contribute. Only the union would be listed under the bill and not its members.
The Assembly gave final approval on a 55-12 vote.
State Sanctuary Bill
California approved SB54 California Values Act, a “sanctuary state” bill Saturday that would limit how local and state police can interact with federal immigration agents. The bill is intended to provide more immigrant protections in the state which are already among the toughest in the nation.
It will now be considered by Gov. Jerry Brown, who announced his support after the top state Senate leader agreed to water down the bill and preserve authority for jail and prison officials to cooperate with immigration officers in many cases.
It looks like some states are doing something to counter big money, Republican values, and Trump.
Does not appear as if Brown has signed the tax return bill, nor indicated his thoughts on it.
Still, I figure if this is passed it will be in front of the US Supreme Court in a New York minute.
Not to worried about it. Other states are doing the same. States also determine election laws for ballots and voting. Part of that old “states rights” stuff.
I think it is a very bad precedent that Trump has not released his tax forms. I would be a lot more comfortable if California and other states had passed disclosure requirements before now. I note that it will be irrelevant in this case though – since the laws specifically have Trump in mind, states like California which are most likely to pass the law are the ones least likely to vote for Trump anyway. Perhaps they’ll have an effect the next time. Or they’ll be repealed when a more convenient candidate does the same thing Trump did.
As to the sanctuary law… I was under the impression Federal law still superseded state law, and while I am not an attorney, this seems pretty clear: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
If one is in favor of sanctuary cities/states etc., I would think the place to start is by acting to have Federal Law overturned.
Go read United States vs Cruikshank, then the Colfax Massacre, and see what the Waite SCOTUS decided on the rights of state citizens under federal law. . States decided how their citizens are protected. Hence a bunch of good old white boys in Grant Parish Louisiana massacred free black men (you know, those lower IQ x-slaves) and got away with doing so because the Bill of Rights did not apply to state citizens unless the state was violating their rights. In this case, it was other state citizens violating black men’s right. Estimate 150-300 black men were killed a nd a bunch after surrendering.
“There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.
The ruling also stated that all U.S. citizens are subject to two governments, their state government and the other the national government, and then defined the scope of each:
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.”
Obviously you did not bother to read what I wrote of the Colfax Massacre and SCOTUS.
” Or they’ll be repealed when a more convenient candidate does the same thing Trump did.”
Seriously? This is a passed law by the state legislature. An Executive order does not repeal it.
I guess the rules could be politely ignored or bent too. For example, I remember when Hilary Clinton ran for Senator of NY. Now the Constitution says that to become a Senator, you must be over 30 years old and a resident of the state for which you become a Senator.
Hilary Clinton was over 30 years old, but its hard to see how she qualified as an inhabitant of NY. Living in Washington DC wouldn’t be a problem if she was running for senator of Arkansas since she had most recently come from Arkansas. It might not stretch credence all that much had she run for senator from IL, or CT, or MA, since those were all places she had, well, inhabited at some point in her life. But she had never inhabited NY in any way whatsoever.
She bought a house in NY, and that was enough for the powers that be to pretend the legal requirements were met. But the reality wouldn’t have worked for someone else. For instance, some years ago I lived in Northeastern Ohio, and I own a few homes there (that I rent out). That gives me more of a connection to Ohio than Clinton had to NY in the year 2000. But if I tried to claim that that was sufficient for me to be considered an inhabitant of Ohio, and thus to qualify for an Ohio driver’s license (not to mention being ineligible for California state income taxes) any reasonable person would laugh at the claim.
Mike, what was hilarious is the idea that a Democratic presidential candidate would withhold his/her taxes and the California state legislature would repeal the disclosure law. That was the clear and explicit context of your comment “Or they’ll be repealed when a more convenient candidate does the same thing Trump did.”
I don’t know why you even bother with the silly attempt at misdirection. Nobody is fooled.
You are correct. As I noted in my later comment, ignoring the laws that are inconvenient is more likely because it is easier.
Why would anyone make a detailed(sic) claim about residency requirements for a Senator without taking ten seconds to google what those requirements are?
Well, I guess I get me wrong now and again too. I forgot HRC “officially” moved to New York in 2000 to establish legal residency.
You didn’t forget, you just took a shot at Clinton without knowing what the law is according to the Supreme Court and New York state. Or you somehow think you know what a “real resident” is better than the courts.
Actually, I did forget. I was right about the residency, wrong about when she officially moved.
“New York actually has a tradition of electing out-of-staters. Bobby Kennedy won in 1964 and James Buckley–from Connecticut, and, yes, brother to William F–won in 1970. Way back in 1788, Massachusetts’ delegate to the Constitutional Convention–a fellow named Rufus King–moved to New York and became Senator that very same year.
It would undoubtedly strike many as odd for Hillary to campaign in New York while still living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C.. But there’s a tradition to that as well. George Bush claimed to be a Texas resident while vice-President and president because he stayed in a Houston hotel once or twice a year. Meanwhile he actually lived in D.C. and spent as much time as possible at his very large home in Maine. His reasons were not solely political: Texas has no income tax. Money estimates that Bush saved almost 11 percent of his income as a result of his alleged Texas residency.”
This may be the first time I have ever defended George HW Bush for anything – so far the best I can recall saying of him is that he was by far the less incompetent of the two Bush presidents.
But Bush was a member of the House of Representatives for the state of Texas. That sent him to Washington DC. After that he held a number of positions – ambassador to the UN, head of the RNC, envoy to China, and DCI. Then he went back to Texas for four years. He had some sort of a position at a bank in Houston and taught at Rice U. Then he became Reagan’s running mate. So well before 1989, he was considered a Texan. He kept going back to TX because that’s where he had a business, and later, where he worked for a bank and taught at Rice. Sure, he was living in Washington, DC, in 2008, but that was by virtue of being VP. He was viewed by one all as a Texan who had a vacation home in Maine.
Now imagine if, instead, he had purchased a home in Utah in 2008 and ran for office from there.
There is no imagining and your comment is not in answer to what you raised as an issue. There is a long line of people, Democrats and Republicans who served as Senator in the State of NY. The other part about Bush I found interesting. I could not do the same as my income would not sustain three residences even though well paid.