Griffin v. Padilla, 2:19-cv-01477-MCE-DB (and related cases)
| Decision Date | 02 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-cv-01477-MCE-DB (and related cases), No. 2:19-cv-01501-MCE-DB, No. 2:19-cv-01659-MCE-DB, No. 2:19-cv-01507-MCE-DB, No. 2:19-cv-01506-MCE-DB,2:19-cv-01477-MCE-DB (and related cases) |
| Citation | 408 F.Supp.3d 1169 |
| Parties | Jerry GRIFFIN, Michelle Bolotin, Michael Sienkiewicz, and James B. Oerding, Plaintiffs, v. Alex PADILLA, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of California, Defendant. And Related Cases. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
H. Christopher Coates, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Law Offices of H. Christopher Coates, Charleston, SC, Robert D. Popper, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Robert Patrick Sticht, T. Russell Nobile, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Chad A. Stegeman, Jay Craig Russell, Peter H. Chang, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER1
On July 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the Presidential Tax and Transparency Act ("the Act"), enacted as Senate Bill 27, which requires, among other things, presidential candidates in the California primary to have disclosed their federal tax returns for the previous five years as a precondition to appearing on the State's partisan primary ballot.2 By way of the above-captioned related actions, five sets of Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of that law by Defendants Governor Newsom, Alex Padilla, California's Secretary of State, and Xavier Becerra, in his capacity as California Attorney General.3 Plaintiffs are the incumbent President, Donald J. Trump, along with his reelection campaign, a second Republican candidate for President, Roque De La Fuente, both the Republican National Committee and its state counterpart, the California Republican Party, and eight individual California voters, including members of both the Republican, Democratic and Independent Parties.
According to all Plaintiffs, the Act violates the so-called Qualifications Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const., art, II, § 1, cl. 5 ("Qualifications Clause"). Four of the five lawsuits further allege that the Act violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to associate and/or to access the ballot, also guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In addition, two of the actions take the position that the Act also violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Finally, the lawsuit filed on behalf of President Trump and his campaign asserts that the Act's provisions are preempted by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C.A. App. 4, §§ 101 et seq. ("EIGA"), which requires that presidential candidates disclose certain financial information.
The Court heard oral argument on September 19, 2019, and, at the hearing's conclusion, announced its tentative decision granting a preliminary injunction enjoining application of the Act insofar as it pertains to presidential candidates. This written order memorializes that ruling and supersedes any and all statements made by the Court at that time. For the reasons set forth below, the requests for preliminary injunctive relief are GRANTED.
In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified authorizing a national income tax to be implemented through the filing of individual tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service. Since that time, there has never been a legal requirement that any candidate for federal office disclose their tax returns as a precondition to standing for election. The Act, which provides in relevant part as follows, attempts to change that:
6883. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of State shall not print the name of a candidate for President of the United States on a primary election ballot, unless the candidate, at least 98 days before the presidential primary election, files with the Secretary of State copies of every income tax return the candidate filed with the Internal Revenue Service in the five most recent taxable years.
Cal. Elec. Code § 6883(a). It goes on to require the Secretary of State to publish a copy of the candidate's personal tax returns on the Secretary's publicly available website, after redacting the returns for privacy purposes. Id. at § 6884(c). Because the Act applies only to primaries and not to the general election, however, independent and certified write-in candidates are not required to disclose their tax returns as a condition of running for President. Id. at §§ 8300, 8600.
The California Legislature formally explained its justification for passing the Act in a purpose statement which reads:
[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 guide. 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.
Id. at § 6881. Despite this attempt to couch the Act as an informational device to be applied equally to all candidates, however, the legislative history and statements made by state legislators during its consideration strongly suggest it was primarily intended to force President Trump to disclose his tax returns.4 Indeed, at oral argument counsel for the State expressly conceded that the Act "was prompted by President Trump's refusal to disclose his tax return when he ran for ... office." Transcript of September 19, 2019 hearing, ECF No. 37 to Case No. 19-cv-1477-MCE-DB, 55:12-15. Likewise, State Senator Mike McGuire, who co-sponsored the Act in the California Senate, has unequivocally indicated that "it will make presidential tax returns public in [California] just in time for the 2020 election." Pl. Melendez' Mot., 19-cv-01506-MCE-DB, ECF No. 17-1, at 5:26-27; 6:5-6. McGuire has further stated that "President Trump, if he truly doesn't have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns." Id. at 5:28-6:1.
Defendants also describe the Act as having been enacted in response to President Trump's "break" from "customary practice" in choosing not to disclose his returns. See Defs.' Omnibus Opp, 3:22-24. But such production has hardly been universal. Between 1913, when income taxes were instituted, and 1973, when President Nixon opted to disclose his returns after portions were leaked, no sitting President elected to furnish his returns. Melendez Mot. at 2:21-22. In addition, Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, opted to disclose only a summary of his taxes. Id. at 2:25. Nor have presidential candidates universally released their tax filings. For example, in 1992, former California Governor Jerry Brown, then a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, elected not to disclose his returns. Ross Perot similarly declined to disclose that same year, and in 2000, Ralph Nader also decided against disclosure. Id. at 2:28-3:8. Consequently, the State's argument that the California Legislature passed the Act "to codify a custom followed by presidential candidates in the past five decades" is disingenuous. Defs.' Opp., 1:6.
Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the one other time California attempted to pass a law such as the one challenged here, shortly after President Trump's election, it was unsuccessful. More specifically, in 2017, the California Legislature passed a bill known as SB 149 that, like the Act, would have required candidates to release their returns as a precondition for appearing on the California primary ballot. In analyzing that legislation before it came to a vote, however, California's Office of the Legislative Counsel—a nonpartisan public agency— "concluded that [SB 149] would be unconstitutional if enacted." Cal. Comm. on the Judiciary Report, Senate, March 11, 2019 at 5 (citing Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 1718407 (Sept. 7, 2017)). Regardless, the Legislature approved the bill anyway and sent it to then-Governor Jerry Brown for his signature. Governor Brown then vetoed the legislation, articulating his many reservations as follows:
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?
Governor Jerry Brown, Governor's Veto Message, SB 149, available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB149. He concluded that conditioning ballot access on the disclosure of tax returns might infringe upon settled constitutional rights, stating that "[a] qualified candidate's ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system." Id. Accordingly, he "hesitate[d] to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates." Id.
Despite both Governor Brown's warning and the Legislative Counsel's earlier admonition, the lead authors of SB 149 announced their intent to reintroduce the bill when California had a new Governor. See McCarthy Decl, Case No. 2:19-cv-01501-MCE-DB, ECF No. 10-2, ¶¶ 5-6. And follow through they did, introducing the present Act on December 3, 2018, less than a month after Governor Newsom was elected to office. Like its predecessor, the Act was again denominated as "the Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act" and contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pilgrim v. Gen. Motors Co.
... ... , a Court does not need to grant leave to amend in cases where the Court determines that permitting a plaintiff to ... ...
-
Codifying Constitutional Norms
...based on current doctrine. See supra note 236. 242. See supra notes 92–98 and accompanying text. 243. See Griffin v. Padilla, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1169, 1177–81 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (discussing tax return disclosure requirements in the context of the Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, U.S. CONS......