[EL] limit on voters’ informational interest [was: California apparently becomes first state to require pres candidates to show income tax returns

[Bill Maurer]

David,

The most relevant discussion of which I am familiar in the courts is Justice Alito’s concurrence in Doe v. Reed. He said,

The implications of accepting such an argument are breathtaking. Were we to accept respondents’ asserted informational interest, the State would be free to require petition signers to disclose all kinds of demographic information, including the signer’s race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation, ethnic background, and interest-group memberships. Requiring such disclosures, however, runs headfirst into a half century of our case law, which firmly establishes that individuals have a right to privacy of belief and association. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/47/index.html>, 69 (2006); Brown, supra, at 91; Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64; DeGregory v. Attorney General of N. H., 383 U. S. 825<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/825/index.html>, 829 (1966); Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U. S. 539<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/539/index.html>, 544 (1963); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449<https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/449/index.html>, 462 (1958). Indeed, the State’s informational interest paints such a chilling picture of the role of government in our lives that at oral argument the Washington attorney general balked when confronted with the logical implications of accepting such an argument, conceding that the State could not require petition signers to disclose their religion or ethnicity. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37, 56.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/186/concurrence2.html.

Bill

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of D. A. Holtzman
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 2:10 PM
To: Richard Winger; Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] limit on voters’ informational interest [was: California apparently becomes first state to require pres candidates to show income tax returns

In the veto message, Gov. Jerry Brown wondered how far election law should go with the “because voters want to see the information” interest.

Concerned with a possible “‘slippery slope’” effect, he wrote, “Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?  Five years of health records?  A certified birth certificate?  High school report cards?”

Forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but please indulge my curiosity.  Have the courts established a test for deciding whether a government has taken “voters’ informational interest” too far in the context of election law?  If so, what’s the test?

(Years back I heard a law professor talk up the informational interest, and I think she said the question of whether it was sufficient to support a disclosure law hadn’t been settled.)

  - dah


On 10/16/2017 4:07 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
The governor vetoed the bill: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-trump-tax-returns-veto-jerry-brown-1508092026-htmlstory.html

Rick Hasen
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com><mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 10:48:43 PM
To: Election Law Listserv
Subject: [EL] California apparently becomes first state to require pres candidates to show income tax returns

http://ballot-access.org/2017/10/15/apparently-california-has-become-the-first-state-to-require-presidential-candidates-to-reveal-their-tax-returns/

Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147




_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




--

  --

Acceptable candidates, in the order you prefer them:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

(...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171016/ff99aa73/attachment.html>