From twitter

BREAKING: Maryland is on the verge of passing a law requiring all Presidential candidates to release their past 5 years of tax returns in order to be placed on the election ballot. This means Trump would be required to do so in 2020 if he wants to try & earn Maryland's 10 votes!

Is this likely to hold up in the SCOTUS if it passes? Can states place restrictions on presidential candidacy? Or does ballot access give them a carte blanche to do anything they want?

  • kind of unrelated, but this wouldn't really matter even if Maryland does pass the law (which I'm skeptical they would anyways). Maryland is completely democratic, It hasn't voted for a republican presidential candidate in...so long I can't say when the last time they did it was. It would do Trump no harm to not be listed as a candidate in Maryland since he wouldn't win Maryland anyways. I would still welcome the law in principle, for the future it's probably a good thing to have. – dsollen Mar 5 '18 at 17:33

The election for the president is the Electoral college. You are talking about how a state chooses its electors, and this is a matter for the state.

The people in Maryland get to choose between the various candidates who have qualified to be on the ballot. The winner of the election in Maryland gets to choose who he or she wants to represent Maryland in the electoral college. This is all controlled by State Law. The constitution just requires that states choose electors.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Note that this doesn't even mandate presidential elections. It would be constitutional for the legislature of Maryland to simply ask the Governor to pick 10 people.

The only other appropriate part of the constitution is the 24th amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

However, this is about the right to vote, not the right to stand.

In short, the constitution allows the states wide freedom to run presidential elections in the manner that they see fit. The choice of who appears on the ballot is a matter for Maryland Law. It would be possible to challenge the law in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. But there does not appear to be a breach of the US constitution in asking for tax returns.

  • 1
    I don't think the question is about the choice of electors, but about restricting the choices those electors can make. If they decided to vote for Trump anyway, what would happen? – André Paramés Mar 4 '18 at 23:09
  • That again would be a matter for Maryland state law. Pledge laws are constitutional and allow a state to penalize an elector for voting for a candidate other that that they are pledged to vote for. Maryland has no such law. A faithless elector could vote for Trump. However this question is about who gets on the ballot to choose electors, not about who those electors vote for. Either way, it is a matter for state law. – James K Mar 5 '18 at 0:22

Speaking as someone who was a voter in Maryland in 2016, Trump did not get our 10 votes to begin with... so yeah.

In terms of the United States Constitution, the only requirements for a President are that the person must be at least 35 years old AND must be a Natural Birth U.S. Citizen (i.e. Born in the United States, or to parents who are U.S. Citizens but were born out of country, or in territory that has since become a part of the United States.). Their tax info has nothing to do with it.

Thus far, no state has passed a similar law (Republicans did write some bills requiring Birth Certificates from candidates during the Obama years that went nowhere). The key here is that the law will not only be challenged in SCOTUS (the very reason the MD Senate didn't pass the bill during 2017) and could open the door to further restrictions in other states.


Let's go to the text, specifically the 12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify …

This appears to give the electors freedom to "vote by ballot." A State can certainly control how its electors are chosen. But I think it's an open question whether or not it can put this particular requirement on to how said electors should vote. Requirements that the electors respect the will of the voters have not been overturned. But other requirements (such as requiring that the electors vote for a member of a particular party) would likely not be upheld. This question lies in a middle ground, and I don't think it's easy to predict what the courts might say. They have found a right to privacy in the Constitution, for example; would this violate it? I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Furthermore, even if a State does require its electors to vote a certain way, there have been plenty of examples where the electors have not followed that requirement. In such a case, the text of the Constitution appears to say that the elector's actual vote is what matters:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole…

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.