Tax return bill doesn’t trump constitutional rights

The state law privilege protecting tax returns from disclosure noted the July 31 story titled "Tax return bill, aimed at the president, faces court battle," is a privacy interest founded in the California Constitution (Cal. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 1), and a statute like Senate Bill 27 doesn't trump (pardon the pun) a constitutional right. If it is argued that President Donald Trump doesn't have rights under the California Constitution, then because the governor (who is also subject to the disclosure requirement) obviously does, it may run afoul of the cases that say states can't discriminate against the federal government (e.g., North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 435 (1990). See See, e.g., Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985).

California's protection for tax returns is "to encourage voluntary filing of tax returns and truthful reporting of income, and thus to facilitate tax collection" (Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy, LLP, 30 Cal. App. 5th 1087, 1098 (2019)), and courts consider it to be a "legally protected privacy interest." Id. The purpose of the privilege: "is to facilitate tax enforcement by encouraging a taxpayer to make full and truthful declarations in his return, without fear that his statements will be revealed or used against him for other purposes. If the information can be secured by forcing the taxpayer to produce a copy of his return, the primary legislative purpose of the secrecy provisions will be defeated. The effect of the statutory prohibition is to render the returns privileged, and the privilege should not be nullified by permitting third parties to obtain the information by adopting the indirect procedure of demanding copies of the tax returns." Webb v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Cal. 2d 509, 513 (1957), See also Schnabel v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 704, 721-23 (1993); Weingarten v. Superior Court, 102 Cal. App. 4th 268, 274 (2002).

Besides setting a bad example which might cause other potential candidates who could incur the displeasure of a one-party legislature and governor to not voluntarily and/or accurately disclose their incomes, SB 27 may allow President Trump to allege a violation of the California Constitution, and the refreshingly transparent, but constitutionally doubtful, process and purpose for adopting SB 27 may give federal judges occasion to take a look at the "mental processes of the [] decision makers" to see if there is any "bad faith or improper behavior" behind the legislation. See generally Dept. of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2573-74 (2019).

On the issue of Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion in United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1994), his oft-quoted, iconic description of our "Republican Form of government" (U.S. Const. Art. IV, sec. 4): "Federalism was our Nation's own discovery. The Framers split the atom of sovereignty" (id.), leads to his conclusion that "the National Government is, and must be, controlled by the people without collateral interference from the States." Id. at 841. After noting the constitutional provisions that give States some authority over federal elections (including the power to appoint the electors who elect the president), he goes on to say: "Nothing in the Constitution or The Federalist Papers, however, supports the idea of state interference in the most basic relation between the National Government and its citizens, the selection of legislative representatives." Id. at 842. It isn't much of a stretch to apply that reasoning to a presidential primary.