State files opposition to injunction request on tax returns for ballot access

California's new law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to appear on the primary ballot does not unjustly burden parties or bar ballot access, according to the state attorney general's opposition to collective lawsuits suing over the law.

The omnibus Sept. 5 filing in the Eastern District of California is in response to a motion for preliminary injunction by five groups of plaintiffs challenging the law, including two presidential candidates, three political organizations and eight individual voters. They argue the state law violates the U.S. Constitution's presidential qualifications clause by imposing an additional requirement for the presidency, as well as the First Amendment, by infringing upon a candidate's ballot access rights and rights against compelled speech.

"The act does not create an absolute bar on ballot access or impose a handicap on a constitutionally significant class of candidates based on any additional 'qualification' inherent in the candidate -- all candidates are capable of complying with the act," wrote Deputy Attorney General Peter H. Chang in the filing Thursday.

The office of Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the law only imposes a slight burden on parties that is outweighed by the state's interest in informing the voting public about a candidate's financial ties.

"Any slight burden imposed by the act on plaintiffs' asserted rights is justified by important -- indeed compelling -- state interests. California has a compelling interest in ensuring that its voters have fulsome and accurate information about the financial interests and business dealings of presidential primary candidates so that they may make informed decisions," wrote the attorney general's office.

The state said the law is no more stringent than ones that require candidates to resign from their jobs or obtain signatures in order to get on the ballot.

Plaintiffs argued they are burdened because not providing such disclosures would preclude them from appearing on the primary ballot. The state said that would be the result of not complying with the law, which imposes the same financial disclosure requirements on all candidates.

In response to the First Amendment argument, the state said California is not requiring candidates to "speak" or advocate any message, just disseminate accurate financial information. Nor does the law discriminate against partisan candidates versus independent candidates because the two groups are not similarly situated in their path to the presidency, according to the state.

Sacramento U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. is presiding over the matter.

-- Justin Kloczko