California Governor Gavin Newsom welcomed a politically explosive and legally dubious attempt to get rid of President Donald Trump's tax returns, and signed a bill that would dissuade Trump from California's mainstream if he did not release his papers.
For Democrats With absolute control over Sacramento, the move provided an opportunity to send a president, deeply unpopular with most Californian voters, directly to the country u confront – and for Newsom, escalate his long-standing feud with the president while he sets himself apart from governor. Jerry Brown, who vested a similar vow safely in 2017.
Continuing the story below
Newsom rarely hesitates to beat Trump, and attacks the president on Twitter, while the California Department of Justice government over dozens of guidelines challenges. Before Newsom became governor, he regularly called Trump for failing to disclose his tax returns, alleging that Trump had hidden harmful information.
If the developments in Washington are signs of this, a legal challenge is almost inevitable. Trump sued House Democrats, who were subpoenaing his tax returns, and challenged New York officials who passed a law that could disclose the president's financial records. could jeopardize California's relationship with Washington.
In his signing message, Newsom wrote that in "extraordinary times" state civil servants have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure that leaders who aspire to highest office fulfill minimum standards. and to restore public confidence. "
" This law should be a national standard, "Newsom wrote, underscoring his longstanding drive to position California as a role model for antitrumpism, which helped make Newsom a national
The logic, the Newsoms Arguing the argument was consistent with the Governor's repeated remarks in recent years that public transparency T forces Hull to release his tax returns, he repeatedly suggested that Trump "hide" harmful information and write that Trump's "Finance is a House of Cards"
By signing the bill, Newsom overturned its predecessor, Brown, who vetoed a similar bill in 2017 over constitutional hurdles and the danger of political conflict escalating, while Brown Trump was largely hostile, especially to the attitude of Government on climate change – he was considered more cautious and moderate than Newsom.
Tim Murtaugh, Trump's campaign official, declined to comment on an upcoming legal challenge, but said in an e-mail that the law was unconstitutional – and he reiterated Brown's warning that states are now being encouraged to do so could, for example, force the release of patient records.
Because President and States can not add any additional requirements themselves, Murtaugh said. The bill also violates the First Amendment right of association, as California can not tell political parties which candidates its members can vote in a primary vote or not.
While the draft law was driving through the democratically-dominated Californian legislature with little friction, it incited an angry man to respond by marginalized California Republicans accusing their colleagues of dissolving conflicts. Jessica Millan Patterson, the leader of the Republican Party in California, has described Newsom in a statement as "clearly unconstitutional."
Tax money to litigate instead of working with Republicans to find ways to cut living costs, help our schools, and make our roads safer, "Patterson said.
In a statement to POLITICO, Newsom said last week that he had done so "received a number" of opinions "as absolutely unconstitutional".
Newsom nodded because of the likelihood of a lawsuit and cited in his signing the statements of legal experts. The constitutional scholar and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the UC Berkeley School of Law considered that the measure would have a legal basis. "It does not prevent a candidate from voting as long as he or she meets a simple requirement to provide critical information to Californian voters," said Chemerinsky.
Newsom published tax information when he ran for the governor last year, which shows more transparency than Brown, who rejected requests for details of his financial interests.