Donald Trump. Courtesy photo: White House

California’s new law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to qualify for the primary election does not conflict with state constitutional provisions that give the secretary of state authority to set the ballot, lawyers for the state said in a filing in the California Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Representing Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Deputy Attorney General Jay Russell said Article II of California’s Constitution gives the Legislature the power to “provide for” partisan presidential primary elections.

“The text of section 5(c) does not instruct, as petitioners contend, that all ‘recognized’ candidates must be on the ballot by virtue of the sole fact that they are ‘recognized,’ Russell wrote in the court filing. “Indeed, the text of article II, section 5(c) allows for a circumstance where a ‘recognized’ candidate is left off of the ballot, consistent with the neutral criteria that the Legislature” adopted with a bill this year requiring presidential and gubernatorial candidates to show their taxes, he said.

The California Republican Party and its chairwoman, Jessica Millan Patterson, filed suit last week to block enforcement of the tax-returns requirement. The measure, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on July 30, is aimed at forcing President Donald Trump to reveal five years of income tax documents, something he has refused to do since announcing his run for office in 2015.

Judge Morrison England Jr. Photo: ALM

The state Supreme Court challenge is separate from three similar lawsuits that were recently consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. of the Easter District of California, presiding over the three cases, has scheduled a Sept. 19 hearing to consider motions for a preliminary injunction.

Another suit challenging the state law is pending in federal court in California’s Southern District.

Russell and a team of lawyers for the state, including fellow deputy attorney general Chad Stegeman, argued in Wednesday’s filing that the Republican plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue.

“Both petitioners allege that without a writ of mandate, they will incur irreparable injury by the ‘likely absence of national-known candidates from the ballot,’” Russell wrote. “They further allege—without factual support—that the law’s purpose ‘may have been to suppress’ voting for Republican candidates, both for president and for ‘down ballot’ offices.”

Those harms are speculative, the California state lawyers said. “If most or all potentially recognizable candidates comply with the law, petitioners’ feared harm will not occur,” they argued.

The state’s lawyers also contend the California Supreme Court may not be the proper venue for the case. The Legislature has made Sacramento County Superior Court the “exclusive” venue for ballot challenges naming the secretary of state, Russell wrote.

Even if the high court decides that it has proper jurisdiction over the case, the state’s brief said, there is no need to issue for justices to issue an immediate stay. Candidates have until Nov. 26, 2019 to comply with the disclosure law, according to the secretary of state.

The California Republican Party and Patterson have until Friday to respond to the state’s filing. The state Republicans are represented by the Sacramento law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk.