The Green Party’s candidate for Governor of California, Rudolph “Butch” Ware, cannot get on the state’s ballot because, he alleges, the Secretary of State will not accept his submitted tax returns. But what do tax returns have to do with ballot access? NTUF in its latest amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief argues that California’s financial disclosure requirements violate federal law.
Under California Election Code §§ 8902 and 8903, candidates who wish to be on the ballot must submit copies of their tax returns for the past 5 years—longer than the term of office for governor. That’s shocking, given that elections run just fine without this draconian disclosure demand in the 49 other states over the course of our history.
More importantly, there is a vital taxpayer interest in financial privacy and the government interest in upholding that privacy to foster compliance. Disclosure of tax returns to Richard Nixon and other political actors compelled Congress to strengthen privacy protections in Internal Revenue Code § 6103, and a host of other legal provisions. These act as a safeguard against disclosure of sensitive information for political gain. Since the state cannot directly get the information from the IRS, it seeks to make candidates provide the documents as a precondition to engaging in public life.
The state has not explained why its new disclosure regime satisfies the exacting scrutiny standard demanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for forced financial disclosure regimes. Nor has it offered explanation as to why forcing disclosure of 5 years of tax returns strikes the right balance in furthering an asserted governmental interest. Nor has it provided a limiting principle that will prevent this new demand from creeping beyond the Green Party candidate for Governor to the mom running for school board embarrassed that her income is too high or low, or indeed any citizen who wants to influence the democratic process.
If this issue sounds familiar, it is because the Supreme Court of California dealt with a similar mandate against Donald Trump when he sought reelection for president. In that case, the state supreme court found that California’s constitution precluded banning Mr. Trump based on the tax return disclosure law. The court held that the state constitution makes clear “it is the voters who must decide” whether a presidential candidate’s refusal “to make such [tax] information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box.” The legislature cannot ban a presidential candidate because he refuses to disclose his tax returns.
Mr. Ware’s case is similar, but, because he is seeking state office rather than the presidency, the California Secretary of State is still demanding Mr. Ware provide a half-decade’s worth of tax returns. He tried to comply, but the Secretary of State’s office still kept him off the ballot. After trying to get quick relief in state court, he is now seeking federal court review of the tax return disclosure law.
If California may force disclosure of private financial information as a condition of running for office, it will have a chilling effect on protected First Amendment activity. While forced disclosure of financial information to tax authorities serves an obvious important governmental interest, that is not the case with forced disclosure to the Secretary of State or the Attorney General. Our tax returns are not meant to be fodder for politics. They instead are meant to be private so that a fair accounting can be done.
Because every citizen has a right to financial privacy, California’s disclosure demand must satisfy the exacting scrutiny standard. It does not, and, for that reason, the federal court should invalidate the remaining part of the statute not already invalidated by the state supreme court, and grant Mr. Ware his requested relief.
The case is Ware v. Weber, No. 2:26-cv-01643 (E.D. Cal.).