To the editor: Politics surely played the role in demanding tax returns for President Trump for California’s March 3, 2020, primary election ballot. However, I decidedly differ with George Skelton’s analysis.
Despite the legalese of his argument about disclosure, the California and American people absolutely need to know as much as possible about the candidates they support. Would patients go to a physician who has a lurid history of unethical behavior or an arm’s length of malpractice suits? They can visit the California Medical Board. Need a contractor? Visit the California contractor site. Yet we entrust candidates with our treasured votes and know very little about their history.
Paul Milberg, Woodland Hills
To the editor: Yet again, the Los Angeles Times gets it wrong regarding Gov. Newsom’s decision to sign Senate Bill 27.
SB 27 has been interpreted as constitutional by some of our nation’s foremost constitutional lawyers, including Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. The challenges to the law are motivated by partisanship and the desire to shield Donald Trump from any accountability for his conflicts of interest, violations of the Emoluments Clause, and other crimes that he has possibly committed.
Instead of echoing Republican talking points, the Los Angeles Times should be supporting the utilization of every possible legal tool in order to hold this lawless administration accountable.
Joshua Steele, Studio City
To the editor: As long as a person can write in a candidate on their ballot, the law requiring the release of tax returns for inclusion on the ballot should be allowed. But my suggestion is that anyone running for an office that has veto powers should release at least their last three years’ returns, especially if they were in an elected or appointed office prior. This would give us some insight into their character and official behavior.
Jack Tatham, Irvine