Editor:

I have no problem with presidential candidates sharing their tax returns but if the IRS hasn't flagged the return, I won't pretend to know more about complex tax law than the IRS. Since Trump's returns haven't been flagged, can we assume the IRS knows its business? Legally, he's within his right to provide nothing. But for those who think Trump is colluding with the IRS, enter Senate Bill 27, a piece of legislation targeted at candidate Donald Trump. Down the slippery slope former Gov. Jerry Brown warned us about (NCJ Daily, Aug. 8).

Written by anti-Trumpers, S.B. 27 amounts to voter suppression rights at the highest level of state government. S.B. 27 imposes law that only a constitutional amendment can codify as rule of law. Ignorant of rule of law per the U.S. Constitution, S.B. 27 got 29 ayes to 10 noes in the California Senate. Check out Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution's qualifications clause and the First Amendment's free speech and free association rights.

S.B. 27 violates these and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. No president or state government can unilaterally alter the basic requirements of the office of the president.

In 2011 Arizona tried to disqualify Obama with "birther" legislation and lost, all because the state tried to create new requirements on the presidency. The purpose of these legal moves is to delegitimize a sitting president and to disenfranchise voters.

State Sens. Scott Wiener and Mike McGuire, co-authors of S.B. 27, call it "tradition" that candidates publicly share tax returns, yet only eight out of 45 presidents have done so. Their "tradition" roughly corresponds to their own years on Earth; both are under 50. As an Independent, I'm not against asking for tax returns but reject all state level efforts outright.

Franklin Stover, Eureka