There are other possibilities.
States require special physical exams for older drivers above a certain age. They could require presidential candidates above 75 undergo a physical exam that proves that they are mentally competent. The results of the exam would be public.
Still an apples to oranges comparison. The California law applies to all candidates, your scenario only applies to specific candidates. Any āphysical requirementā would have to apply to all candidates.
Requiring people above a certain age to pass a physical exam applies equally to all candidates.
Arguably cognitive functioning is at least as important for being commander and chief as for driving a car. There is constitutional right to travel, yet many states have special requirements for senior drivers. There is no similar right to appear on a ballot.
Im just saying it would get slapped down. Thereās absolutely nothing stopping Trump from willingly providing the information California requested. The same cannot be said with your scenario
Would never get past an age discrimination challenge. Try again.
If it gets ridiculous enough for the Supreme Court to step in, there will be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to destroy a lot of ballot access laws that exist to exclude third party candidates right now.
Go all in.
Yes, please.
I could see a huge advantage there. A lot of people who may not realize they have more than 2 choices would suddenly realize they donāt have to vote for the crappy candidates the 2 major parties keep giving us.
Technically? It has always been that way. You votes for electors. And the electors elect the president and Vice President.
Allan
What a shock this would come from California! 
No. Many states impose mandatory retirement ages for judges at 75, and private companies can have mandatory retirement ages for senior executives.
https://www.beavandenberk.com/articles/can-you-force-retirement/
A fundamental question is whether states can create constraints on ballot access for the presidential elections. If courts allow the California law to stand, I see no reason why other states could enact any number of other requirements.
Presidential elections are arguably a special case since elections are not required and states are free to select electors by whatever means they choose:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .
Theoretically electors could be selected by public auction or mud-wrestling tournament.
Thereās nothing preventing him from jumping through any hoops the state of California wishes to set up. However, releasing your personal documents is not listed in the Constitution as a requirement for becoming President.
Remember, red states could play this sort of game, too.
And lets not pretend access to the ballot isnāt the same as saying who you can vote for as President. It is effectively the same.
As a practical matter, as long as it stays in states like California it doesnāt much matter. What are the chances Trump will carry California?
They are welcome to do whatever they feel necessary.
Itās not. Washington, Illinois and New York are among the states following suit
Not really. I voted for Evan McMullin for president in 2016, and he wasnāt even on the ballot in GA. This type of thing happens all the time.
The only reason the people on the ballot get more votes is because most voters are too lazy to do their research to investigate all their options.
However, if someone wants to challenge that in court and eliminate all barriers to ballot access, Iād be all for that. Iād love to have 20 options for each office on the ballot so that people could easily see all their choices and not have to write candidates in.
The California bill that Governor Newsom just signed is stupid and likely Unconstitutional.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
"The only requirement that state should have is the person who is running for office swear or affirm:
- That they are a Natural Born Citizen.
- That they are 35 years of age or older.
- That they have been a resident of the United States for 14 years
The only other things I would agree to: A small registration fee (less than 1,000 dollar) or a petition signed by 1,000 people.
No other requirements are needed (and my last two are sketchy at best)"
Or, better still:
There should be no requirement for ballot status at all, other than just meeting the requirements already in the law, to be eligible to hold the office.
There should be no requirement to obtain signatures on a petition.
All seeking the office should be granted equal ballot access by just registering their candidacy.
It would be OK to charge a small filing fee, but it could be waved if the candidate declares poverty.
With modern technology, itās now possible to offer an unlimited number of candidates on the ballot.
Or also, there could be NO NAMES of candidates on the ballot, but just a box into which the candidateās number is placed by the voter (each candidate is assigned a number). If the voter is too stupid to know the candidateās number, then s/he shouldnāt vote.
