They know Gov. Christie is going to veto it, so I don't know why they bothered.

Maybe legislators wanted to "send a message," but if that was the case, I'm pretty sure the intended message receiver didn't give a hoot.

The resentment had been building for months, of course, as then-presidential candidate Donald Trump sometimes said his income tax returns would be released when the IRS audit was completed and sometimes said his tax was none of our business. After his election, he got even more defiant about it and said things like, "I'm president anyway" and hoped questions would go away.

But Americans - especially Democrats - were furious and curious and tried all sorts of things to get their hands on some information. A copy of a very old filing was leaked to the press, some say by the President himself, but didn't come close to providing current information.

New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell was repeatedly rebuffed trying to use parliamentary techniques to get his hands on some information, and a few independently filed lawsuits were quickly tossed out of court because the plaintiffs had no standing.

So New Jersey legislators - or at least the Democratic ones - joined about 17 other states introducing bills that would prevent any candidate from getting a spot on a presidential ballot unless she or he had released at least five years of income tax returns. It moved quickly through the 80-member Assembly, which voted 48-26, mostly along party lines. Same thing happened in the 40-member Senate with a 24-11 vote, some legislators obviously sitting on their hands.

New York and other states are considering similar bills, but New Jersey's was the first one to pass. It went to the governor on March 16. The only question in my mind is how long he'll wait before vetoing it with a flourish.

During the legislative debates about the bill in Trenton, Republican Minority Leader Jon Bramnick, Westfield, argued it was partisan. Well, duh, yes it was. But that doesn't mean it wasn't reasonable. Every previous presidential candidate had released returns. Sometimes the information wasn't detailed and sometimes copies weren't handed out, but there was always enough to persuade the public the contender had paid taxes and hadn't been dealing illegally with foreign governments or known bad guys.

Republican Assemblyman Jay Webber, Parsippany, made a better argument. He said the US constitution spells out the requirements for presidential candidates and doesn't leave any room for individual states to add other stipulations. However, bill sponsor Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Madison, noted that different constitutional scholars offer differing opinions of the constitutionality of that kind of legislation.

Bramnick then suggested the requirement apply to all candidates for New Jersey Governor and Legislature, too. A few legislators blanched, probably thinking more about past or pending divorces than foreign entanglements, but the suggestion went nowhere.

Assembly Speaker Prieto, D-Secaucus, admitted the governor was likely to veto the bill, but he pointed out the Legislature might try to override the veto. Although there probably wouldn't be enough votes for an override (2/3 of the members,) voting no might embarrass some Republicans facing strong opponents this election year.

All they need to do is reintroduce the bill at the very start of the next session in January and I am confident the next governor will sign it. If President Trump wants to run for reelection in New Jersey in 2020, he'll have to comply. But maybe he won't care then either. Might be pragmatic enough to say, "I didn't win that state anyway. Let 'em go."

EDITOR'S NOTE: A former assemblywoman from Jersey City, Joan Quigley is the president and CEO of the North Hudson Community Action Corp.