So, an update:
Justices question why Democrat Chad Taylor can t withdraw from Senate race The Wichita Eagle
The KS Supreme Court heard the oral arguments over this case yesterday. I thnk this would be interesting for all members of USMB to read, because it is pretty historic. And it could set precendent for the future, and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way.
Kansas Supreme Court justices grilled Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s attorney at a special court hearing Tuesday about whether Democrat Chad Taylor should remain on the ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate.
Taylor’s suit to remove his name from the ballot is unprecedented in the state.
Republicans see Taylor’s attempt to withdraw as a not-so-covert plan by national Democrats to boost Greg Orman’s independent candidacy against Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts in November. Democrats say that Kobach, a supporter of Roberts, has overstepped his bounds as secretary of state to keep Taylor on the ballot against his will.
The suit hinges on whether Taylor adhered to a statute that requires candidates to declare that they are incapable of serving in order to withdraw.
Earlier this month, Kobach determined that Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County, failed to do that in a letter he submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office on Sept. 3, the deadline to withdraw.
Pedro Irigonegaray, Taylor’s attorney, argued that Kobach lacked the legal authority to make that determination because the statute does not specifically say that it’s up to the secretary of state to decide whether candidates have met the standard.
He also contended that the statute does not specifically say the declaration has to be in writing.
Edward Greim, who represented Kobach, argued that as the top election officer, Kobach has the power and duty to enforce the statute.
“If it (the declaration) could be made at home to someone’s goldfish, then the statute is meaningless,” Greim said....
...Justice Carol Beier cut in with a question about another letter submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office by Miranda Rickel, a House candidate who withdrew from a race in District 5 this year.
Rickel described in her letter how juggling jobs and college classes made it “nearly impossible” to mount a campaign.
“Her letter says it will be ‘nearly impossible’…she does not say ‘incapable,’ ” Beier said.
Greim said the letter contained facts that were tantamount to a declaration of incapability, but Irigonegaray said Rickel’s letter showed that she was incapable of running, not of serving.
Justice Dan Biles also questioned whether Rickel’s letter had been properly notarized, another requirement of the statute. Her letter was stamped by a notary, but unlike Taylor’s letter, the notary did not note whether the letter was signed in front of her
Biles said enforcement of this requirement appeared “loosey goosey.”
...Kobach said all Taylor had to do to withdraw was say “the magical words” or give a reason for his incapability.
“For whatever reason, Mr. Taylor has not made that declaration,” Kobach said. “I don’t know what his reason is. I’ve never heard him answer any questions to a reporter to what the reason is…I’m waiting with bated breath to see it in print.”
Taylor left the courtroom quickly after the hearing and did not answer questions from reporters.
Irigonegaray contended that Taylor’s letter, which requests his name be withdrawn from the ballot “pursuant to” the statute, does constitute a declaration.
“What else would the words ‘pursuant to’ mean?” Irigonegaray asked the court. He said the letter “clearly indicated an inability to fulfill the duties of office.”
Justice Eric Rosen was skeptical of this argument.
“Isn’t this statute here to prevent what we’re arguing?” Rosen said, pointing out that the statute requires a candidate to be dead or incapable of serving to come off the ballot....
...Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine, who watched the proceedings via webstream, said he thinks that despite Rosen’s skepticism the justices probably will side with Taylor’s attorney and say that citing the statute satisfied the base requirements.--
...Chief Justice Lawton Nuss suggested that it would disenfranchise voters to keep on the ballot a candidate who has stated in an affidavit that he will not serve if elected. Republicans have contended that allowing Taylor to withdraw would disenfranchise the Democrats who voted in the primary.
This point seemed particularly important to Keen Umbehr, an Alma attorney and the Libertarian candidate for governor, who attended the proceedings as an observer.
“For a lawyer, this is like going to a Super Bowl,” said Umbehr, who thought it was pretty clear that Taylor’s side had gotten the better of Kobach’s in the courtroom.
Ballot timeline
The court is expected to issue a decision quickly; ballots must be printed this week in order to be mailed to absentee voters by Saturday. But a ruling might not end the drama.
A separate statute says that when a vacancy occurs after the primary, it “shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be.”
Kobach said that his office would insist that Democrats appoint a replacement candidate. ...
Now, aside from the politics of this, I think the court case is indeed fascinating to watch.
Probably the key part of the quote in this article is from the Chief Justice of the KSSC. I think that pretty much gives an indication of where this is going.
I think the Right has some strong arguments in this and also consider that all the time, energy and money spent into getting a nomination and securing the support of voters is something that people should not take lightly.
But on the other side, the statute does not specific
exactly what constitutes being incapable of performing the duties of an office.
I bet that after the election, we will be seeing KS lawmakers addending or re-writing this statute.
Probably the most damning part is that Kobach accepted that other letter from Miranda Rickel, who withdrew from the race in KS-House-05, and it appears that her letter also did not have the word "incapable" and was also not properly notarized. Rickel, btw, is a Democrat, which means that her withdrawal guarantees the GOP that incumbent Republican Kevin Jones, who won this seat by only 5 points in 2012, will automatically be re-elected. So, for better or worse, by not being so picky about Rickel's withdrawal letter, KS SOS Kris Kobach looks extremely partisan, for by accepting her letter in spite of two "flaws", the outcome benefits the GOP.
But on a more practical level, EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED, the press around Kobach's actions actually RAISES the awareness among Democratic voters to
not vote for Taylor and they are, if the newest PPP (D) poll is to be believed, moving to Independent Orman very fast. So, even if Taylor's name does stay on the ballot, he will probably only get 5% at most and Orman is very, very likely to unseat Republican Incumbent Roberts, either way.
Gee, I hate to sound like a broken record, but the reason why we sometimes see antics like this is because of the reasons I listed in this long thread called:
Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Once again, because of Federalism, since the actual
nuts-and-bolts of electioneering (how to conduct elections uniformly thoughout our Union) are not expressly written into the US-Constitution, each state gets to decide how to do things. Talk about worthless redundancy. Wow.
My PERSONAL feeling on this is that Democrat Taylor should not have withdrawn from the race. But the LAW in KS allows him to.
This reminds me alot of the famous 1991 Lousiana gubernatorial, where in the first election in October (Louisiana has a runoff system if a candidate does not get over 50%), it was essentially a three-way tie between Democratic challenger Edwin Edwards, Republican mega-racist David Duke and the actual incumbent Republican in the race but one who had just switched parties from D to R in the spring, Buddy Roemer.
Roemer came in third in the October jungle-primary and, sensing that Duke could actually win the election in the runoff, Roemer threw his support to his erstwhile opponent Edwards, who had indeed been convicted of some crimes, with ads and billboards that said
"vote for the crook, it's important". Edwards then went on to win with over 60% of the vote.
No, I am not saying that Roberts in Kansas is a crook. But there are some similar dynamics here.
