I didn't say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications. I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling. That's exactly what he's acknowledging when Kobach says, "One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information that’s been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question," and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
If the other verifications were compelling, he wouldn't need to seek "some kind of certification." He said in what you quoted that he already inquired about that information including the MDEC letter of verification that was "in our packet." Kobach and the objections board clearly did not feel that what they aleady had was compelling. Kansas law says they are supposed to make a decision at the time of the hearing, but instead Kobach postponed any decision by the board until he could gather something more compelling. Personally, I believe they knew they didn't have a strong enough legal foundation for denying the objection as it was presented, especially in how NBC is defined, so they were trying to buy time to come up with something/anything that could get them off the hook.
“I didn’t say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications.”
Fair enough.
“I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling.”
That’s not how I read it. The only verification they had in their packet, as far as I can tell, is the copy provided as an exhibit in the objection.
“My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table.”
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. It’s not like he is saying “maybe we can get something more definitive.” Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didn’t feel their verifications were not legally compelling?