Posted on 09/16/2014 11:42:35 AM PDT by centurion316
Oral argument in the Kansas Supreme Court has now completed in the case of Kobach v. Taylor, on the question whether Taylor’s name can be removed from the Kansas U.S. Senate ballot. The issue is especially important with incumbent Republican Senator Pat Roberts now trailing independent Greg Orman in recent polling and with the fate of the Senate potentially hanging in the balance.
While it is always hazardous to predict outcomes from oral argument (because Justices sometimes ask rhetorical questions or minds change after argument), I think it is likely the Justices will quickly issue an order removing Taylor’s name from the ballot. Nothing is a sure thing, but enough of the Justices speaking seemed to indicate their belief that Taylor should be allowed to withdraw because Taylor’s declaration of withdrawal complied with the statute (by stating he was withdrawing “pursuant to” the statute even if he did not mention the magic words of withdrawal), or substantially complied with the statute, or he complied because only the request to withdraw but not the declaration of incapability needs to be in writing, or because Kobach lacked the discretion to judge if the letter complied, or because the court should view Taylor’s declaration as complying with the statute to avoid the risk of voter confusion.
Much of the discussion at oral argument concerned other letters of withdrawal which the SOS had received in recent years, including some earlier letters which were submitted (late) to the court. It seems to show a pattern of the SOS exercising discretion in deciding which letters complied. The Justices seemed to get Kobach’s lawyer to admit that substantial compliance may sometimes be enough. With that concession, there is a relatively easy path to finding the letter substantially complied.
Nothing in the argument seemed to turn on whether Taylor received incorrect assurances that the letter was accurate from someone in the Secretary of State’s office. It looks like the Court will avoid the disputed factual issue by finding that the letter (substantially) complied with statutory requirements.
If the Court does allow Taylor’s name to be removed from the ballot, what is not clear is what happens to naming a replacement. As I understand it the name must come from a party convention, but the ballots must begin being printed on Saturday.
The fix is in, apparently.
Wow.. who’d have thought Kansas of all places would be turning blue...
Sad, but not unexpected considering the Sebelius packed court. I have no doubt this was all planned, including the late date as so they don’t have time to name another candidate.
CGato
I hope not, I hope my fellow Kansans see through all the shenanigans, in order to try to help Harry Reid in power. Eff that.
CGato
If they do the it'll probably because of this admission on the part of the Secretary of State's attorney: "The Justices seemed to get Kobach’s lawyer to admit that substantial compliance may sometimes be enough. With that concession, there is a relatively easy path to finding the letter substantially complied."
It really doesn't matter. Everyone in the state knows Taylor has resigned; he's down to 6% in the latest polls and dropping fast. In fact it might be less advantageous to the Dems if the court orders his name removed AND force the Dems to name a replacement. That would be more confusing.
LOL. The Dems don't want any Dem nominee on the ballot.
How can they force the Dems to put someone else on the ballot? Senator Sessions is running unopposed in AL.
Why can’t Kobach and the governor ignore the ruling if it clearly violates the law? If they do not nullify a ruling removing Taylor, then they are accepting tyranny. What is to stop the court from just “ruling” that all handguns are illegal and violate the 2nd Amendment?
Kansas has a statute that requires them to do this. The reason for these statutes is that both political parties in Kansas were putting forward straw candidates for the state legislature in the primaries. After the primary was over, the straw candidate would withdraw and the party would replace them with the candidate of their choice, ensuring that the name on the ticket for the general was the party's choice and not some nug selected by the voters.
Because the Kansas Supreme Court has rewritten the law. Kobach must now follow the law as written by the Sebelius Supreme Court. It's almost as good as the Stalin arrangement: It doesn't matter who casts the votes, all that matters is who counts the vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.