Legal questions complicate Dem's exit from Kansas Senate race

The Hill ^ | September 03, 2014 | Alexandra Jaffe

[Second Amendment First]

Despite filing papers with the Kansas secretary of State withdrawing from the Senate race late Wednesday, Democrat Chad Taylor may be stuck on the ballot this fall.

Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot, and, if so, whether Democrats must ultimately choose a candidate to replace him.

Kansas Republican Party Executive Director Clay Barker told The Hill that Taylor is now back on the secretary of State’s list of general election candidates, while a legal team analyzes the statutes.

One statute declares that, except under specific circumstances, “no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office may” withdraw their name from the ballot after Primary Day.

Those circumstances include death, and if a nominee “declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected…by a request in writing.”

While Taylor did submit a request in writing to the secretary of State’s office withdrawing his nomination and asking to be withdrawn from the ballot pursuant to that same statute, the letter makes no claim that the candidate would be unable to fulfill his duties if elected.

But if the secretary of State does decide that Taylor’s name can be removed from the ballot, Democrats may still need to put up a candidate to replace him. A second statute declares that “when a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be.”

Either requirement could complicate Democrats’ chances of defeating Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) this fall, which improved with Taylor’s decision to exit the race.

Kansas Democrats have been encouraging him to drop out for weeks, wary that he’d split the anti-Roberts vote with independent Greg Orman and allow Roberts to eke out a win.

They were also concerned that Taylor’s personal baggage, from a discrimination suit and his refusal to prosecute domestic assault cases, could not only cost them their shot at the Senate seat, but hurt the party’s candidates downballot.

And Orman is better-poised to run a strong general election campaign, having raised about five times as much as Taylor since entering the race in June. Democrats were also hopeful Orman could overcome the red lean of the state by running as an independent.

But if Taylor is stuck on the ballot, those concerns about his baggage return. And if Democrats are required to choose a replacement for him, there’s again the chance their candidate could split any opposition vote with Orman and deliver Roberts a win.

[Political Junkie Too]

Mississippi has the same law. You cannot drop out of a race after being duly nominated solely because you think you will lose. The Mississippi statute calls it "for political reasons."

Of course, Democrats are never held to these election rules.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Meant to add, Democrats are never held to these election rules, in the name of "giving voters a competitive election," as they said in New Jersey when the switched Frank Lautenberg for Robert Torricelli.

-PJ

[centurion316]

Kansas is probably going to be quite different because of Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State. They may wiggle, they may squirm, but in the end Kobach will hold their feet to the fire. Even if they find a friendly judge, it’s unlikely that the legal issues will be resolved and Kobach has the final say on whose name is printed on the ballot.

This was the corrupt bargain all along between Orman and Taylor. It allowed Orman to run as an Independent and collect all the Democrat votes when Taylor withdrew together with the disgruntled liberal Repbulican who have been left on the sidelines in recent years. Orman is a Democrat and would have declared himself one after the election. It doesn’t look like their little scheme is going to work.

[Ann Archy]

Bingo!! Rules and Laws are for Republicans ONLY!

[Zeppo]

One statute declares that, except under specific circumstances, “no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office may” withdraw their name from the ballot after Primary Day. Those circumstances include death, and if a nominee “declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected…by a request in writing.”

If I were Chad Taylor, I would be making plans to go into hiding ASAP.

Remember, these are Democrats that we are talking about.

If "death" appears to be the only way to accomplish their goal, well, it's not much of a stretch to figure out what the Democrats would do...

[Beagle8U]

Even if he is dead, the RATS would have to put another RAT on the ballot.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Not to worry. Democrats are not required to obey election laws. Only Republicans.

[Vigilanteman]

Thanks for the explanation on Greg Orman. Now it makes perfect sense why the Jackass party doesn’t want to replace their drop-out: They have what they want in Greg Orman, but running with the Jackass label would be an electoral liability.

[iowamark]

He could say that he is insane and suicidal; and since he’s a Dem, it would probably be true.

[FlipWilson]

Whoopee, they will just find a left leaning judge who will say that what is written in the statute means the exact opposite. Up is down, down is up. More result oriented justice, coming your way.

[Joe Boucher]

Same for new jersey.
BUT Lautenberg and all!!!!
A homer judge and NO Problem

[stremba]

Am I wrong, or if Taylor is allowed to drop out, could the Dems not just nominate Orman as their candidate?