Posted on 09/11/2014 3:21:11 PM PDT by centurion316
Kansas Democratic Senate candidate Chad Taylor’s effort to get his name taken off this fall’s ballot will be heard in the state’s supreme court, according to reports, the latest twist in a suddenly fast-changing race thought to be a shoo-in for Republicans.
Last week, Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach ruled that Taylor will have to remain on the ballot since he did not demonstrate that he was incapable of serving if elected, a requirement under state statutes. Taylor went on to file a lawsuit against Kobach, claiming an election official helped him prepare the necessary documents to withdraw from the race; the official denies doing so.
Kobach argued that the lawsuit should be taken up in a lower court, but the supreme court decided the matter was too time-sensitive to go through the standard process, particularly as some ballots are set to be mailed before the end of the month, according to the Hill.
The make-up of the court may favor Taylor: Four of the bench’s seven judges were appointed by former Democratic governor Kathleen Sebelius.
Taylor’s sudden decision is considered by many to be part of a Democratic political strategy to unseat Republican incumbent Pat Roberts, and move a previously safe Senate seat into play. If Taylor voters move to support independent candidate Greg Orman, Roberts will face much stiffer competition, with a recent poll showing him trailing in a match-up against Orman.
The local media have all be acting like Kobach has been seized by the Devil is is just making up his ruling that Taylor failed to comply with the law.
It would be funny if the court decided that he could remove his name from the ballot but that the result would be his opponent was now running unopposed.
I screamed at my tv set, when they couched it as Kobach being an obstructionist. They didn’t even mention the very clear law.
Of course. In court after court, the finding is always the same: Democrats don't have to follow election laws if doing so might mean they lose.
That would not only be funny, it would be impossible. Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican incumbent, is already opposed by an Independent candidate, Greg Orman who is ahead of Roberts in the polls, and a Libertarian candidate who is along for the free ice cream.
The comments on local media stories demonstrate that the media do understand their audience: the disengaged, the clueless, and the gullible; exactly the people that the media believe that they can manipulate.
So if the supreme court takes him off the ballot, then would they have another conundrum for having to put another democrat on the ballot?
Crazy stuff.
CGato
Link to KS Statute:
http://www.ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch25/025_003_0006b.html
Its pretty clear. Taylor either has to be dead or “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office”.
Its practically impossible for Taylor to say he’s incapable, since the next obvious question would be why is he a sitting DA, if he is so incapable of holding office.
Its a 1997 law...not some ancient law that nobody remembers the reasoning behind.
They’re all political whores - willing to do just about anything to gain a senate seat. When the KS Supreme court rules in Kathleen’s...ahem...Mccaskill’s...ahem...Reid’s...oh yeah, Taylor’s favor, Kansas will have abandoned the rule of law.
“That would not only be funny, it would be impossible. Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican incumbent, is already opposed by an Independent candidate, Greg Orman who is ahead of Roberts in the polls, and a Libertarian candidate who is along for the free ice cream.”
But it would be possible to remove the democrat and not replace him on the ballot leaving the race to the Republican and Independent.
That would be really fun
I think that the likely outcome is that the Court hears the pleadings, grants Taylor’s request and remains silent on Kobach’s demand that the Democrat Party be made party to the action so that a replacement could be named. The media are all screaming about Kobach’s partisan moves, but I think that the Kansas Supreme Court is about to trump whatever Kobach has done, which is typical for that bunch of politcal hacks.
Kobach’s response to the Supreme Court, filed yesterday is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239353264/Kobach-Response-Taylor-Lawsuit
The “independent” is a Democrat who will caucus with Harry Reid if elected.
Orman is already on the ballot. There is no reason for the court to remove him.
I think Fai Mao may be alluding to the news that Orman has been in the news with some legal (civil) trouble, and may evaporate as a candidate.
I couldn’t resist the free ice cream comment. I was working on a construction project at the Kanas Statehouse, and a woman came out and announced there would be free ice cream in about an hour.
Shortly after that, a full sized semi truck pulls up. The driver got out, and asked where to deliver the ice cream. I pointed him towards the free ice cream lady.
The driver unloaded a few boxes from his otherwise empty trailer, did some paperwork, and left.
Ah, government. (I didn’t partake in the ice cream)
He should appeal to the NJ supreme court. Not only would they take the case, they would even name his replacement, if they HAD to.....
The statute is clear. The Kansas Supreme Court, on the other hand,...
Actually, the same law that spells out the removal options specifies that he must be replaced if removed.
Rules and laws and the US Constitution do not apply to a liberal unless the liberal invokes them for personal benefit.
“Democrats don’t have to follow election laws if doing so might mean they lose.”
Well said. Pat Roberts should say the same.
Kobach should announce that he will not abide by their ruling if they do not follow KS law. Otherwise Kansas is about to be Torricelli’d.
Any chance this could boomerang into Republicans rallying?
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.