BREAKING: Kansas Supreme Court Orders State to Remove Democrat's Name from Ballot in Senate Race

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

@AP: BREAKING: Kansas Supreme Court orders state to remove Democrat's name from ballot in Senate race.

KANSAS COURT: REMOVE DEMOCRAT FROM SENATE BALLOT

By JOHN HANNA
— Sep. 18, 2014 6:03 PM EDT

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas must remove the name of the Democratic candidate against Republican Sen. Pat Roberts from the ballot, the state Supreme Court declared Thursday, in a unanimous ruling that could influence the fight for control of the U.S. Senate.

The court's decision leaves Democrats without a candidate, potentially making it easier for independent candidate Greg Orman to defeat the three-term incumbent. Republicans have counted on Roberts winning re-election in GOP-leaning Kansas as they seek to recapture a Senate majority.

Some Democrats nudged party nominee Chad Taylor out of the race earlier this month to avoid a major split of anti-Roberts votes. Taylor announced his withdrawal, but Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a conservative Republican publicly backing Roberts, declared that Taylor didn't comply with a state election law limiting when nominees can withdraw. Taylor petitioned the Supreme Court to remove his name from the ballot.

The justices unanimously agreed with Taylor, saying his formal letter of withdrawal to the secretary of state's office was sufficient to get his name off the ballot.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7a4dc22244254a03a970fea8cbaecfdb/kansas-court-remove-democrat-senate-ballot

---

Background:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/kansas-judges-question-why-democrat-cant-withdraw

KANSAS JUDGES QUESTION WHY DEMOCRAT CAN'T WITHDRAW
By JOHN HANNA
— Sep. 16, 2014 11:36 AM EDT

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, center, walks with members of his staff and legal team into the Kansas Judicial Center to file documents in a legal dispute before the state Supreme Court over the Democratic nominee's attempt to get off the ballot in the U.S. Senate race, Monday, Sept. 15, 2014, in Topeka, Kan. With Kobach are, to his left, special projects coordinator Jameson Beckner and attorney Bradley Scholzman and, to his right, attorney Thomas Knutzen. (AP Photo/John Hanna)

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Several Kansas Supreme Court justices are questioning why a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate who wants his name off the ballot should be prevented from doing so by the state's chief election officer.

The court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that has national implications because it could affect the battle for control of the Senate.

Democrat Chad Taylor's withdrawal could help independent candidate Greg Orman's chances to unseat vulnerable Republican incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts.

Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach ruled that Taylor's name must remain on the ballot because he didn't comply with state election law.

[irisblue]

1. Yeah!

[Hulk]

2. YEAH!!!

Great news. There is a better chance of keeping the Senate from falling over to "the Dark Side".

[Stuart G]

3. Yes.....good news...nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. YES!

[billhicks76]

5. And They Wonder

Why we call them Repukes? They have no ethics...no morals.

[AngryDem001]

13. They also make you wanna puke!!

Srsly, every time I see Ted Cruz, I dry heave.

[RKP5637]

6. Excellent! Justice in Kansas! Excellent! ... bet that really po's the KS PTB!

[elleng]

7. GREAT!

[red dog 1]

8. K&R...Thanks for posting

Great news, indeed!

[lamp_shade]

9. YESSSSSSS

[wandy]

10. This is a good thing.

[immoderate]

11. !

--imm

[deminks]

12. Sweet. nt

[Control-Z]

14. Excellent!

I'm so tired of Republicans cheating and making up new rules and restrictions (out of thin air) at every turn.

[TexasTowelie]

60. According to the TRMS show the Secretary of State Kobach is making up new rules.

The court made the decision today because ballots were supposed to be printed tomorrow so that they could mail the ballots to overseas armed forces personnel on Saturday. Kobach is now saying that the received a waiver from the Justice Department to allow eight extra days before the ballots to be mailed.

However, it does not appear that Kobach has the authority to require the Kansas Democratic Party to name someone to the ballot.

[pampango]

15. Unanimously! Take that Mr. (Koch) Kobach! n/t

[rocktivity]

16. This is the guy who the GOP wanted to keep on the ballot

so he'd split the vote with the independent? The one who submitted his withdrawal in time, but they claimed it was improperly worded? Then CUE THE VONAGE THEME!


rocktivity

[TRoN33]

17. Tsk tsk... Now who is the one really broke the weak laws here?

Of course the answer is ; the Republicans!

[99th_Monkey]

18. K&R Woot! ~nt~

[HockeyMom]

19. Sounds like here in Naples (Teabagger Area), Florida

at least for local seats. My choices are Republican A, Republican B, or "Independent". They fight over who is MORE Conversative. How about None of the Above? I don't vote for any of them. Wish I could vote NONE of the Above.

[No Vested Interest]

68. Hope you can write-in a suitable name - even your own. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

20. This is good news for Alaska

where Republican operatives are attempting to remove our "unity" gubernatorial ticket from the ballot.



http://www.adn.com/article/20140918/oral-arguments-set-case-hoping-unravel-walker-mallott-ticket

[TexasTowelie]

61. It won't have any effect.

The decision was made by the state court and not a federal court.

[Blue_In_AK]

63. I understand that,

but I suspect that Alaska's judge is watching this case with interest.

[SunSeeker]

21. K & R

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[drray23]

23. pat roberts

Is cooked. He is going to be behind by double digits.
Great news

[Historic NY]

25. Donald Peking Duck.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Ben Gazhi?

[Historic NY]

35. LOL.

[still_one]

26. Why? There are races running unopposed I thought

[DCBob]

27. The court is not requiring that.. its Kobach the Rethug SOS who made that statement.

"Kobach said he was giving the Democratic party a week to name a new candidate and would hold up printing ballots during that time. He had previously said ballots had to be printed Friday so counties could begin sending them to overseas voters such as military. Asked what he would do if Democrats did not name a new candidate, Kobach said he would review his legal options."

I doubt he has any legal options.

[LiberalAndProud]

31. I don't think so either.

Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State, tried to hang Taylor on the ballot on what amounted to a technicality, but the state's highest court didn't buy Kobach's reasoning. Nor did the Kansas Supreme Court say the Democrats had to foist another candidate on the ballot. (Justices also admonished Kobach for filing materials past the court's deadline.)

http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives/2014/09/18/kris-kobach-cant-keep-chad-taylors-name-on-the-november-ballot-court-rules

[DCBob]

33. Excellent!

This is very good news indeed! Thanks.

[NYC Liberal]

44. "admonished Kobach for filing materials past the court's deadline"

Oh the irony.

Or hypocrisy, I suppose.

[wordpix]

85. good news, at least some people in Kansas have good sense

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

37. The Supremes rightly ignored this issue. It looks like the Dems now have 10 days...

The law is very specific and requires a party to hold a convention within 10 days of official notification of the vacancy.

Since the SoS' stated opinion until today was that there was no vacancy, that 10 day clock should start from whenever he now, as required by law, officially notifies the state Democratic Party.

No way can he force them to pick a candidate within his ballot printing deadline. He would be violating the law (and he has already had his hand slapped pretty definitively).

If he prints ANY ballots with Taylor's name on them, he is in direct violation of the writ of mandamus from the supreme court. So his military and absentee ballots should go out with no name.

Can he have two sets of ballots? Some with the name and some without? I guess he could try that, but I suspect the Justices would take official notice.

Gives the Dems 10 days to find a willing 'Pat Roberts' to declare he is running.

[whistler162]

52. Democrats should knuckle under....

and put some guy named Orman on the ballot.

[LiberalAndProud]

28. Not the court, Kobach,

who will review his legal options if Democrats don't name another candidate.

At a news conference after the court decision, Kobach said he was giving the Democratic party a week to name a new candidate and would hold up printing ballots during that time. He had previously said ballots had to be printed Friday so counties could begin sending them to overseas voters such as military.

Asked what he would do if Democrats did not name a new candidate, Kobach said he would review his legal options.

[Fred Sanders]

30. So the Democrats tell Kobach to fuck off..or he can go back to the Court for another beat down.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. I have the niggling suspicion that this is

"go down fighting" rhetoric. I think maybe he knows he's full of hot air. But -- he's full of hot air.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Hot, hot, angry air because Kansas is now lost, the Senate is lost and Kobach is personally fucked.

[A Simple Game]

32. I didn't see anything in the article linked that said the court was requiring

the Democrats to name a new candidate, it said that Kobach was giving them a week to name one. Do you have a different article that states the court required it?

[Fred Sanders]

40. Full written decision of court link...the court only granted mandamus, ordering removal of the name.

http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2014/112431.html

[hfojvt]

72. there is another lawsuit

filed by a registered Democrat asking the courts to force the Democratic Party to name a candidate.

Of course the registered Democrat in question happens to have a son who is working for the Brownback campaign.

[Fred Sanders]

36. Not the court saying that, Kobach is saying it in desperation, and holding up the printing of

ballots, even though he argued (lied) to the Court that the ballots had to be printed and sent out by
tomorrow....it is just something he will take to Fox News to spin some conspiracy.

[happyslug]

43. The court addressed that issue on one paragraph of their opinion

With this determination, we need not consider the parties' numerous other arguments. Nor do we need to act on Kobach's allegation that a ruling for Taylor would require the Kansas Democratic Party State Committee to name his replacement nominee per K.S.A. 25-3905. The Kansas Democratic Party is not a party to this original action, and this court does not issue advisory opinions. Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. at 1119.

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf

In simple terms the Court said it would NOT rule on that issue UNLESS it comes before them in a separate action. The Democratic Party of Kansas was NOT a party to this action and as such the court can NOT order them to do anything. If it was permitted to give "advisory" opinions, which some state permit their courts to do, then it could make such an advisory opinion, but like the Federal Courts, the Kansas courts can NOT give such advisory opinions, only opinions where there is an actual issue in litigation and then restricted to that issue.

[Judi Lynn]

38. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful! It's been forever since Democrats caught a break in Ks. n/t

[DCBob]

39. This is very good news and could be the key race to retaining Senate control.

Who would have thought Kansas, of all states, would be in such a position!

[happyslug]

41. Here is the actual Court opinion

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf

If you want to view the actual oral arguments it is on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/v/538rbnXrb9A?autoplay=1&rel=0

[PatrynXX]

45. don't particularly think Pat Roberts complies with election law

he sorta needs to live in the state O_O

[George II]

46. Good news, but the headline could have been more illuminating.

[rhett o rick]

47. I truly hope this works out for the Democrats. But isn't there some hypocracy at play here?

The Democratic Party candidate was encouraged to withdraw in favor of a third party candidate. In other words Democrats are being encouraged by the Party to support a Third Party candidate over a Democratic Candidate. I don't think that suggestion would have been accepted here in DU where we must support the Democratic Party over Third Party candidates.

Before you flame me, I think it's a great idea and hope Sen Pat Roberts gets clobbered.

[DCBob]

55. Its all about retaining control of the Senate.

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

That supercedes all else.

[rhett o rick]

67. As I said, I understand and agree. I just don't like it when the self-righteous tell

others that they always must vote for the Party candidate. I say you should always vote to uphold Democratic Values.

[DCBob]

74. Securing the Senate also trumps "values".

I am not so interested in Orman's values as his vote with the Dem caucus.

[TexasTowelie]

62. However, since a Democrat is no longer on the ballot DUers can support a third party candidate.

The Democrat withdrew voluntarily. I doubt that it was political pressure from DUers that made him do so.

[rhett o rick]

66. I love your rationalization. nm

[leftynyc]

71. I think that "rule"

was effectively thrown out the door when Bernie Sanders decided he may run and so many DUers are pulling for that.

[rhett o rick]

75. I think you will find that most of the DU'ers pulling for Sen Sanders do so in the anticipation he

will run as a Democrat.

[leftynyc]

76. Why would he do that?

He has never run as a Democrat before.

[rhett o rick]

78. If he runs as an Independent he will be shunned by the Corp-Media. nm

[wordpix]

86. he'll be shunned anyway as too old, too liberal, too socialist, too antiwar

He is not MSM's candidate

[MADem]

80. Hypocrisy? On the part of the GOP, perhaps.

Taylor, the Democrat, QUIT the race. He actively, decisively QUIT.

He wrote a letter saying he QUIT. He Sherman Statement-ed it, too.

The court agreed with him.

Now the GOP wants to force the Dems to name a replacement candidate.

I'd say the "hypocrisy" is with them, because they want a three-way race in order to boost the chances of their weak candidate.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-chad-taylor-kansas-20140916-story.html

[KrazyinKS]

48. A brief glimpse of sanity-

I don't see that very often around here but- I do estate sales and I have been hearing from fellow Democrats, they speak up right in front of me at the sale in front of tea party people saying lets get rid of Brownback. Kobach latest ploy is that the Dems need to have a name on the ballot because they need to be printed by Friday for early voters and such. They guy is a dick, I mean really.

[valerief]

49. Wow! Will it be appealed and reversed? Cuz that how things roll in the US. nt

[happyslug]

81. No this is The highest court in Kansas

Given there is NO Federal issue, the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear any appeals. Thus thus this is final as to this issue.

[valerief]

83. Wow! Now that amazes me. No recourse for Republicans. Well, except to Crock the Vote. nt

[tooeyeten]

50. Off to the races n/t

[riqster]

51. This is where election fraud happens: people like Kobach, Husted, Harris, Blackwell.

Election officials are almost always the perpetrators. Voters? Almost never.

Good on the Kansas Supreme Court!

[WhiteTara]

53. Ha!

[iamthebandfanman]

54. Kansas

has been getting a heavy dose of super right wing governmental and economic policies ...
which has to be helping this race be closer...
I wish more people were talking about that

[rurallib]

56. Side note: The Schloz is back!

Can't remember the Schloz real well but sort of recall he was one of Attorney Ridiculous Alberto Gonzalez main hatchet men. Seem to recall he couldn't keep his lies straight before a congressional hearing.

Welcome back Schloz! Still on the wrong side of history I see.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Okay, all together now . . .

[center][font size="4"]
DOWN WITH[/font]
[font size="6" color="red"]KO[/font][font size="4" color="red"]BA[/font][font size="6" color="red"]CH[/font]
[/center]

[Sienna86]

58. Go Sunflower State!

I think there are signs of life.

[ReRe]

59. Bu-Bye, Pat Roberts!

Hope Orman caucuses with the Democrats. So are we learning how to play chess now in this democracy?

[Ken Burch]

64. Is that the end of it? Does the SoS have the option of appealing this? n/t.

[happyslug]

82. No this is The highest court in Kansas

As I said above no federal issue is involved thus no appeal to the Federal Courts.

[SoapBox]

65. Suck on that KKKobach.

[davidpdx]

69. Typical Republican parlor tricks:

The court specifically avoided answering the question of whether Democrats must pick a new nominee. Within minutes of its ruling, an attorney for David Orel, a disgruntled Democratic voter from Kansas City, Kansas — whose son works on GOP Gov. Sam Brownback's re-election campaign — filed a new petition with the high court to force Democrats to name a candidate.

[blkmusclmachine]

70. But will the SOS actually DO it??!!

[hfojvt]

73. this is an odd thread

cheering on Democratic Underground the fact that Democrats will NOT have a candidate in a Senate election.

So even though the "independent" is
1. a member of the 1%
2. talks like a goddamned libertarian

apparently I am supposed to hold my nose and vote for him as the "lesser of two evils".

Are these the same people who would protest against voting for a Democrat for that reason?

On the other hand, Orman IS exactly the kind of guy the KDP likes to recruit as a statewide candidate, and Kansas Democrats almost always run to the right. They have to, considering the electorate they are working with.

I guess I would feel better if Orman, with the same flaws, was running as a D, because that would sort of open the door for a future D candidate without those two flaws - in theory.

[randome]

77. It's another defeat for voter suppression.

That was Kobach's end-game.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gothmog]

79. Kris Kobach is an idiot

[wordpix]

84. "whether it was sufficient for the Dem to simply cite the relevant law in his withdrawal letter"

If the relevant law is not a sufficient reason, what is? Is a health crisis sufficient? Is a family emergency sufficient?

What asshats that the justices question whether or not a relevant law is sufficient as a reason to withdraw