I absolutely believe that Taylor was under strong pressure to withdraw, that he didn’t want to make this declaration explicitly, and that he tried desperately to get a letter accepted in which he avers his incapacity by reference not because he didn’t know better, or was misled, but because that was his intention.
My belief isn’t legally relevant, of course.
But the word “interpretation”? Merely ill-chosen? How could he have known without asking? Perhaps he had no real idea that Kobloch would be a total prick about it, and assert the most strict semantic “interpretation” upon what Taylor might have reasonably considered a simple formality.
Point of fact, he did ask, didn’t he? He asked someone he believed was in a position of reliable authority. What he got back was this “gesture of uncertainty”. So, at face value, the answer from the authoritative source is something along the lines of maybe yes, maybe no. Whereas Mr Kobloch’s interpretation is totally no! no!, a thousand times NO!
Now, if this Bryant fellow didn’t know what interpretation of SoS would apply, how in the world could Taylor know?
By the way, Counselor, we might require a thorough examination of the case law regarding gestures of uncertainty. When will it be ready?
Is there some precedent suggesting that a command to declare something does not include declaring by reference in a way that logically entails the thing?
I’m not aware of any.
So I think Kobach’s argument must be about the unstated statutory purpose. And I think that argument is decent. On the other hand, if it can be truthfully said by a future political opponent that Taylor declared himself incapable–and I think it can–then the statutory purpose may be adequately served.
Yes, now. But before Taylor filed his suit?
I think there’s a large difference between an opponent who can put a replica of a letter on a screen that says, literally, “I am incapable,” and an opponent who can only show “…pursuant to KSA xxxxx…” and then have to explain what that means.
Why do you think the prospective opponent would need to? He can simply say “My opponent wrote a statement declaring himself incompetent.” What could Taylor do? Sue for slander? All the opponent would have to do is bat his big brown innocent eyes and show a copy of the statement. He wouldn’t have to explain diddly, and probably won’t!
For a Republlcan, you are charmingly naive when it comes to political treachery.
Just as a matter of personal opinion, do you feel that Taylor knew his letter would be refused or do you think he believed his letter was acceptable?
My own personal opinion is that, regardless of whether his letter complied or did not, I believe Taylor thought it complied at the time he submitted it.
Of course he did. It would have been stupid to submit a letter that he didn’t think complied with the requirements. He thought he’d manage to weasel out of an explicit declaration by using the indirect language.
So you’re agreeing that Bryant was wrong.
What was he wrong about, specifically? Preferably, give a quote from his affidavit that you think is “wrong”.
He repeatedly said that he believed Taylor knew what the requirements were.
I find this difficult to believe. Bryant said that Taylor called him up and asked what the requirements were and showed Bryant the letter which he was submitting which Bryant said did not meet the requirements. So it’s hard to see why Bryant would believe Taylor knew the requirements.
First, Taylor, in his letter, refers to the law that spells out the requirements. It is hard to believe that he refers to the law without reading it. And he’s a lawyer, so there is an assumption that he understands the law when he reads it.
Second, nowhere in his affidavit did I see any place where “Bryant said [the letter] did not meet the requirements”. Can you point out where you think he did?
Confusion. Way back on page three, I was talking about what the official Taylor gave his statement to (Bryant) said and quoted what I thought Bryant said happened. Then Little Nemo chimes in, pointing out that Bryant hadn’t publicly made any statement. Which I looked up, and sure enough, he had not. What I had heard was SoS speaking on his behalf, quoting him, whatever. Anyway, wasn’t him.
And from Kansas Beekeeper:
Then later comes Kansas Beekeeper with this cite:
Wherein we find:
I don’t get it, seems like I’m the only one here who finds that kinda weird, like totally. He firmly assures us he did NOT say “yes”, he said “maybe”!?! Nobody else is scratching their heads about that? And a “gesture”? Gosh, what if Taylor misunderstood the gesture, thought an “answer uncertain” gesture was actually a “whatever”.
And why would he offer a “gesture of uncertainty” if he knew the answer was “No”? What, he hadn’t figured it out yet?
And none of this bothers anybody else? Well, OK. I guess. Sorta. Kinda. But a fucking* gesture*? You kidding me?
Actually, according to the statement, I believe he would have said he thought it was okay if forced to provide a conclusion at that point. After all, he removed the name, then had to reverse the removal at his boss’s direction. I can buy him looking at a letter like that and reacting in a manner that suggested, “Who the @#$% knows?”
But in any event, I don’t think he “knew” it was wrong given his subsequent actions. But, according to Kobach, it was. And his is the opinion that counts. I think Bricker’s opinion gets it about right:
And just to add more speculation, I believe whatever Taylor internally debated about how he’d word the letter, the given was he was NOT going to explicitly state he was incapable of performing the duties. Simply was not going to, period, full stop. So, even if he felt it was borderline acceptable, even if he thought it was more likely than not that it would be rejected–hell, even if Bryant had told him that letter probably wouldn’t get the job done–he was not making that explicit assertion. All his questioning about prior letters was by way of finding the right weasel words that had been accepted previously that would still permit him to NOT say the bad, bad words. He didn’t get any good guidance along those lines, so he took a shot at one of his own creation: reference to the law without actually making the declaration.
I think he hoped it would be accepted, even though he knew it didn’t comply. And think he walked away after submitting it thinking, “Thank God that worked.”
Again my opinion only, but I think this is what Bryant believed:
Taylor knew what the requirement was. But Taylor did not want to execute a letter with an explicit declaration, so Taylor called Bryant hoping to hear enough imprecise language to support a loophole.
Correct.
Again with my opinion only: I think he was reluctant, on his own initiative, to declare that the office would not accept something, given that Taylor’s letter was the first to ever attempt including the reference instead of the explicit statement since the law changed to require such a statement. (According to Bryant, anyway).
That’s what I meant by “he hadn’t figured it out yet” - at least not enough to give a definitive answer. It is basically above his pay grade to give a definitive answer in such a case if there is any doubt.
A difference, certainly. I don’t know how large. It’s the difference between simply asserting (truthfully) that the candidate declared himself incapable and showing on the screen a piece of paper with that text from the candidate’s lawyer.
It just seems to me that declarations by reference are pretty routine in the law–e.g., I hereby certify that this corporate name complies with Rule XYZ, or I declare that the form of this filing complies with Rule 321. So I don’t think you can pull the need for using certain words solely from the verb “declare.”
Instead, to read this law as foreclosing declaration by reference really turns on your understanding of the purpose of the statute. And while I agree that there’s a good argument that the purpose is to prevent candidates from playing games by forcing them to make a declaration against their future political interests, I think there’s a chance that a court will find that you’re really stretching the boundaries of reading in implicit requirements when you say that they must use certain quotable words in their declaration.
At the time I posted that, Bryant hadn’t made a statement. He made his statement yesterday.