Yup. While I don’t agree that there are precise magic words, I also don’t agree that her letter meets the requirement. Every other letter has an explicit statement that the writer could not execute the duties of the office. Her letter only says she would find it impossible to campaign.
So, is the recourse that Taylor’s name is removed, or is Miranda Rickel’s name added back?
Oops. Should have read the article:
But even so, what am I missing? Rickel’s letter was sent after the primary. I don’t know if she won the primary, but 306b(a) says that no one who has been nominated “by any means” can withdraw after the primary except in accord with 306b.
306b(b) says they can withdraw only if they declare that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office if elected. Rickel’s letter says it will be nearly impossible for her to campaign, and that’s all.
Unless we learn that Kobach sent Rickel a letter denying her request to be removed from the ballot, this starts to look very bad for Kobach.
Even if Kobach now says, “Oh, yeah, too bad, Rickel,” that’s not enough.
If he can show he sent her a letter on September 1st, though, that would be fine.
And where the hell does the article get off saying that all the letters include the declaration?
Well, take heart in the fact that nobody is covering themselves in glory, here. This shit would embarrass a middle school student council election. Why in the name of Og did Taylor let Bryant get away with answering important questions with shrugs and gestures?
Isn’t explicit in her letter that she’d do a half-baked job, one that wouldn’t do justice to the issues in Kansas as a result of her unexpected academic work load? She doesn’t only say she’d find it (nearly) impossible to campaign, ISTM. If Taylor had provided some similar letter and was denied, I would agree that seemed like partisan nonsense. Even if you personally parse the letter differently, do you see the following paraphrase as an unreasonable one, “I’ve got too much on my plate right now to run for office or to deal with the issues facing Kansas”?
I think a reasonable man, if that’s a standard that applies, could say that was declared in the letter. Also, this declaration has an additional advantage over Taylor’s, in that his does not exist.
She says that she would do a half baked job campaigning. She makes no mention of serving in the entire letter. Kobach set up this situation that the magic words “I am incapable of serving” must be uttered, regardless of how obvious the intent, and now he has to explain why she didn’t have to utter them.
Is it silly? Yes, obviously it is. But, if you’re standards are silly, then everyone should have to meet the equally.
Because “half-baked” means a poor job. And the law requires a declaration that the candidate is incapable of doing the job as opposed to incapable of doing a good job. I grant it’s a closer question than Taylor.
But I was perfectly comfortable in defending Kobach’s decision on Taylor as a reasonable interpretation of the law – strict reading, to be sure, but absolutely reasonable.
If we now shift the interpretation to one that allows Nickels but still excludes Taylor, then it starts to look like post-hoc rationalization.
Bring me my favorite hobby-horse that I may mount…ah! Here!
Valuing the rational over the reasonable.
It is entirely reasonable that a man who does not wish to serve, or even run, should not. Who in their right mind would want an unwilling public servant? But, of course, there ought to be some limits, some point at which one is committed. Apparently, there have been incidents of sordid political hanky-panky, where one guy is nominated and another put in his place, a form of the old “bait and switch”. So, laws are drawn up to prevent such. A deadline for withdrawal, all well and good, perfectly reasonable.
So, the prospective candidate must declare himself a non-candidate before a certain point in time. No prob, Bob, perfectly reasonable. And then they fucked it up, they included wording about “incapacity”. Wording that could be interpreted *rationally *in a way that defeats the reasonability of the law’s purpose. Which Mr Kobloch has chosen to do. Sith happens.
Now, mind. His interpretation is entirely rational, strict, legalistic, and semantic, but nonetheless rational. But it isn’t reasonable, it warps the reasonable purpose of the law to a rational but unreasonable end.
Its a weakness I see in most all humans, but far more amongst the tighty-righties, who crave certainty, bright lines, yes/no. But that form of certainty only really exists in the abstract realms of science, where things can be proven beyond doubt. In the world we humans live in, that sort of certainty is as rare as hen’s teeth.
There was “wiggle room” available, Mr Kobloch could have chosen to take the reasonable course, shrug his shoulders and let the thing go forward, since that was the reasonable course that the law supports, since it is *unreasonable *to insist that someone remain on a ballot against his will. He did not, he chose the hyper-rational approach. I believe, but of course cannot prove, that he did so out of spite, to stick his legal thumb in the Democrat’s eye.
And that decision can be defended, in that it is entirely rational. But it is not reasonable.
Here endeth the lesson. For now.
Doesn’t the phrase that the issues require someone who can do them justice get the job done?
And if not, in your opinion (and I realize I’m asking you to speculate), does this essentially destroy Kobach’s position? Or might the courts rule that a good faith effort to make the declaration can be granted a generous (if still reasonable) review, but that Taylor’s does not even cross the minimum threshold–i.e., he made no declaration at all? And that this was Kobach’s reasoning?
ETA: Is Kobach’s position obliterated, significantly weakened, or somewhat weakened, I guess is what I’m asking…
His position isn’t necessarily weakened, he is simply revealed to be a hypocritical partisan dick about it, is all.
elucidator, whether we think it wise or not, Kansas has decided a declaration is required, and it would seem the reasoning behind that is to avoid exactly the kind of shenanigans Taylor is conducting. It looks to force the candidate to go on the record with regard to their inability to serve, so as to at least make it a little more difficult to drop out for the kinds of political objectives Taylor is trying to accommodate. It’s not about forcing an unwilling person to serve. If Kobach believes the declaration was not made (which is pretty reasonable, on account of the fact that Taylor didn’t make one), he has no choice. In rendering the decision, he is producing exactly the outcome the law intended, ISTM: You don’t want to make a declaration? Then tough shit, you stay on the ballot.
Duly ratified laws may or may not be wise, but they are the product of the legislature Kansas elected, and they should be followed, short of some horrendous outcome. (The law producing the effect it intended wouldn’t fall under that category.) Such is democracy.
My question is whether or not the letter from Rickel contains the required declaration. Because, whether I like it or not, if it does not, Kansas law demanded Kobach to conclude it was not adequate under the law. And if that’s the case, this was at best inconsistent and at worst an abuse of his office for partisan motives. My read of her letter is that it does the trick, but what do I know…
And Mr. Bryant’s sudden enthusiasm for non-verbal communication, that doesn’t qualify as a “shenanigan”? He draws a public paycheck, yes? I understand that part of his responsibility is to clarify electoral regulations for those who ask him to, yes? Would that purpose have been better served by a private recital of interpretive dance, or a straight answer?
From here, it looks like deliberate obfuscation. How about you?
An old-time Boston pol named Martin Lomasney was famous for saying “Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, never nod when you can wink.” I suspect Bryant knows that too.
That’s a difficult question to answer. Here’s why:
Before the Kansas Supreme Court issued their order, i would have said that the estoppel issue was in play. (As a reminder: this is the legal argument that says, “The only reason my letter was deficient is that I reasonably relied upon your office’s legal advice; you can’t advise me one way and then adopt an opposite position.”)
This revelation hurts Kobach significantly and helps the estoppel argument, because it shows he was willing to treat other letters with flexibility.
But now that Kansas Supreme Court says, “We don’t need the affidavits to reach a decision.” That strongly suggests that estoppel is OFF the table. And if that’s true, then the inconsistent letters are also not part of the record and are not legally relevant.
So: am I reading tea leaves by trying to figure out what the Kansas Supreme Court meant?
From where I sit, as a stand-in for your average joe voter, it looks like the Bryant-Kobach argument is, “We’re shit at our jobs.” If I were a Kansan, and the court found for Kobach, I’d be looking to turn the bum out toot suite and replace him with somebody who can staff his office with people who know words and know what the requirements are for withdrawing from races.
Yes, that seems true.
But I’m not sure if it’s legally relevant.
Well, shit! Here I was, thinking it might actually be a significant point.
But no. Missed it by that much!
The case is being heard now, and the Rickel issue has been brought up: