Can’t Taylor write a new letter asking to be taken off the ballot and stating his inability to serve?
It’s past the deadline.
If I were SOS, I’d wouldn’t make it a requirement unless the law explicitly said it was a requirement. Which I feel it does not.
The law seems to be saying if you declare you are ineligible then you can submit a written request to withdraw - in other words, two separate steps which must be performed in that order. It doesn’t explicitly require that the written request includes the declaration.
That, in my opinion, would be a valid legal issue if it’s correct. But do we know this? All the reports are saying is that he didn’t make the declaration in his written request. So there’s no indication he hadn’t made the declaration beforehand.
So, Taylor has to un-campaign? “Hi, I’m Taylor, a homosexual pederast with a severe heroin habit and also a Democrat!”?
Comedy gold, I tells ya!
Kobach said the incapability of serving requirement was specifically inserted into the law and all of the other candidates who withdrew during his tenure have met the statute.
I don’t know if that statement of Kobach’s is true or not, but that seems to be a statement he’d make regardless. I don’t see him saying “This decision was wholly arbitrary on our part”.
Of course. But I bet all such withdrawal-of-candidacy applications are on file somewhere and are publicly accessible. So I am sure the press will dig them up and see if that’s true or not.
And how many other candidates have there been?
If he was complying with the law, then I’d say it would be inaccurate to characterize his move as “totally partisan.” Some fraction of it would be “complying with the law.”
The letter of withdrawal said “As per the terms of Section Yada-Yada-Yada of Law Bla-Bla-Bla, I hereby withdraw my candidacy.” This language has, as any sensible person with no axe to grind would expect, been historically interpreted to constitute a statement that the candidate meets all specific requirements of Section Yada-Yada-Yada of Law Bla-Bla-Bla. Kobach is clearly playing a silly Simon Says game for transparent partisan purpose.
Kobach claims that “incapability of serving requirement was specifically inserted into the law and all of the other candidates who withdrew during his tenure have met the statute”. If the press (or Taylor’s lawyers, for that matter) find any withdrawal letters that do not have the required language in them, that would directly contradict Kobach, factually, and he would have nothing to stand on. Kobach’s statement is pretty unequivocal though.
I found a Kansas Attorney General opinion (can’t link to it; it’s on Westlaw) that interprets a prior version of this statute. I can’t find any appellate court treatment of the current statute.
In my view, even if Little Nemo is correct, the fact remains that the candidate seeking to withdraw must somehow declare his inability to serve, even if it’s not in the letter (which, I think we can all agree, would be a logical and ideal place for it). I am not aware of any such declaration made anywhere else – did the guy stand in front of the State House in Topeka and yell? So even if the letter doesn’t have it, the response from the SoS seems to be: “You have to make a declaration of inability to serve, and you haven’t.”
It’s a weird requirement. I wonder what the rationale for it was?
Anyway, from where I sit, I don’t see any problem with the conclusion that the SoS is following the law as written. I suspect he’s doing so happily, joyfully, etc., but he appears to me to be on solid ground.
I welcome additional information.
That’s a piece of information that would change my mind.
Can you cite the historical instances in which such language has been accepted?
The letter itself, which was accepted by Kobach’s deputy, who Taylor had a right to believe.
Kobach is a birther, FWIW.
The current law was instituted in 1997. According to this legislative briefing at the time, the rationale was to eliminate “placeholder candidates”. Apparently “placeholders”–candidates who had no intention of running in the general election–were filing as candidates in otherwise uncontested party primaries, and then withdrawing to allow the party (as opposed to voters) to nominate a replacement.
It is indeed a “weird” requirement–and a silly one, since anyone who really wants to withdraw can easily conjure a reason making it impossible to serve.
Phony candidate withdrawals have been controversial in Illinois, for a different reason–incumbents who want to retire coast to renomination in a primary, then suddenly “withdraw” and allow party insiders to nominate another insider (often the son of the incumbent) to run as a “replacement”. But no one has suggested a law to prevent this; the law would be too easily evaded.
You can see how the statute was changed last time it was amended in 1997 in the link below. Scroll down to “Sec. 10.” Words in italics are what was added.
http://www.kansas.gov/government/legislative/sessionlaws/1997/chap124.html
Basically, a general clause was added to the beginning:
“Except as provided by this section, no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or town-ship office may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination after the day of the primary election.”
and then the existing provision was changed as follows (in relevant part):
“Any person who has been nominated by any means whatsoever for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds. Any such request shall be filed with the secretary of state . . …”
Because those words were specifically added to the statute, a court is going to be unwilling to discard them as mere surplusage.
Here’s another article that tells a little more about Taylor’s political woes:
But isn’t Taylor’s reason for deciding to end his campaign partisan as well? Seems like he hadn’t given it any thought until the U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D- MO) called him and advised him that it might be better for the Democratic control of the senate if he would just withdraw.
I think most people recognize a difference between running for office in a partisan manner and performing the duties of an office in a partisan manner.
Interestingly, one report has pointed out that Kobach himself is also running for re-election and his decision on Taylor’s letter has now become an issue in his own race.
I can understand Taylor’s desire to make the minimal possible declaration that complies with the law. Suppose he decides to run for Senator again in six years? I’m sure he won’t want his opponent to be able to pull out a signed statement in which he said he was incapable of fulfilling the duties of being a Senator.
What I don’t get is why he can’t just resubmit the paperwork. THe deadline isn’t for another 13 days I believe.