[QUOTE=CSMonitor.com]
[Kobach] also insisted that politics played no role in keeping Taylor on the ballot — he called it a unanimous agreement among attorneys in his office and in the attorney general’s office and said it would’ve been the same if Taylor were a Republican candidate.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker, Is it your guess, yes or no, that Kobach is being truthful here? Note that your legal opinion is of no interest; I’m just curious about your grasp of reality.
To make the hypothetical realistic, assume two Republicans were running and making both appear on the ballot would make Democratic victory likely.
Why, hell, hoss, I’m just a poor ol’ peckerwood from Waco! I don’t have any legal expertise on the issue to offer, which is why I would most likely avoid making any bald and direct statements such as: “It does not.” Kind of implies rock-solid information and certainty, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
Here’s my take on it, although I don’t suppose I qualify as a legal scholar. The statute requires a declaration of incapability to serve. The burden is on Taylor to present to Kobach information that he (Taylor) has complied with the statute, so as a practical matter, the declaration must be in or provided with and incorporated into the letter.
If I had to guess, I’d speculate that the situation would never arise: Kobach would probably have called the guy seeking to withdraw and said, “Hey, dummy, your letter is not correct. It needs to have this phrase in it.”
I do not believe that he simply would have accepted a deficient letter, however, merely because the submitter was Republican.
Why not? The statute does not require any proof, simply that candidates say-so. Is it more stupid to insist that a candidate must be on the ballot for an office he refuses to fill, or to simply shrug and take it as a given?
It’s not a declaration that he doesn’t want the office. It’s a declaration that he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
In any event, the law was amended to add that requirement specifically, so it’s very unlikely any reviewing court would construe the requirement as surplusage.
And that’s why not: because the law clearly and explicitly mandates it.
Why are the Democrats, liberals, and non-Democrats and non-liberals such as you suddenly giving a shit about Orman? He’s made it clear that he is in it for nothing more than his own self-interest.
So if the declaration doesn’t have to be in the letter, what is the standard? Any public statement? Any written statement? A private oral statement?
And what’s the standard on the language of the required declaration? Does it specifically have to be “I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected”? Or can it be something equivalent like “I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of being a Senator” or “I couldn’t handle the job if I won”?
Really? I’ll admit I haven’t been following this campaign but I’m surprised to hear about a candidate saying he’s only running for office out of self-interest. What was it he said?
To the best of my understanding, Orman has stated that he will caucus with the majority party, whichever that is. Were I a Kansas voter, that would mean “shit” to me.
It’s clear that the statement has to be, if not totally public, at least made in such a way that the Secretary of State can verify it was made. If not, then the requirement is a nullity. And if the declarant wants to avoid a faithless SoS unwilling to verify the statement was made privately, it seems prudent to have at least one other witness.
Any statement that declares an incapability of fulfilling duties of office if elected meets the requirement.
Three way race, Roberts wins. Taylor drops out, Roberts probably wins, maybe loses. Roberts in the Senate caucuses with the Republicans either way. Orman wins, good chance he’ll caucus with the Democrats.
If your choice is somebody who’s committed to the other side, and somebody who’ll act in his own self interest, you pick the guy who’ll act in his self interest, because you’ve at least got a chance to prove to him he’s better off if he goes with you.
No, the burden is on an applicant to an administrative agency to provide facts to meet statutory requirements. The burden is not on the agency to search for facts, unless the statute specifically requires otherwise. If Taylor had stated to the local Kiwanis club that he is not qualified, it is not Kobach’s burden to find that. It is Taylor’s burden to provide that statement to Kobach and attest to it. The agency (SOS) looks at the record that has been provided to it.
Roberts is, in my eyes, an obstructionist reactionary, so I favor the Other Guy. Kinda like Al Franken, I did not want him to run for fear of him losing to Norm Coleman, for chrissake! You may remember him as the only man in the world that Garrison Keillor actually hates. I wouldn’t vote for him if he walked across Lake Hiawatha to ask me to.
Main thing I like about Orman is he isn’t Roberts. And unless I heard reliable evidence that he has a diesel powered juicer in his basement for squeezing the blood of the proletariat to make his wine…
Course, don’t have to, on account of not living in Kansas, but that’s how I’d see it. Another reason not to move there, as well as missing the raw, throbbing excitement of Minnesota.
“It’s clear that the statement has to be, if not totally public, at least made in such a way that the Secretary of State can verify it was made. If not, then the requirement is a nullity. And if the declarant wants to avoid a faithless SoS unwilling to verify the statement was made privately, it seems prudent to have at least one other witness.”
No, a statement that the SOS can verify is not enough. It is not the SOS’s burden. This is very basic administrative law.
My whole scenario was speculative. That is, I said what might have happened if a Republican faced a situation in which it would be of benefit to the Republicans for him to withdraw, and if in attempting to do that he executed a letter that was facially deficient.
So far as I am aware, nothing like that has actually happened.
So now you’re asking if that would be illegal.
But the problem is that if that scenario were to come to pass, then the first one hasn’t.
I don’t think it would be illegal for the SoS to offer unsolicited advice about how to correctly comply with the law. And I don’t think it’s illegal for the SoS to simply neutrally wait for a nominee to comply.
I don’t even think it’s illegal for the SoS to treat two people unequally, because the law is completely straightforward in its requirement. Virtually any layperson can read that statutory language and draft a compliant letter, in my view. So it’s difficult, in my view, for a person to claim that the SoS thwarted his desire to comply.
In my opinion, it would be illegal for the SoS to actually accept facially deficient letters from one person and not from another. But in this circumstance, I THINK that the SoS could legally read a draft letter and advise one guy that he needs to change it to declare that he can’t perform the duties, and not agree to review a draft letter from another guy.