I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying any statement that conveys the meaning that I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office meets the requirement? Or are you saying that any statement that contains the exact words “I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office” must be included?
For example, if I sent a letter saying “I’ve been thinking things over the last couple of weeks and I’ve come to realize that I couldn’t handle the job of being Senator” would that meet the requirements? Or would you sent it back to me to be rewritten?
I did not intend to suggest that the SoS must mount an investigation to determine whether the statement was made – by “verify,” I meant that he is aware, of his own personal knowledge, that it was made.
It depends on how loosely or strictly the statute is construed.
I certainly agree that not making the statement at all is per se insufficient.
In my opinion, that statement would substantially comply.
As an SoS, I would accept it.
As a reviewing judge asked to order an SoS to accept it, though, I’d be required to give deference to his interpretation, unless his interpretation was an abuse of discretion.
So I’d want to hear some specific argument about how it was non-compliant.
Heard Kobach being interviewed today on a radio show today while driving. He repeated what was in the news - that no one in his office told Taylor that what he submitted was adequate and that every other withdrawing applicant in his experience had no problem complying with the law - except Taylor.
He also said something that was new to me - that according to Kansas law, if Taylor withdrew, Democrats were required to submit another candidate.
I’m no political fan of Kobach’s, but I can’t imagine him saying that if it were not true. For all his (IMHO) many and varied faults, he’s not stupid. I don’t think he would say that if not true; it’s all an open record and will come out and he knows it.
I’ve heard that also, but have not had time to verify whether it is correct.
Another reason why Kobach may have balked at putting in writing, explicitly, that he would be incapable of fulfilling the duties of a senator - if he did do that, how could he explain how he would still be capable of fulfilling the duties of Shawnee County District Attorney? I mean, a lot of people would wonder which exact difference in the two offices caused his incapability…
There might be a whole psychology paper in the phenomenon of irrationally literal-minded semantic obsession when legal questions are argued. I’ll get right on that when I finish my work on sexual perversion and the vegetarian personality.
The obvious one I can come up with is that he could say he couldn’t do it because he thought he was going to win the DA job and would not be able to do two jobs at once.
If this wasn’t the case, I would also suggest simply saying that he couldn’t do it because he was busy with something else (perhaps involving family). There doesn’t seem to be any requirement that the reason be acceptable to the SoS. In this case, adding a reason might actually be the better choice, as it could avoid any idea that it isn’t temporary.
If law KSA 25-306b(b) says the only reason you can withdraw is due to being incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office, then doesn’t saying “I am withdrawing under the terms of KSA 25-306b(b)” qualify as a declaration of being incapable of the duties of the office?
Saying “I am withdrawing because I am incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office” or “I am withdrawing under the terms of KSA 25-306b(b)” or I am a clueless incompetent who would totally fuck up in that job are legally equivalent statements. So any of them should meet the requirement that the declaration is made.
First of all, it wasn’t “under the terms of”. It was “pursuant to”. Not exactly same. Second - not legally equivalent, according to claimed unanimous agreement of the consulted attorneys of the Sec. of State office. Third - the only way Taylor can overturn this is to sue. And I really am not sure if he has standing to do so (that is, if he can show that he is harmed by leaving his name on the ballot).
I was addressing my post to Bricker. I haven’t had a lot of regards for your opinions on this topic since your payback post.
Sounds like a “magic words” argument.
And who presented that claim? Kris Kobach? Is this a case of him corroborating himself?
You seem to be going off on a tangent. We’re discussing a legal dispute. It’ll be surprising if it doesn’t end up in court.
But what point are you trying to make? Are you claiming Taylor is wrong because he’ll have to file a lawsuit? That’s a pretty bizarre interpretation of the legal system. A lot of people file lawsuits because they’re right.
If a man files papers and the wording says “pursuant to Article argle-bargle”, and said article refers to filing for divorce, it is reasonable to assume that his marriage counseling has not worked out. Similarly, if another man files papers referring specifically to the laws regarding speeding tickets, he is most likely concerned with a speeding ticket.
Hyper-precise semantic readings cut both ways, guys. If he refers to the specific wording that requires a statement, and says “This statement is about that”, then he has effectively made the statement. Note: nothing further is required of him, he is not required to provide any details, or any proof, he is the sole arbiter of his condition and suitability. He, alone, is sufficient.
Clearly, that was his intention. Unless he was joking, a prospect we can safely dismiss. How. then, can Knoblick re-interpret his actions as being insufficient? His actions were all that is required. Is he required to use the word? The word, itself, is a requirement? Not a synonym for it, not a vague reference, but only that very word? Preposterous.
His filing announces itself and its purpose, specifically and without any reasonable confusion. There is no basis for Knoblick to say otherwise, Taylor’s withdrawal is…(drumroll with cowbell)…legal and Constitutional.