Well, there’s that other guy, who I most recently heard denies any such conversation took place. So, to be ruthlessly fair, he might have lied to Kobach as well.
Are you talking about Brad Bryant, the official Taylor says he talked to? As far as I’m aware (and I just checked) Bryant has not made any public statement.
A fun poll here: Sen. Pat Roberts Tied With Independent Challenger In New Poll | HuffPost Latest News
The SurveyUSA poll, conducted for KSN News, gave Orman 37 percent of the vote to Roberts’ 36 percent (a difference within the poll’s margin of error). Democrat Chad Taylor, whose name will remain on the ballot pending a lawsuit, took 10 percent, with libertarian Randall Batson winning 6 percent and the remainder undecided.
**Before asking voters to weigh in, the poll informed them about the race’s complicated dynamics, stating that “Democrat Chad Taylor’s name still appeared on the ballot even though he no longer wants to run.” **
After being told, explicitly, right before they “voted”, that Taylor doesn’t want to run, 10% still voted for him. Hilarious.
I burst out laughing when I saw you, of all people, mention “margin of error.”
I think I read you claim to work in a financial data center. What do they let you do? Clean the printers?
Verified. Just so.
Found where I got it, from page 1,** Kansas Beekeeper** speaking:
So, my mistake, there is no record I can find of Bryant saying anything about this shit, only Kobach’s denial.
For what it’s worth, one report I read said that Taylor’s campaign manager was present during the conversation with Bryant. I haven’t read any statement from the campaign manager, who is obviously not an unbiased witness. But if does offer a possibility that Taylor’s account can be corroborated or refuted.
Re-reading reports, I see I made a mistake. Kobach has not said the conversation between Taylor and Bryant did not happen. Kobach says that the conversation happened but disputes Taylor’s account of what was said.
Here’s Taylor’s statement: “I proceeded to draft and deliver a letter to the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office of Elections, giving notice of my withdrawal from the United States Senate race. I specifically asked Mr. Bryant if the letter contained all the information necessary to remove my name from the ballot. Mr. Bryant said, ‘Yes’ affirming to me, and my campaign manager, that the letter was sufficient to withdraw my name from the ballot.” and “Upon confirming that my letter would remove my name from the ballot, I presented identification, signed the notary ledger, and signed the letter before a Secretary of State employee notarized it. I again confirmed with Mr. Bryant that this notarized letter removed my name from the ballot. He again said ‘Yes.’ My candidacy in this race was terminated yesterday.”
Kobach has stated that he spoke with Bryant and he says Bryant told him that he “did not tell [Taylor] that his filing was sufficient.”
I know liberals are often baffled with the plain text of laws. But even liberals would be smart enough to read the law here and draft a letter conforming with the law. (Obviously it would be necessary to elide the identity of the people involved from the test, lest liberals change their answers in an effort to help the liberal cause).
But 20 people on the street, handed a copy of the law and then asked to draft a letter withdrawing from a fictional race in accordance with that law? All 20 would write something like, “I declare that I cannot perform the duties of the office if elected, and so I withdraw.” It’s the simplest task.
You know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it.
You ask (innocently) what possible motivation he has. But the motivation is absolutely clear: he wants a future in politics, and he doesn’t want to write a letter that will appear in a future opponent’s TV ad. His letter finesses the issue – it lets him argue that he really didn’t mean (or even know) exactly what was meant; he just referenced the law about withdrawing. He doesn’t want to be forced into the position of an explicit, direct admission that he cannot perform the duties of an office he wants to try for later.
And of course that’s what the legislature wanted to do: impose a severe political penalty on late-term withdrawals.
What are those cases again?
He’s probably talking about Christiansen v Harris County and Mead v US, both.of which deal with Chevron deference in nonformal agency decisions. I’m not so surenthey apply here, but he’s probably referring to those cases.
Sorry…US v Mead, not Mead v US.
Candidates usually have standing to challenge the ballot listings of competing candidates. You may recall that most of the birther lawsuits were dismissed on standing grounds because the plaintiffs were voters or military personnel; Alan Keyes’ lawsuit was dismissed as moot because Obama had already been sworn in as president.
Doesn’t mean that they have standing to challenge their own listing not being removed. You have to show that you’re harmed. It is really hard to argue that you’re harmed by being on the ballot.
Orman would have standing, I guess, but I don’t think he will sue, since that will just emphasize that the removal of Taylor is a ruse. I don’t think Orman wants to reinforce that impression.
Sorry, I didn’t read your post properly. I thought you were asking if Orman could sue to have Taylor removed.
Still, Taylor definitely has standing to challenge his own listing; it’s his name. You’re broadening standing a bit beyond its limits. Standing isn’t really about harm; it’s about whether the plaintiff’s theory is personal to him (or at least to a discrete group). For standing purposes, the court more or less accepts the assertion that whatever is being complained about is harmful. Deeper analysis on that front goes under other jurisdictional theories like redressability.
I’m not sure they apply either, but even if they don’t, doesn’t Kobach get Skidmore deference?
Ok - can you give me a cite for that please. My understanding of it is same as here:
There are three standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
Oh, sure. I don’t think if Taylor sought a writ to get his name removed from the ballot, the court would grant it, given Chevron, or, like you said, fIling that, Skidmore. It seems to me that theonly agument hebwould have that had any merit would be that he relied on the advice of the staffer who told him the text of his statement constituted a valid statement under the law, but not being a lawyer, I have no idea if that argument has any merit.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Kobach’s decision is wrong. I hate it. I think its inspired by partisan bias. But its no doubt legal, and Taylor doesn’t have much remedy under the law.
Not really. It doesn’t come up in standing analysis so there’s not really anything to cite. Note, however, that the two factors in the injury in fact test are basically (1) is this the right plaintiff, and (2) is the thing complained of going to happen? Neither is “is this thing legally actionable”, which is either addressed in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action* or on the merits.
*or state equivalent.
I think most readers here are familiar with the phenomenon of the tax protesters, who sometimes claim that the gold fringe on the courtroom flag proves that the court is an admiralty court, and thus unable to force tax payments; that the spelling of their names with all capital letters creates a “fictitious entity,” who is not actually the real tax payer involved; or that Federal Reserve notes are not actually money, since they are not exchangeable for gold, and therefore being paid with them is not taxable income.
While there are answers to each of those points, the overall answer is actually this: it doesn’t matter. Even if you, lonely tax protester, have discovered the secret truth of the gold-fringed flag, the plain fact is that the court will not credit your theory.
I don’t mean to suggest that Little Nemo’s argument is in the same far-flung category as those tax protestors’ are; that’s absolutely not true.
But I do mean to suggest that the same response is warranted: the court won’t credit your theory. When the language of the statute is plain, and the official interpreting that statute is hewing to the plain language, I don’t believe you’re going to find a court that will overturn the decision.
And I especially think Taylor is hobbled for reasons I mentioned above: he doesn’t want to be forced into explicitly saying he cannot perform the duties of the office of U.S. Senator if he were elected. He’s not withdrawing for that reason – he’s withdrawing because he sees he can’t win and he wants to remain a viable future candidate without drawing the ire of the Democratic power structure. So he wants to withdraw to help the new candidate win, but not at the price of cutting his future throat. If he fights this, it seems obvious he’ll have to do so by making that explicit declaration anyway.