*update* SOUTH DAKOTA...R's may lose chance at Senate control because of....KANSAS

[cabri]

When a Kansas judge with Teddy Roosevelt mustache has to lay the law down on the Republican state official, you know how far the party has fallen

You would think that the Republican state official would want to remove the candidate from the ballot.

They were not showing a bias by allowing the Democrat to stay - as per the wishes of the Kansas State Democratic party.

 

[Jimzz]

Link

Apparently the Kansas Supreme Count says otherwise.

What? I don't think you understand what sportage was saying or the State SC said.

"The state supreme court said it did not have to act on Kobach's assertion that Democrats must name another candidate."



The biggest thing to keep republicans from taking the senate is republicans themselves.

 

[shira]

Last night on the news they said that Secretary of State Kris Kobach had told the Judge that there was a hard and fast time limit and that the ballots had to be reflective of any changes by todays date 9/19/14. In his argument to the court he said that it was too late to make such changes and that they (he) wouldn't have enough time to get these changes (if they were made) done by today's date and that the name should remain on the ballot. That was his logic and argument at the time.

However, once the court ruled that he must comply and take the name off the ballot, he suddenly changed his tune and that "hard and fast deadline" was pushed by about 2 weeks. He is demanding that Democrats pick another candidate within the next 2 weeks and telling them "someone has to be on the ballot" in place of the name that was taken off. The Democrats have said that he as the Secretary of State cannot force them to pick someone on the fly and they are essentially giving him the bird on this.

Legal experts say that the Secretary of State Kris Kobach cannot order the Democrats to do this.

The reason why he is trying so hard to get another name on the ballot is that the numbers do not favor the Republican candidate Sen. Pat Roberts and now that there is only two names on the ballot it looks like independent candidate Greg Orman just might win putting the Senate in peril for Republicans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the link to the news source

Since it can essentially be proven that Kobach lied to the court, is he vulnerable to charges of perjury? Or at the very least, contempt of court?

 

[brycejones]

Repost:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2400056

 

[Oldgamer]

Repost:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2400056

This isn't a repost, that thread is about the polls , this is about the update of the court making a final decision on this case.

 

[glenn1]

Since it can essentially be proven that Kobach lied to the court, is he vulnerable to charges of perjury? Or at the very least, contempt of court?

I'm going to take a SWAG and hypothesize the issue isn't whether a different name is on the ballot but whether there's a blank space on it. After the 2000 election hanging chad fiasco I can't imagine how much chaos there would be if voters got a ballot looking like this:

[ ] Robert Republican
[ ] <blank space formerly filled by Danny Democrat>
[ ] Ian Independent


If what I indicated above isn't correct and the guy can be proven to have perjured himself by all means hang him out to dry.

 

[Oldgamer]

I'm going to take a SWAG and hypothesize the issue isn't whether a different name is on the ballot but whether there's a blank space on it. After the 2000 election hanging chad fiasco I can't imagine how much chaos there would be if voters got a ballot looking like this:

[ ] Robert Republican
[ ] <blank space formerly filled by Danny Democrat>
[ ] Ian Independent


If what I indicated above isn't correct and the guy can be proven to have perjured himself by all means hang him out to dry.

It is a long process and takes time to pick out a candidate (not to mention time to inform the public of who this candidate is) and what the legal experts were saying is that the Democrats at this point do not have to pick another candidate since there is no time. They also said it doesn't matter if the name has been taken off and essentially a blank ballot is there.

 

[brycejones]

This isn't a repost, that thread is about the polls , this is about the update of the court making a final decision on this case.

I guess we'll just ignore the pages of discussion about the case and decision then.....

 

[brycejones]

I'm going to take a SWAG and hypothesize the issue isn't whether a different name is on the ballot but whether there's a blank space on it. After the 2000 election hanging chad fiasco I can't imagine how much chaos there would be if voters got a ballot looking like this:

[ ] Robert Republican
[ ] <blank space formerly filled by Danny Democrat>
[ ] Ian Independent


If what I indicated above isn't correct and the guy can be proven to have perjured himself by all means hang him out to dry.

Ballots haven't been printed so if no Democrat is on the ballot there shouldn't be a blank space. Political parties don't get place holders on the ballot if they don't have a candidate therefore no line to vote against.

Kobach is playing the partisan game period.

 

[glenn1]

It is a long process and takes time to pick out a candidate (not to mention time to inform the public of who this candidate is) and what the legal experts were saying is that the Democrats at this point do not have to pick another candidate since there is no time. They also said it doesn't matter if the name has been taken off and essentially a blank ballot is there.

Agreed. I'm not saying it was a feasible request, was made with pure intent and no hidden agendas, or was even anything but a stupid idea in the first place. If "being a partisan asshole" was a crime you'd have an open and shut case, but OTOH proving perjury is a high bar and what I posted was a potential out for that charge.

 

[shira]

Agreed. I'm not saying it was a feasible request, was made with pure intent and no hidden agendas, or was even anything but a stupid idea in the first place. If "being a partisan asshole" was a crime you'd have an open and shut case, but OTOH proving perjury is a high bar and what I posted was a potential out for that charge.

It depends on whether he was under oath when he made the statement. If he told the court that there wasn't enough time to change the ballot, but within one day after losing his case he moved back the deadline by two weeks, then it's clear that he lied. So if he was under oath, perjury is a slam dunk. If he wasn't under oath, then if I were the judge, I'd be VERY tempted to hold Kobach in contempt for knowingly making significant false statements to the court.

 

[brycejones]

Agreed. I'm not saying it was a feasible request, was made with pure intent and no hidden agendas, or was even anything but a stupid idea in the first place. If "being a partisan asshole" was a crime you'd have an open and shut case, but OTOH proving perjury is a high bar and what I posted was a potential out for that charge.

I don't think he committed perjury, he was making a legal argument not giving testimony under oath. It just shows what a partisan hack he is.

 

[Oldgamer]

Ballots haven't been printed so if no Democrat is on the ballot there shouldn't be a blank space. Political parties don't get place holders on the ballot if they don't have a candidate therefore no line to vote against.

Kobach is playing the partisan game period.

I don't care if you want to meld this together with that thread, by all means do so. But this was an update to the court decision and wasn't about the polls. Anyway.. merge away..

 

[shira]

I don't think he committed perjury, he was making a legal argument not giving testimony under oath. It just shows what a partisan hack he is.

Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly misrepresent facts during legal proceedings. It doesn't matter whether or not they're under oath.

How a lawyer interprets the law can obviously be subjective, but lying about a material piece of information is a serious breech of a lawyer's duties under the law.

If the lie is significant, lawyers can face discipline by their bar association. They can also be charged criminally for committing fraud on the court.

 

[Oldgamer]

Repost:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2400056

I just requested to have this thread merged.

 

[shira]

And this is surprising - how, exactly? Kansas is a Republican state; its laws are interpreted to favor Republicans. Massachusetts is a Democrat state; its laws are interpreted to favor Democrats. Let's at least get outraged when the law isn't followed rather than when it is, even if it's not our team's guy.

But one thing that may NOT be done is enforce the law one way for Republicans and a different way for Democrats. Doing so would violate a modest part of the 14th Amendment called the equal protection clause.

 

[werepossum]

But one thing that may NOT be done is enforce the law one way for Republicans and a different way for Democrats. Doing so would violate a modest part of the 14th Amendment called the equal protection clause.

That's true, but I expected it to happen in Kansas like it happened in Massachusetts.

I would prefer that the court enforce the law on both parties, but I suppose you work with what you have in front of you.

 

[senseamp]

What if Democrats say, "we pick your mom," is Kobach going to put his own mother (D) on the ballot?

 

[werepossum]

What if Democrats say, "we pick your mom," is Kobach going to put his own mother (D) on the ballot?

Of course. His intent is clearly to get the low information voters who haven't a clue to vote for anyone with a (D) by their name, because these same voters will vote for the guy who isn't a Republican if there's no Democrat. Therefore Kobach's mother would serve just as well as any Democrat.

It would be funny if the Dems nominated someone not eligible and then sued Kobach for adding an ineligible person to the ballot. They won't because of the above, but it would be funny.

 

[senseamp]

What if no one wants to be the nominee. Do the Democrats have to nominate someone against their will? Tag, you are it.

 

[senseamp]

What's coming down the pipe is Republican PoS SoS getting sued by the DoJ if the overseas absentee ballots don't go out 45 days before the election (which is today) as required under federal law.

 

[werepossum]

What if no one wants to be the nominee. Do the Democrats have to nominate someone against their will? Tag, you are it.

The absolute dumbest thing the Democrats could do would be to nominate anyone. If the Supremes force them to do so, fine, they've ultimately lost nothing, but they aren't going to voluntarily help Kobach win the Senate for his team. Personally I'd guess that after allowing the Dems to violate the law there is next to zero chance they will make them nominate someone. What would be the point? Whomever they nominate would not be the winner of the primary, so no particular principle would be served (Democrats can always write in a candidate) and would have zero chance of winning.

I see no moral reason for the Democrats to nominate anyone, and every practical reason not to. I don't know about legal reasons, but I'd be surprised if the intent of the statue Kobach is referencing is to force a party to have a candidate against their will. Otherwise sure a party would not be allowed to field no candidate, which often happens in safe House races where the winner of one primary is virtually guaranteed to win the general.

EDIT: And I have no problem with Kobach being sued by the DoJ if he does not send out absentee ballots by the federally required date unless he can show that it was technically impossible due to the date of the ruling changing the ballot. It would be a purely political lawsuit, but if that's what the law says we can't fault Holder for enforcing it unless he's egregiously letting it slide for his party.

 

[senseamp]

I mean from legal point of view, how does he expect the court to require Democrats to nominate someone, since it's not just decision for the Democrats but for the potential nominee as well. Seems like a violation of the 13th Amendment to force someone to either nominate or serve as candidate.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Seems like this GoP PoS SoS is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[werepossum]

I mean from legal point of view, how does he expect the court to require Democrats to nominate someone, since it's not just decision for the Democrats but for the potential nominee as well. Seems like a violation of the 13th Amendment to force someone to either nominate or serve as candidate.

Seems like this GoP PoS SoS is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Well, clearly forcing someone to nominate would not be a problem; that's just following the law. And certainly the Democrats could easily find someone willing to serve, although they might not find anyone they wanted to elect even if they had a shot.

I don't think this matters either way though as it's vanishingly unlikely that the court requires the Democrats to nominate someone after allowing their perfectly capable candidate to drop out. What would be the point? The people's will would still be flouted as any nominee wouldn't have won the primary. As to disenfranchisement, any Democrat is free to write in a Democrat candidate, including Taylor. If Taylor was being removed against his or his party's wishes, then disenfranchisement would be an issue for the people too stupid in write "Taylor".

EDIT: But to answer your question, Kobach doesn't. He's hoping to bluff - which after having laid down a losing hand is just stupid.

EDIT: Unless they nominate Orman - but in Kansas, his pretend independent status is more valuable to them than the Democrat voters who just won't vote that race.

 

[chowderhead]

political parties don't always run candidates even for statewide races. It's rare but it happens. Richard Lugar (R-IN/McLean VA) in 2006 only faced a Libertarian since the Democrats didn't even field a candidate. How can the government force a party to nominate someone if the party does not want to?
Anyway, it's a moot point since the Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach just relented and sent out the military ballots without a Democrat on the ballot.
Kris Kobach is now facing a tough fight for reelection. His temper tantrum about the Democrat quitting the race and getting slapped down by the state Supreme Court for not following election laws may end up costing him his reelection.

What's the matter with Kansas?? The Democrats have a good shot now at picking up the governor's office because Brownback's policies are just so extreme and the Sec. of State office because Kobach overreached and showed his partisan pettiness.