In a decision that will likely have huge implications for the Senate race in Kansas and potentially the battle for control of the Senate itself, the Kansas Supreme Court handed down a ruling late today that Democratic Senate nominee Chad Taylor’s name should be removed from the ballot as he requested in the letter he sent to the Secretary of State’s office earlier this month:
Democrat Chad Taylor is off the ballot for the U.S. Senate in Kansas.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled late Thursday afternoon that Taylor’s letter to the Secretary of State’s Office met the requirements for him to withdraw.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach had said Taylor had failed to declare that he was incapable of serving as required by Kansas statute and had ruled that his name would remain on the ballot.
Taylor took the unprecedented step of suing to have his name removed, filing an emergency petition with the Kansas Supreme Court. The court heard the case Tuesday and several justices voiced skepticism of Kobach’s application of the law.
As I noted when the Court heard argument in this case on Tuesday, the strong implication from those who followed the oral argument was that the Court found the arguments that were being made on behalf of Secretary of State Kris Kobach to be unpersuasive, and that they seem inclined to allow Taylor to be removed from the ballot as he requested. While it’s often foolish to base predictions about how a Court will decide based on oral argument, this is one of those times where oral argument was a perfect guide to the direction in which the Court was leading. Instead of giving the hypertechnical reading to the statute that Kobach’s lawyers were advocating, the Justices instead the Justices appear to have taken a very narrow reading of the statute and held that Taylor did in fact comply with its terms. As I noted in the past, and as several of the Justices apparently noted in oral argument on Tuesday, the statute does not specifically require that the person wishing to withdraw from the ballot must set forth the reason that they don’t believe they can fulfill the duties of the office they are running for, or even that they have to say that in the letter. Given that kind of a reading of the statute, the court could find that the notice Taylor gave was sufficient without, as Hasan notes, having to deal with the very messy issue of what may have been represented to him by representatives of Kobach’s office, an inquiry made more difficult by the fact that Kobach is openly backing Taylor’s former opponent in the race Senator Pat Roberts.
As the linked article above notes, Kobach appears to be taking the position that Kansas Democrats are statutorily required to name a replacement candidate to fill Taylor’s place on the ballot. Even if this is the case, it’s unclear how the party could accomplish that task even within the nine day extended time period that he has created by delaying the printing of ballots. One interesting possibility, of course, would be for the Kansas Democratic Party to give the nomination to Greg Orman, who is also running as an Independent. However, I am not certain if that is permitted under Kansas election law, and such a move could potentially blunt the message the Orman is trying to send the voters that he is an independent voice not beholden to either Republicans or Democrats.
In any case, there seems to be no question that this is bad news for Senator Roberts. Since Taylor’s announcement, two polls have shown Roberts losing to Orman even when Taylor’s name was still on the ballot, and a third from Fox News showed him with only a paltry two point lead with Taylor on the ballot and losing if voters were asked to choose only between Orman and Roberts. At the very least, this development is going to force Republicans and third party conservative groups to put far more resources into Kansas than they had planned to, which could have an impact in other states where they are trying to flip a Democratic seat. Depending on how close the final battle is, this race in Kansas, and today’s Supreme Court decision, could be what decides who control’s the Senate.
Here’s the opinion:
