On September 18, the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Kansas Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. Senate may withdraw from the ballot. The case is Taylor v Kobach, case 112,431. Here is the ten-page opinion.
On September 18, the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Kansas Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. Senate may withdraw from the ballot. The case is Taylor v Kobach, case 112,431. Here is the ten-page opinion.
This is great news!
I think any political party has the right to nominate or not nominate candidates for public office – provided such decision reflects the opinion of its membership, and in the case here, the Democratic State Committee is assumed to represent the viewpoint of the members of the Kansas Democratic Party.
Here’s a link to the ruling: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/Opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf
They held that Taylor’s letter requesting withdrawal “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” effectively declared his inability to serve, because that’s the only basis for withdrawal listed in that subsection.
The Secretary of State said that “state law still obligates Democrats to pick a new nominee” and he “set a noon Sept. 26 deadline, citing a law that says party committees ‘shall’ fill candidacy vacancies. He pushed back the deadline for printing ballots a week, to later that same day.
“At this point, I am assuming that the Democrat Party will comply with the law,” Kobach said at a news conference.”
But I don’t know how he plans to enforce the law if they don’t select anyone.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kansas-court-remove-democrat-senate-ballot
What would happen if they nominated Greg Orman – the independent they are supporting?
And since when does a Secretary of State have any judicial force? Would he/she not have to get a Court order to make the Democrats nominate someone else.
It will be interesting to see what happens if they don’t select a new nominee. Could the Court hold the entire State Democratic Committee in contempt?
One thing is for sure. You can see how determined the GOPers are to get Roberts re-elected.
Hah!! But I don’t know if they could nominate Orman — he would probably have to be affiliated with the Democratic Party, and he isn’t.
Probably there’s no specified penalty if they don’t nominate anyone, but it could be considered a generic election law misdemeanor with a small fine that I doubt that anyone will bother to enforce. And the committee members would all be happy to pay it, even if they did.
It’s an important race because it might determine the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic nominee was so weak that the Republicans thought they had this one in the bag, but after the party’s slick maneuver it’s now up for grabs.
1. Election LAW is supposed to be in a YES/NO Flow Chart.
2. Where is that New Age MODEL ELECTION LAW — having ALL of the Flow Chart possibilities ???
3. Where is that 24/7 Supreme Election LAW Court ???
Doug: I hope the members of the State Democratic Committee all hold out and not nominate. Eventually, the SOS will have to order the ballots printed. Does Kansas used the party row or individual office style ballot? My point, is for spike, what would keep the SOS from have the label DEMOCRATIC printed with no candidate listed for U.S. Senate, leaving encouragement for people to write in a candidate in the Democratic space???
Yes, this is one of the races the GOP has got to win if they expect to capture the U.S. Senate. I don’t even think they will win Alaska – neither the U.S. Senator seat or the Governor’s seat. I could be wrong (and the country could suffer as a result) but I see the GOP coming up short 1 or 2 U.S. Senate seats.
The U.S.A. Senate is possibly THE most ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander legislative body in the free world —
due to the many below average small States with their blowhard robot party hacks.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep: You need to study your American History. The U.S. Senate is composed of two members per state and one member for every so many thousands of population. This was the grand compromise that our founding fathers agreed upon which helped get our Constitution accepted by both large states and small states. This is why California has 2 U.S. Senators and 47 U.S. Representatives (I could be off 1 or 2 on the reps)and Alaska has 2 U.S. Senators and 1 U.S. Representative.
Initially, the founding fathers wanted the states to control the U.S. Senate so that our federal government wouldn’t get too powerful, and the legislatures were allowed to appoint them. There was nothing wrong with this until the Guilded Age when corrupt politicians starting buying off state legislators, and as a result the U.S. Senate became the den of millionaires or at least their stooges.
The 17th amendment was passed to correct this corruption by allowing the people to elect U.S. Senators. As a “populist,” I have nothing philosphically against this constitutional change, but I think the 17th amendment should have been worded to allow a state legislature to retain the power to recall either of its U.S. Senators if they don’t really represent the state government as the founding fathers wanted them to do.
While I believe our federal government should help meet the needs of the people, I don’t want it to become (as it is becoming today)an evergrowing dictatorship. Had the 17th amendment been worded as suggested, I believe that guarantee would be there today. But hindsight is 20/20
A Democratic voter has filed to force the state executive committee to meet. The Supreme Court essentially invited such a challenge, by specifically noting that they would not rule on the hypothetical of the Democrats not naming a replacement nominee.
The SOS has told county election officials that they may send out overseas ballots without Taylor’s name, so long as they included a notice that the ballot might change.
A few counties had sent out overseas ballots prior to the Supreme Court’s decision that Taylor was incapable of serving if elected. They have sent out replacement ballots.
The USA regime has become a tyrant regime due to the 3 ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander systems –
H. Reps, Senate, Prez/VP Electoral College.
— with the party hack Prez appointing the party hacks of SCOTUS.
—-
The Senate stuff got about 750,000 men killed on both sides in the horrific civil war in 1861-1865 — i.e. all the free/slave stuff after 1789.
i.e. numbers of the children, grand children and great grandchildren of the *founding fathers* got KILLED / injured for life because of the EVIL compromises in the top secret Federal Convention–
esp. due to the hacks from the small States and the EVIL slave States.
Demo Rep: I do not doubt that there were “evil” compromises made by both sides during the Constitution Convention during which our constitution was drafted. But, you and I both should not judge these people too harshly, because, first, we were not there, and second, we did not know the intent of their heart. The Scriptures warms us to judge not least you be judged.
However, I do agree with you that it was wrong for large states and small states representatives to accept slavery and make the slaves 3/5 of a person. I cannot fathom how someone can look at another human being, and say, you are only 3/5 of a person.
On the other hand, what would our country be like today if we had total Democracy without rights for the minority? It would be closer to a totalitarian regime than it already is.
Surely, Demo Rep, this this is not the kind of nation you would want to live in. But then again, I do not know your heart and how you may believe not only spiritually or philosophically, so I will not judge you. But I will agree that thousands died needless deaths on both sides – North and South. It all could have been averted had men thought with their hearts and not their heads alone.
I also agree with your obvious feeling that our Supreme Court members should be selected differently. Perhaps we could carry on this discussion privately. If you will send your email to Richard, he has my private email address and could forward to me. You have my word, that it would not be shared. Richard has my email, and do not mind him sharing with you.
I am disappointed that more people are not using the Reply to Richard’s posts. I guess Facebook and Twitter are more popular with people. But I do appreciate your comments even if we do not find agreement.
Worry a whole lot more about MINORITY RULE TYRANTS oppressing majorities.
See the old EVIL monarchs and oligarchs in Europe with their stooge miiitary and police forces for centuries keeping the local MAJORITY populations in a state of economic slavery.
Most of the Bills of Rights are due to the EVIL actions of such Monarchy / Oligarchy regimes.
ALL of the major governments in the 2014 U.S.A. are EVIL and totally VICIOUS ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes — as EVIL as anything in EVIL Dark Ages or earlier.
ALL governments in 6000 plus years of recorded history are mainly about ONE thing
– getting LOOT —
the NET TAX LOOTERS versus the NET TAX S-L-A-V-E-S.
—–
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep: Not going to disagree with you as the Scriptures point out, “…for the love of money is the root of all evil.”
But still don’t think you want a government with absolute democracy, where if for example, the majority of the citizens came to the conclusion that Christians are “haters” and must be killed and demanded they be killed. Yes, it would be a government decision by majority rule, but it would be wrong. Despite it’s flaws, our Constitution – at least until the Sumpreme Court rules overwise, or the Congress becomes so antiChristian – protects minorities such as Christians. Let’s hope for the sake of all that it remains that way. But I fear societal changes are someday going to make being a Christian a crime. I pray I am not around if and when that happens.
I would like to re-write a portion of one sentence in my latest reply. I wrote that,”…protects minorities such as Christians.” I realize that I have no way of knowing whether Chritians are a majority or minority in the United States. This was a bad judgement of words on my part and hope that if any one was offended, I ask for your forgiveness.
I do stand by the intent of my argument, and that is under a pure democracy, how a majority of citizens could decide to persecute a minority.
I thought you wanted to keep religion out of these political discussions?
TruFoe: I assume your reply was directed to me. Holding a belief that someday Christians may be persecuted in this country has nothing to do with keeping religion out of the discussion. I was simply attempting to point out to Demo Rep that under Pure Democracy, if a citizenry that was opposed to the existance of Christians – or any other faith – could do so and there would be nothing to protect the minority viewpoint. Perhaps I did a poor job of defending my position, but I still say – at least at the present time – our form of constitutional government protects all – Christians included.
OK, then. Singling out religious faith as a possible characteristic which might be the subject of governmental persecution, and specifically Christianity, and more specifically since that hypothetical governmental persecution would be motivated by the belief that Christians are “haters”, well, that had nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
I’m sure you don’t just don’t happen too be a Christian.
Coincidence, if so, I’m sure.
But I agree with you – we should keep religion out of the discussion of politics.