Kobach’s Last Ploy To Thwart Dems In Kansas Senate Race Dealt Big Setback

In this Friday, Sept. 12, 2014 photo, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach discusses his office's legal research for an elections case before the state Supreme Court during an interview in his office in Topeka, Kan. Democrat Chad Taylor has petitioned the Supreme Court to remove his name from the ballot for the U.S. Senate after Kobach refused to do it. (AP Photo/John Hanna)
In this Friday, Sept. 12, 2014 photo, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach discusses his office's legal research for an elections case before the state Supreme Court during an interview in his office in Topeka, Kan.... In this Friday, Sept. 12, 2014 photo, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach discusses his office's legal research for an elections case before the state Supreme Court during an interview in his office in Topeka, Kan. Democrat Chad Taylor has petitioned the Supreme Court to remove his name from the ballot for the U.S. Senate after Kobach refused to do it. (AP Photo/John Hanna) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In what is likely a big win for Kansas Democrats, the Kansas Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear the lawsuit being brought by a Democratic voter suing to force the state Democratic Party to name a new candidate in the Senate race. Instead, the state’s high court referred the case to a lower court for a fuller hearing.

David Orel, a registered Democratic voter in Kansas City, Kan., who is refusing to speak to the press, filed the lawsuit after the state Supreme Court ruled that former Democratic nominee Chad Taylor should be taken off the ballot. In it, he argues that the Democratic Party is required by state law to replace Taylor.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has asserted the same position. But election law expert and University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen said that the state supreme court’s new order would likely help Democrats in their effort to leave the Democratic spot open and drive voters to independent candidate Greg Orman in his bid to unseat incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS).

“The effect of this order is to delay things beyond the point at which it would make sense for Democrats to put a name on the ballot,” Hasen wrote on his personal blog. “That is, by the time the issue would get back to the Supreme Court, ballots may have been printed.”

“Democrats had been hoping to run out the clock in this case, and this is a big order helping that cause,” he concluded.

Kobach has already ordered for overseas military ballots to be sent without a Democratic candidate printed. He did, however, state that revised ballots could be resent if the state supreme court ordered the Democratic Party to pick a new ballot because of the Orel case. But Tuesday’s order puts any such ruling off for even longer, as Hasen wrote.

Kansas Supreme Court Order, Orel Case

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for mantan mantan says:

    Yea, I bet a revised ballot could be sent out on weekends, Sundays, from a college campus, mailed, whatever as long as it doesn’t allow people greater access to voting.

  2. Avatar for paulw paulw says:

    So do we know anything about when Orel Senior registered as a democrat, since his son is a republican campaign staffer?

  3. Avatar for tamar tamar says:

    Why didn’t you include in this article the fact that the “registered Democratic voter” is the father of a Brownback campaign staffer?

    “Orel’s son, Alexander Orel, is a field director for the re-election campaign of Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, campaign spokesman John Milburn said.”

    Seems to me this information is central to understanding what is really going on in Kansas: The Republicans are willing to do anything (including dirty tricks and voter suppression) to win elections.

  4. I’m sure his Democratic registration is a ruse in order to get standing to file the bogus lawsuit. These guys aren’t even trying to hide what they’re doing.

  5. From what I’ve read of the law, it simply says what entity shall have thte power to select a replacement; it doesn’t say they must appoint one.

    I think the KS Supremes are losing patience with K.Kolbach’s reading comprehension.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

59 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for awould Avatar for jw1 Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for Diogenes67 Avatar for mrdependable Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for chammy Avatar for nick1936 Avatar for ctvoter Avatar for JWHowe Avatar for sylhines Avatar for topcat Avatar for mantan Avatar for sniffit Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for docb Avatar for theghostofeustacetilley Avatar for tamar Avatar for darrtown Avatar for occamsrazor2 Avatar for thunderclapnewman Avatar for emilianoelmexicano Avatar for chicago11

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: