http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a1aed038e...te-nominee

Quote:Kansas Democrats are not required to field a candidate this fall against Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, a state court decided Wednesday in a boost for independent Greg Orman and a blow to the GOP's hopes of capturing a majority.

A panel of three Shawnee County District Court judges ruled in a suit filed after Democratic candidate Chad Taylor dropped out of the race — a development Republicans resisted. The judges also said the disgruntled voter who sued the state Democratic Party failed "to provide evidence to sustain it" by refusing to participate in the only hearing in the case Monday.

The voter did not plan to appeal, and Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican and strong Roberts supporter, directed counties to begin printing ballots in time for the start of advance voting on Oct. 15.

Some Democrats pushed Taylor out of the race because they saw Orman, a 45-year-old Kansas City-area businessman, as the stronger rival for the 78-year-old Roberts and didn't want to split the anti-Roberts vote. Many Republicans hoped Democrats would be forced to replace Taylor, to siphon votes from Orman and help Roberts.

The Kansas Supreme Court allowed Taylor, the 40-year-old Topeka-area district attorney, to remove his name from the Nov. 4 ballot last month, but the voter, David Orel, 57, of Kansas City, Kansas, immediately sued the Democratic Party and three of its top officials.

The case involved a law saying that if a candidate vacancy occurs after the primary, it "shall be filled by the party committee" of the district or the state, depending on the office. The judges concluded that the language merely spells out who fills a vacancy if a party wishes to do it, rather than mandates that all vacancies be filled.

Think the court got this one right. The Democrats don't have to put anyone on the ballot if they don't want to. If that were the case, you'd never have an "unopposed" election.

I agree. this is nothing more than shenanigans that both parties are guilty as s*** of doing. I especially hate it when people try to undermine the integrity of an election with stunts like this.

Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

gerrymandering at it's most sophisticated.

(10-01-2014 10:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

While I agree that they got this right...it's not quite that simple. In this case, the Democrat was at one point in the race. So they didn't actually ever try to force the party to field a candidate.

But they tried to force the democrats to either keep him in the race or field another candidate. Fitbud wasn't incorrect.

(10-01-2014 10:13 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Think the court got this one right.

In principle. But not the way the law reads.

If the law says "shall" then it seems the court ruled wrong.
Seems weird to have it written out like that though. The spirit of
the matter would think the Dems are right though. See no reason
either party has to field a candidate.

(10-03-2014 12:09 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the law says "shall" then it seems the court ruled wrong.
Seems weird to have it written out like that though. The spirit of
the matter would think the Dems are right though. See no reason
either party has to field a candidate.

Sometimes in the law, "shall" means "may." These are typically cases where it would be unconstitutional for the legislature to force something to happen, even if it seems like that was the intent. The Supreme Court has already held that a (Colorado?) statute that said the police shall arrest anyone for violating a restraining order did not actually make it mandatory for the police to do so. The Kansas decision notes there is support for a permissive reading in prior judicial decisions. It seems unlikely that forcing a political party to field a candidate would pass constitutional muster, and avoiding constitutional questions is something judges try to do when possible.

But this case did not even need to reach that issue. Neither the person filing the lawsuit (who did not show up for the hearing or given any sworn testimony) not the Kansas secretary of state had standing to bring the lawsuit.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66159

(10-03-2014 11:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

While I agree that they got this right...it's not quite that simple. In this case, the Democrat was at one point in the race. So they didn't actually ever try to force the party to field a candidate.

Perhaps not but if I recall, they also wanted to keep his name on the ballot. Why would they want to mislead the voters that way?

(10-03-2014 12:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

While I agree that they got this right...it's not quite that simple. In this case, the Democrat was at one point in the race. So they didn't actually ever try to force the party to field a candidate.

Perhaps not but if I recall, they also wanted to keep his name on the ballot. Why would they want to mislead the voters that way?

Because it's the Republican thing to do

The new polls came out two days ago. Kansas is irrelevant and will not help the Democrats.

(10-03-2014 12:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

While I agree that they got this right...it's not quite that simple. In this case, the Democrat was at one point in the race. So they didn't actually ever try to force the party to field a candidate.

Perhaps not but if I recall, they also wanted to keep his name on the ballot. Why would they want to mislead the voters that way?

Originally, it was a claim of voter disenfranchisement. I think it was one of the far-liberal political parties (Green?) that made this claim originally. Then the Republicans in KS picked up that argument and changed it to their current claim.

If you took the name off the ballot, since the primary already happened, you were disenfranchising all the voters who did get him past the primary, since they wouldn't "want" to vote for the Republican or Independent candidate.

(10-03-2014 03:02 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 12:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 10:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course they got it right. Forcing a political party to field a candidate is nonsense.

While I agree that they got this right...it's not quite that simple. In this case, the Democrat was at one point in the race. So they didn't actually ever try to force the party to field a candidate.

Perhaps not but if I recall, they also wanted to keep his name on the ballot. Why would they want to mislead the voters that way?

Originally, it was a claim of voter disenfranchisement. I think it was one of the far-liberal political parties (Green?) that made this claim originally. Then the Republicans in KS picked up that argument and changed it to their current claim.

If you took the name off the ballot, since the primary already happened, you were disenfranchising all the voters who did get him past the primary, since they wouldn't "want" to vote for the Republican or Independent candidate.

that makes no sense because at the end of the day it's the candidate who should be allowed to decide whether he wants his to go forward and run or not.

Didn't say it made sense, John.. I just know that was the first arguments that came up when the candidate announced he was withdrawing.

But it's the political machines that tried to push the lawsuits through..and when does any political machine EVER make sense?

(10-03-2014 03:48 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Didn't say it made sense, John.. I just know that was the first arguments that came up when the candidate announced he was withdrawing.

But it's the political machines that tried to push the lawsuits through..and when does any political machine EVER make sense?

never said or meant to imply that you did