Kansas court says Democrats need not provide nominee for U.S. Senate race

[Newsjock]

Source: Kansas City Star

A three-judge panel in Topeka ruled Wednesday that Kansas Democrats need not nominate a candidate for the 2014 Senate race.

The ruling is expected to help independent Senate candidate Greg Orman’s campaign against incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.

... “When a candidate vacancy occurs after a primary, it is the judgment of the political party as to whether to challenge, or not, for the office by assessing both candidate availability and viability and, as well, its own party’s best interests,” the judges said in a unanimous ruling.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article2421062.html

[bigdarryl]

1. Watch and see they try to appeal to there boys on the Supreme Court

[Jim Lane]

9. Very tough to win that appeal, even with this Supreme Court.

The ruling is based on Kansas election law. In the interpretation of Kansas law, the Kansas Supreme Court really is supreme, and can't be reversed even by the U.S. Supreme Court.

An appeal would have to be based on pointing to the violation of some federal right, such as under the Voting Rights Act -- oh, wait, that won't fly, will it.

[Archae]

2. It isn't mentioned in the news story, but Rachel Maddow reported it.

This guy David Orel, the one saying in his court papers that the Democrats had to have a candidate, he never showed up for the hearing.

[PatrynXX]

3. usually

if one wants their ruling to pass they kinda have to show up. thereby killing his own argument and agreeing with the court (yeah I know it makes zero sense)

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Orman will caucus with the GOP, so the GOP need not worry !!

[davidpdx]

10. You think he will?

I don't know.

[Gothmog]

5. The court was kind of rude to Kobach

I was amused by the ruling's treatment of Kobach http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66159

In a dig at Kobach, the court writes: “The only remaining interest of the Secretary is that he has an opinion that comports with that of the Petitioner, Mr. Orel….He has no stake in the answer itself in his capacity as Secretary of State, only the timely need for an answer.”

[Doctor_J]

6. I tought this was posted a week ago

[Jim Lane]

7. There've been multiple decisions by different courts in this saga.

The key earlier decision was that, contrary to the Republican Secretary of State's decision, the official Democratic nominee's letter of withdrawal was adequate. By that ruling the court compelled the SoS to print the military and overseas ballots without the Democrat.

The Republicans kept trying, however, urging that the Democratic Party be compelled to name a new candidate. This latest decision rejects that ploy.

I saw one interesting analysis about what would have happened if the Democrats had lost this decision. The author (at electoral-vote.com) suggested that they could find someone in Kansas named S. Brownback who'd agree to be on the ballot. That candidate might draw off votes from Roberts by appealing to low-information Republican voters who like former Senator Sam Brownback better than current Senator Pat Roberts. The only downside of the latest court decision is that we won't get to see whether the Democrats would try that maneuver.

[Doctor_J]

8. ah. I see

Tnx