Chaotic Kansas race has GOP desperate to keep Democrat in the running

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/16/kansas-senate-race-supreme-court-election-quit

Version 0 of 1.

The Kansas supreme court will on Tuesday hear details of a lawsuit brought by a Democratic candidate who wants his name erased from the ballot in the forthcoming Senate election.

His Republican adversary, on the other hand, is insisting the Democrat’s candidacy should remain intact.

“I do not want to be a candidate for US Senate in the 2014 election, and do not want the ballot for that election to associate me with the Senate race,” Democrat Chad Taylor said in a sworn affidavit. Keeping his name on the ballot against his wishes, he adds, is “conscripting me to run for office, in violation of my first amendment rights”.

It is likely one of the more bizarre cases the state’s highest court has heard. And in an election year in which control of the Senate is up for grabs, it could also turn out to be one of the most consequential.

“It is the biggest election law case we’ve seen here,” said political science professor Chapman Rackaway. “This is Kansas’s equivalent of Bush v Gore.”

Unlike that US supreme court ruling, which resolved the disputed 2000 presidential election, the case being heard in the Kansas state capital, Topeka, concerns an election that has yet to take place.

Taylor had intended to run against Pat Roberts, a 78-year-old Republican who has represented Kansas in the US Senate since 1997.

Any Republican incumbent would under ordinary circumstances be considered safe in deep-red Kansas, but politics in the state have been upended in recent months.

Republican governor Sam Brownback’s ultra-conservative agenda, which was backed by senior figures in the party – including Roberts – has resulted in something of a Tea Party experiment gone wrong, and led to a rare revolt against the state GOP.

Gun laws have been relaxed, access to abortion has been restricted and unprecedented tax cuts were introduced.

Now, with a budget deficit in the hundreds of millions, and money for schools and roads allegedly running out, ordinary Kansans have turned against the political elite in what is effectively a one-party state.

In the home state of the Koch Brothers, the billionaire donors spending heavily to assist the GOP bid to regain control of the Senate, Republicans are facing challenges from Democratic candidates riding a wave of anti-incumbency sentiment.

Taylor, however, was never one of them. Toward the end of the summer it became clear the Democrat was being overshadowed by a charismatic millionaire, Greg Orman, running as an independent.

Of course, Taylor never said he was pulling out of the race to give the Orman a better shot at toppling the Republican incumbent. But that has been the result.

Before Taylor dropped out, he and Orman were splitting the anti-Roberts vote.

His withdrawal left the path clear for Orman, a smooth-talking independent who, polls show, is now running neck and neck with Roberts.

Unexpected opportunity

However, a day after formally removing his name from the ballot, Taylor discovered that his withdrawal had been blocked on a legal technicality by the Kansas secretary of state, a Republican.

That posed a real problem for any Democrats hoping the withdrawal of their candidate would boost Orman.

Even if Taylor does not campaign, the mere appearance of his name on the Democratic line could attract between 5-15% of votes. Many of those votes would otherwise have been destined for Orman.

The difference between Taylor’s name appearing or not appearing on the ballot, experts in the state say, could easily be the difference between Orman or Roberts winning on on election day.

Hence the sudden interest from Capitol Hill. Republicans need to win six Democratic seats to regain control of the Senate in the midterms, but that calculation is based on the GOP not losing any of its own seats.

If Republican lose Kansas – even to to an independent who has not said which party he will caucus with – their task in November becomes considerably more difficult.

Democrats, meanwhile, are faced with a quandary. Even if the Taylor lawsuit fails, political analysts believe Orman may still have the money, profile and political momentum to dislodge Roberts.

Yet overt Democratic support for Orman, who is seeking to distance himself from both parties, could backfire by alienating the conservative Kansan electorate, which has more registered independents than Democrats.

Democrats have been studying the below-the-radar strategies adopted two years ago to help elect an independent senator, Angus King, in Maine, in the belief a similar model could be deployed in Kansas.

That strategy would involve spending money on TV ads to attack Roberts, but keeping an arm’s-length distance from Orman.

Rackaway said that while senior Democrats will steer clear from the race, the party’s activists on the ground have already begun playing a more active role in backing the independent.

“These are the folks who are out there doing advocacy, literature drops, putting out yard signs and slapping on bumper stickers,” he said.

But Orman is not just soaking up the small pool of Democratic support in Kansas. The depth of anger against Republicans has resulted in some of the party’s own, disaffected membership retaliating against the hierarchy and joining his campaign.

One architect of the mutiny is a former Republican state representative, Jim Yonally. During an interview at a McDonald’s restaurant on the outskirts of Topeka, Yonally gave the Guardian a detailed insight into how Republicans in Kansas are, in some cases, campaigning against their own party.

Yonally chairs Traditional Republicans for Common Sense Values, a group of more than 70 Republican legislators who have endorsed Orman.

He described the rebellion as one aimed at defeating fellow Republicans in Kansas who are “to the extreme right of conservative”.

“We feel that the pendulum is beginning to swing back in our direction,” he said.

The Kansas supreme court case could prove a pivotal moment, he added. That is not least because of the identity of the secretary of state who blocked Taylor’s withdrawal from the race, Kris Kobach.

Kris Kobach and Republican revolt

Kobach is a controversial figure in his own right. He is best known outside of Kansas for helping devise legislation to clampdown on undocumented migrants in Alabama and Arizona.

Considered an extremist by Yonally and other moderate Republicans – who are openly opposing his re-election – he has now become embroiled in one of the most political court cases in the state’s recent history.

The specifics of the lawsuit, officially known as Taylor v Kobach, are both technical and drenched in political intrigue.

According to legal papers submitted in advance of Tuesday’s hearing, Taylor and his campaign manager took the letter formally withdrawing his candidacy to Kobach’s office on 3 September, just one hour before the deadline for removing names from the ballot.

In sworn affidavits, the pair said that Brad Bryant, an official in Kobach’s office who handles election matters, inspected the letter and repeatedly assured them it met the legal standard to enable the Democrat to withdraw his candidacy.

“I asked him if it contained all the information necessary to remove my name from the ballot,” Taylor’s affidavit said. “Mr Bryant said ‘yes’, confirming to me that the letter was sufficient to withdraw my name from the ballot.”

That account is contradicted by Bryant, who in a separate affidavit denies telling Taylor and his campaign manager the letter was sufficient.

“Mr Taylor asked if his name would be removed from the candidate list and I gestured by shrugging my shoulders as to indicate ‘We’ll see,’” Bryant’s affidavit said.

Either way, it was not until the following day – after the deadline from withdrawing names from the ballot had passed – that Kobach informed Taylor that his letter had failed to meet the legal criteria.

The withdrawal was invalid, Kobach said, because Taylor had not formally declared himself “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected” as required by the law.

Taylor’s lawyers counter that he was under no obligation use any particular form of wording when withdrawing his nomination – and insist his intentions were made clear in the letter.

The stakes could not be higher for Kobach or his party. “This could be the death-knell to Kris Kobach’s re-election chances and that threatens his status as a national political leader,” said Rackaway.

Given the need to decide the case before overseas and absentee ballots are printed, the court is expected to deliver a verdict before the end of the week.