The question of whether Kansas Democratic Senate candidate Chad Taylor can legally withdraw from the race — as he attempted to do on Sept. 3, the last day such a withdrawal was allowed — has been decided by the state Supreme Court. And the answer is yes, Taylor can withdraw, and his name will be taken off the ballot. But the court ruled that by doing so, Taylor effectively stated that he is incapable of serving in the office for which he was running.
The case was all about politics. Both Taylor and independent Greg Orman were challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts. Orman was doing well in the polls; Taylor wasn’t. Even though Taylor had received the Democratic nomination, state Democratic strategists believed that Orman had a good chance of beating Roberts in a one-on-one race. So they leaned on Taylor to withdraw from the race. “Several prominent Democrats are said to have been instrumental in nudging [Taylor] to do so to clear the way for the independent, Greg Orman, who has been leading Mr. Roberts in some recent polls,” the New York Times reported on Thursday.
The only problem was that Kansas law is quite specific on how a candidate, once nominated, may withdraw. Other than dying, there’s really just one way: to declare to the secretary of state that he or she is incapable of serving in the office to which he or she has been nominated. The law, K.S.A. 25-306b(b), says:
In his withdrawal letter to Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Taylor didn’t say anything about being incapable. Instead, the letter read, in its entirety:
Kobach, a Republican, rejected Taylor’s withdrawal on the grounds that it said nothing about incapability, as required by law. With the Kansas Senate race perhaps hanging in the balance, the case went to court.
In his presentation to the justices, Taylor argued that, even though he did not specifically say he is incapable of serving, by writing that he wanted to withdraw “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” — that is the incapability provision — he effectively declared that he is incapable of serving. From Taylor’s brief:
On Thursday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taylor; he can withdraw and have his name taken off the ballot. The justices accepted Taylor’s argument that he meant to declare that he is incapable of serving:
So Taylor is out. Coverage of the decision has focused on the conclusion that the removal of Taylor’s name from the ballot will help Orman and hurt Roberts’ chances of re-election. That’s of course the national significance of the decision. But in Kansas, questions will remain. Why did Democrats nominate a candidate who is incapable of serving? And just why is Taylor incapable? Also, Taylor is the district attorney of Shawnee County in Kansas. Is he capable of doing that job? And if he is, why is it that he is capable of serving as district attorney but incapable of serving as senator?
From the start of his campaign through the Aug. 5 Democratic primary (which he won with 53 percent of the vote), through the beginning of September, Taylor told voters he was the best choice to represent Kansas in the United States Senate. Then, overnight, he decided he was “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.” He owes the voters of Kansas an explanation of what happened.
