[EL] Wisconsin voter id/#KSSEN

[Rick Hasen]

    Breaking: Plaintiffs in WI Voter ID Case Seek 7th Circuit En Banc
    Review <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65539>

Posted onSeptember 16, 2014 12:04 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65539>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I'm surprised they did not first go straight to SCOTUS. So reportsZach 
Roth. <https://twitter.com/zackroth/status/511950761581109248> I will 
update this post when I have the filing.

One interesting question will be whether Judge Posner recuses.

More to come.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65539&title=Breaking%3A%20Plaintiffs%20in%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20Seek%207th%20Circuit%20En%20Banc%20Review&description=Breaking%3A%20Plaintiffs%20in%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20Seek%207th%20Circuit%20En%20Banc%20Review%0APosted%20on%20September%2016%2C%202014%2012%3A04%20pm%20by%20Rick%20Hasen%0AI%E2%80%99m%20surprised%20they%20did%20not%20first%20go%20straight%20to%20SCOTUS.%20So%20reports%20Zach%20Roth.%C2%A0I%20will%20update%20this%20post%20when%20I%20have%20the%20filing.%0A%0AOne%20interesting%20question%20will%20be%20whether%20Judge%20Posner%20recuses.%0A%0AMore%20to%20come.%0A%0A%0APosted%20in%20election%20administration%2C%20The%20Voting%20Wars%0ALive%20Blogging%20%23KSSEN%20Taylor%20v.%20Kobach%3A%20Analysis%0APosted%20on%20September%20>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


    Live Blogging #KSSEN Taylor v. Kobach: Analysis
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65498>

Posted onSeptember 16, 2014 7:00 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65498>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Oral argument in the Kansas Supreme Court has now completed in the case 
ofKobach v. Taylor 
<http://www.kscourts.org/Chad_Taylor_v_Kris_Kobach/default.asp>, on the 
question whether Taylor's name can be removed from the Kansas U.S. 
Senate ballot. The issue is especially important with incumbent 
Republican Senator Pat Robertsnow trailing 
<https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/511875077991043073>independent 
Greg Orman in recent polling and with the fate of the Senate potentially 
hanging in the balance.

While it is always hazardous to predict outcomes from oral argument 
(because Justices sometimes ask rhetorical questions or minds change 
after argument), I think it is likely the Justices will quickly issue an 
order removing Taylor's name from the ballot. Nothing is a sure thing, 
but enough of the Justices speaking seemed to indicate their belief that 
Taylor should be allowed to withdraw because Taylor's declaration of 
withdrawal complied with the statute (by stating he was withdrawing 
"pursuant to" the statute even if he did not mention the magic words of 
withdrawal), or substantially complied with the statute, or he complied 
because only the request to withdraw but not the declaration of 
incapability needs to be in writing, or because Kobach lacked the 
discretion to judge if the letter complied, or because the court should 
view Taylor's declaration as complying with the statute to avoid the 
risk of voter confusion.

Much of the discussion at oral argument concerned other letters of 
withdrawal which the SOS had received in recent years, including some 
earlier letters which were submitted (late) to the court. It seems to 
show a pattern of the SOS exercising discretion in deciding which 
letters complied. The Justices seemed to get Kobach's lawyer to admit 
that substantial compliance may sometimes be enough. With that 
concession, there is a relatively easy path to finding the letter 
substantially complied.

Nothing in the argument seemed to turn on whether Taylor received 
incorrect assurances that the letter was accurate from someone in the 
Secretary of State's office. It looks like the Court will avoid the 
disputed factual issue by finding that the letter (substantially) 
complied with statutory requirements.

If the Court does allow Taylor's name to be removed from the ballot, 
what is not clear is what happens to naming a replacement. As I 
understand it the name must come from a party convention, but the 
ballots must begin being printed on Saturday.

Below the fold you can find my original, unedited notes as oral argument 
was underway.

Continue reading? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65498#more-65498>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65498&title=Live%20Blogging%20%23KSSEN%20Taylor%20v.%20Kobach%3A%20Analysis&description=Breaking%3A%20Plaintiffs%20in%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20Seek%207th%20Circuit%20En%20Banc%20Review%0APosted%20on%20September%2016%2C%202014%2012%3A04%20pm%20by%20Rick%20Hasen%0AI%E2%80%99m%20surprised%20they%20did%20not%20first%20go%20straight%20to%20SCOTUS.%20So%20reports%20Zach%20Roth.%C2%A0I%20will%20update%20this%20post%20when%20I%20have%20the%20filing.%0A%0AOne%20interesting%20question%20will%20be%20whether%20Judge%20Posner%20recuses.%0A%0AMore%20to%20come.%0A%0A%0APosted%20in%20election%20administration%2C%20The%20Voting%20Wars%0ALive%20Blogging%20%23KSSEN%20Taylor%20v.%20Kobach%3A%20Analysis%0APosted%20on%20September%20>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,statutory 
interpretation <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140916/b20f4180/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140916/b20f4180/attachment.png>