1. I wonder if the GOP is behind this? They are worried because the recent polls shows Roberts trailing the Independent candidate whose name slips me at the moment. But as I pointed out in a previous reply, both of the major parties will go to any extremes to win.

2. The Kansas statute says that if a party nominee is incapable of serving if elected and withdraws, that the party shall nominate a replacement nominee.

   The Kansas Supreme Court in effect said that Chad Taylor had made a declaration of his incapability of serving by citing a statute which provided only that reason for withdrawing, even if he did not use the magic words in his withdrawal letter.

   The son of David Orel works for the Republican senatorial campaign. He is 21 (IIRC), and can’t be characterized as an official. David Orel is a registered Democrat, and has voted in the past Democratic primaries, including the one where David Taylor was nominated.

3. In law, “shall” is a supremely ambiguous term and doesn’t always mean “must”.

4. In common usage, particularly using the past tense, it may be used to indicate permission rather than an imperative. I disagree with you with respect to statutory construction, in particular your use of ‘supremely’: You should read

   http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/

   In exchange for its right to place nominees on the general election ballot, the Kansas Democratic Party has agreed to nominate by primary, conducted according to state law and financed by the state. If the Democratic Party fails in their obligation to name a replacement nominee, now that Chad Taylor has implicitly declared his inability to serve if elected, a reasonable claim of theft of service could be brought against the party.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.