Taylor v. Kobach
334 P.3d 306
Kan.2014Background
- Chadwick J. Taylor won the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate (Aug 5, 2014) and sought to withdraw his name before the statutory deadline by filing a signed, notarized letter with the Secretary of State on Sept. 3, 2014.
- Taylor’s letter stated he “do[es] hereby withdraw my nomination for election effective immediately and request my name be withdrawn from the ballot, pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b).”
- Secretary of State Kris Kobach refused to remove Taylor’s name, concluding the letter did not contain the explicit statutory phrase that the candidate “is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.”
- Taylor filed an original action for a writ of mandamus in the Kansas Supreme Court to compel Kobach to remove his name from the general-election ballot. The case required expedited resolution due to ballot-printing deadlines.
- The core legal question was whether Taylor’s incorporation-by-reference phrase “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” satisfied the statute’s requirement that a withdrawing nominee “declare[] that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s letter satisfied K.S.A. 25-306b(b)’s required declaration that a withdrawing nominee “is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.” | Taylor: The phrase “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” incorporates the statute by reference and thereby effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling duties if elected. | Kobach: The statute requires an explicit, affirmative written declaration of incapacity; mere citation or reference to the statute is insufficient. | Court: “Pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” plainly incorporates the subsection’s requirement and thus satisfies the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 279 Kan. 789, 112 P.3d 131 (2005) (mandamus compels a public officer to perform a clearly defined nondiscretionary duty)
- Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 244 P.3d 642 (2010) (mandamus should not issue unless respondent’s legal duty is clear)
- Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 319 P.3d 1196 (2014) (statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the statute)
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 379 (1937) (definition and ordinary meaning of the phrase “pursuant to”)
- State v. Becker, 264 Kan. 804, 958 P.2d 627 (1998) (mandamus appropriate to enforce a clear statutory duty)
- Vontress v. State, 299 Kan. 607, 325 P.3d 1114 (2014) (reinforcing principle of giving effect to unambiguous statutory language)