Kansas move backfiring for Dems?

posted at 8:01 am on September 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Party strategists like clever plays involving election law when they create surprises for the other party. When they create surprises for themselves, they tend to enjoy it a lot less — and Democrats may be in the process of discovering that in Kansas. Mary Katharine wrote last night that the Democratic nominee pulled out of the US Senate race in Kansas, theoretically leaving supporters of Chad Taylor to swing to the more popular independent, Greg Orman. This would create a coalition that had a good chance of defeating the incumbent Republican, Pat Roberts, and put a big dent in GOP hopes of controlling the Senate.

Democrats patted themselves on the back when Taylor pulled out with just minutes to spare on a deadline for exiting the race. It turns out, though, that Kansas Democrats didn’t read the statute closely enough:

Despite filing papers with the Kansas secretary of State withdrawing from the Senate race late Wednesday, Democrat Chad Taylor may be stuck on the ballot this fall.

Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot, and, if so, whether Democrats must ultimately choose a candidate to replace him.

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal. The Hill links to Taylor’s letter of withdrawal, which says in its entirety (minus the header and footer):

I, Chadwick J. Taylor, Democratic nominee for the United States Senate race, do hereby withdraw my nomination for election effective immediately and request my name be withdrawn from the ballot, pursuant to KSA 25-306b(b).

Note the absence of any declared reason for the withdrawal. The statute cited by Taylor specifically requires a representation that the candidate is “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected,” emphasis mine, and not just uninterested in doing so. Otherwise, in the same statute that Taylor cites, “no person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination after the day of the primary election.”

Furthermore, the withdrawal of a party nominee requires the party to replace the nominee, according to KSA 25-3905, also cited by The Hill:

25-3905. Vacancies after primary election filled by party committee or district convention; governor and lieutenant governor vacancies filled by state party delegate convention. (a) When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be, except if the vacancy is in a party candidacy for a district office or for the office of member of the state board of education, it shall be filled by district convention held as provided in K.S.A. 25-3904, and amendments thereto, or as provided in K.S.A. 25-3904a, and amendments thereto, and except as otherwise provided in subsection (c). Such convention shall be called within 10 days of receipt of the notice that the vacancy has occurred or will occur. If only one political party nominates a candidate at the primary election and thereafter a vacancy occurs in such party candidacy, any political party may fill such vacancy in the manner specified in this section.

It’s possible that the Democrats could pull together a convention to nominate Orman, but that would make hash of Orman’s independent draw in the race. That would only work if the state of Kansas allows Taylor’s name to be stricken from the ballot, which at least for now they won’t. Democrats may not get the opportunity to hold a convention, absent a representation from Taylor under oath that he has some serious impediment that will keep him from fulfilling the obligations of office, and even then it might now be too late to submit a lawful ballot withdrawal, as the deadline has already passed. And if Taylor manages to concoct such a reason for his own disqualification, that would once again shine the light on the Democrats, who would have recruited and promoted him despite his substantial defect, whatever that might be.

In a way, this looks like a Robert Torricelli move in reverse. The New Jersey incumbent withdrew from the race in the midst of a scandal, and the courts allowed Democrats to replace him with the late Frank Lautenberg even though the filing deadline had passed. Now Democrats will likely have to ask to get their nominee off the ballot after a deadline and fight to keep from being forced to replace him. It has a rather delicious irony to it.

In any case, there is such a thing as being too clever by half, and Democrats may have even exceeded that measure in Kansas. This tawdry and corrupt move will taint their entire ticket, and probably Orman by association as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sweet!!

Khun Joe on September 4, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Somehow they’ll get away with this my eeyore side thinks if this goes to the courrs

cmsinaz on September 4, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Heh

gophergirl on September 4, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Not ,according to Ned Ed.

Bmore on September 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM

We all know the Dems will find a judge to rubber stamp this regardless of what the law says.

After all, laws are pesky things that never apply to Democrats.

Besides, we all know this law was only implemented because of #WarOnWomen and/or racism anyway.

DRayRaven on September 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Claire mccaskill may need a food taster if this fails though

cmsinaz on September 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Ha Ha! -Nelson Muntz

22044 on September 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Is this post by Ed his way of taking Mary Katharine to the woodshed for her phone it in style of posts?

Good job Ed for showing your coworkers how it is supposed to be done.

meci on September 4, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Sorry, should have read, not according to HAL Ed. More coffee!

Bmore on September 4, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Claire mccaskill may need a food taster if this fails though

cmsinaz on September 4, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Now that would be a FULL time job!

Naturally Curly on September 4, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Heh nc
;)

cmsinaz on September 4, 2014 at 8:17 AM

Great news indeed!

Roberts is polling at only 32% for November, followed by Democrat Chad Taylor at 25%, independent Greg Orman at 23%, and Libertarian Randall Batson at 3%. As weak as a 32% standing is for an incumbent, that still gives him a pretty clear lead due to his
opponents pretty much splitting the anti-Roberts vote evenly. But if one of them was to pull out Roberts would really be in trouble.

In a head to head contest with Taylor, Roberts would lead just 43/39, down from a 48/32 advantage in February.

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13.
Orman is still relatively unknown- only 36% name recognition- but is at a 24/12 favorability spread among those who do have an opinion about him. He is seen favorably by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

In the race for Governor we continue to find Democratic challenger Paul Davis with a small lead over Sam Brownback, 39/37, with Libertarian candidate Keen Umbehr at 9%.

This is actually an unusual instance where the Libertarian candidate is helping the Republican- Umbehr supporters say their second choice would be Davis by a 65/21 margin over Brownback, and when you reallocate those folks to their second choice Davis’ lead expands to 44/39. Umbehr’s presence in the race is actually doing Brownback a favor by splitting the opposition to him some.

Ned Pepper on September 4, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Right on time. The cut and paste plagiarist. Sing Daisy for us Ned. No one sings it quite as well as you.

Bmore on September 4, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Ned’s spooked.

CurtZHP on September 4, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Yes, this is a dirty underhanded move by the Dems and a cynical attempt to manipulate the election outcome.

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

We all know the Dems will find a judge to rubber stamp this regardless of what the law says.

After all, laws are pesky things that never apply to Democrats.

Besides, we all know this law was only implemented because of #WarOnWomen and/or racism anyway.

DRayRaven on September 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM

Exactly. Laws are only meant to apply to Democrat political opponents.

And I’m sure they’ll judge shop this one till they get what they want.

ConstantineXI on September 4, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal.

Well, given the way the county has been run the last six years he should just say “I can’t run because it would be really bad for Democrats.” Get his waiver. And move on.

Gatsu on September 4, 2014 at 8:23 AM

It’s possible that the Democrats could pull together a convention to nominate Orman, but that would make hash of Orman’s independent draw in the race.

Depending on which judge/Lawgiver-In-Black gets the inevitable case, I doubt the Rats can nominate Orman. KSA 25-202(c) reads:

No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Whoops – forgot the link to KSA 25-202(c).

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Is this post by Ed his way of taking Mary Katharine to the woodshed for her phone it in style of posts?

Good job Ed for showing your coworkers how it is supposed to be done.

meci on September 4, 2014 at 8:11 AM

No – The Hill’s piece hit well after MKH’s post.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:28 AM

I’m pretty sure the Dems will find a judge somewhere who’ll allow Taylor’s name to be stricken from the ballots.

Doughboy on September 4, 2014 at 8:29 AM

And the Dems will find a judge willing to give them their way just like they did in NJ…yawn…

blue13326 on September 4, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Agreed that laws of the serfs haven’t meant much to Barky and Co. lately or for that matter Weasel “Chamber” Boehner.

viking01 on September 4, 2014 at 8:29 AM

Sorry, should have read, not according to HAL Ed. More coffee!

Bmore on September 4, 2014 at 8:12 AM

HAL was smarter than that.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Lolz! Same crappy voice for singing though. ; )

Bmore on September 4, 2014 at 8:33 AM

No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Doesn’t apply. Orman is running as nonpartisan first, not partisan. He did not run in a primary. Statute is just the opposite of this case.

huckleberryfriend on September 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM

HAL was smarter than that.

Steve Eggleston on September 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Daisy…. Daisy…

ConstantineXI on September 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM

‘Reading comprehension is hard!’

- Claire McCaskill, who is said to be behind this

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:35 AM

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13.

- Idiot

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Heheheh.

This evil Democrat effort was apparently managed by Dr. Evil.

MTF on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

‘Fauxchahontas/FauxIndie 2016!!!’

- Ned Pepper

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:39 AM

OK, this has been bothering me.

1. Why is the usher watching the show? Shouldn’t he be working?

2. Why is he the only one in the theater?

Bat Chain Puller on September 4, 2014 at 8:40 AM

If the GOP were smart (stop laughing!!) they’d be on the air immediately saying “If Orman is independent, why are the Dem’s trying to help him get elected?” Pound on the fact if Orman were really independent the Dems wouldn’t be trying to help him. But, of course, that would mean someone on Roberts campaign or in the GOP Senate leadership were smart. And if the GOP leadership were smart, they would have had Roberts resign and let the bright, articulate, conservative actual medical doctor Wolf win the nomination in Kansas.

MaureenTheTemp on September 4, 2014 at 8:40 AM

I’m curious as to effect this will have on the GOP’s possibly retaking the Senate. Is this one of the races that the politicos were thinking would go to the Dems?

Syzygy on September 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Gallup: Obama’s Approval Rating 15-Points Underwater…

Approval back into the 30′s.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM

In a way, this looks like a Robert Torricelli move in reverse. The New Jersey incumbent withdrew from the race in the midst of a scandal, and the courts allowed Democrats to replace him with the late Frank Lautenberg even though the filing deadline had passed.

I saw what you did there…

But in fairness, Frank Lautenberg was not yet dead at the time. It just seemed that way.

Haiku Guy on September 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM

And in a head to head contest with Orman, Roberts trails 43/33.
Orman would take 30% of the Republican vote while losing only 11% of Democrats to Roberts, and would lead by 41 points with independents at 54/13.

- Idiot

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Sounds like kos analysis, who was still saying Lieberman lost somehow at 4 am election night until his own people told him “Dude, go to bed”.

Marcus on September 4, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Yes, this is a dirty underhanded move by the Dems and a cynical attempt to manipulate the election outcome.

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

It sounds to me like this law was meant to prevent “a dirty underhanded move” such as this. It was probably written during a time when people were expected to follow through on their commitments. I share your reflexive anti-government impulse, but I would characterize it more as the government forcing the party to fulfill the contract it has made with the voting public.

Fenris on September 4, 2014 at 8:44 AM

If it was Massachusetts, they’d just change the law to get what they want, then change it back after the election.

Ward Cleaver on September 4, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal. The Hill links to Taylor’s letter of withdrawal, which says in its entirety (minus the header and footer):

I’ve got an idea – maybe Taylor can travel to Liberia and do some missionary work.

Ward Cleaver on September 4, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Exactly. Laws are only meant to apply to Democrat political opponents.

And I’m sure they’ll judge shop this one till they get what they want.

ConstantineXI on September 4, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Because Democrats absolutely hate a Constitutional Republic, and a free election by knowledgeable voters is anathema to them. That is why they will forever demand the qualified vote be diluted with the LIV, criminal, easily purchased, corrupt and self-serving voter. When they can’t receive numerical superiority there, then they stuff ballot boxes, count chads, and stick racial enforcers outside voting booths.

They can’t have an informed vote, because their ideology is violently opposed to our nation’s founding principles. They must lie, cheat and deceive because what they want to do is repulsive to honest Americans.

Reuben Hick on September 4, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Relabled stink, call it D call it I, it still stinks.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on September 4, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Good morning, I am sure this has already been said and Kansas isn’t New Jersey but after the Toricelli/Lutenburg mess I’ll hide and watch.

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2014 at 9:01 AM

OK, this has been bothering me.

1. Why is the usher watching the show? Shouldn’t he be working?

2. Why is he the only one in the theater?

Bat Chain Puller on September 4, 2014 at 8:40 AM

1. He’s union.

2. It’s a crappy movie.

Solaratov on September 4, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, 30% of Republicans are still going to vote for the Faux-Indie after this or something!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM

A prospect made even less likely by out-of-state Democrats like Ned cheering Orman on as if he’s no different from Vermont ‘independent’ Senator Bernie Saunders, who somehow manages to vote with Barack Obama and Harry Reid every single time.

Orman’s trying to get voters to believe he’ll caucus with whichever party gets to 50 Senators first. His fellow Democrats are letting everyone know which party’s side he’d really be on if sent to Washington.

jon1979 on September 4, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Democrats want EVERY VOTE to count…..except when it’s their own constituents primary votes.

Northwoods on September 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Lsm giddy about this move but don’t mention the statutes that may backfire on them

Funny huh

cmsinaz on September 4, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Don’t think the TPers will appreciate this D move and will swing back to Roberts. Even if they don’t particularly like the guy, I don’t see that many voting for Orman after this swift move.

Kissmygrits on September 4, 2014 at 9:37 AM

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The Democratic Party is not a “private group” in the sense that a church or civic organization is. It has official status within government, which, for instance, provides the funding for it to carry out primaries. If they want to be on the state’s ballot, they have to play by the state’s rules.

Athanasius on September 4, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Northwoods on September 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM

That’s an excellent point, I wonder if the Democrat voters will notice?

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Even if Lautenberg had been dead at the time it probably wouldn’t have mattered to the Noo Joisey Supreme Court…

viking01 on September 4, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Ned Pepper on September 4, 2014 at 8:18 AM

Because by hook or by crook or by think-veiled electoral maneuvering, you don’t care how the Democrat wins. I’ll bet you’d be pleased-as-punch if there were blatant vote fraud as long the other side loses. That way you can continue to spew your childish schoolyard taunts – which I think is the whole point of the exercise for you.

You are what’s wrong with politics today.

Buck Farky on September 4, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Kansas law requires any primary-nominated candidate to remain on the ballot for the general election unless special circumstances exist to allow the withdrawal. “Special circumstances” means death, illness, or a declared inability to serve in office, none of which accompanied Taylor’s withdrawal.

So if he uses rank stupidity as a special circumstance, does that take him off?

itsspideyman on September 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Buck Farky on September 4, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Buck, go check out his posts from MKH last night referenced by Ed. Peckerhed got up this morning, read this, and changed his Depends.

itsspideyman on September 4, 2014 at 10:09 AM

That said, I’m really uncomfortable with the state requiring a private group (in this case the Democratic Party) to either keep a candidate who no longer wishes to run, or put up a new candidate when they do not wish to do so. But that might just be reflexive anti-government thinking. I’ll have to ponder this question a bit more before making up my mind.

AngusMc on September 4, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The law is designed to prevent “bait and switch”, a well-known form of fraud in the private world. I support its use in the electoral world as well since it helps prevent political parties from totally corrupting the voting process.

dominigan on September 4, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Yet another instance where Dems’ didn’t read the entire bill… At least this time they screwed themselves instead of the entire country.

rcpjr on September 4, 2014 at 10:18 AM

We all know the Dems will find a judge to rubber stamp this regardless of what the law says.

After all, laws are pesky things that never apply to Democrats.

Besides, we all know this law was only implemented because of #WarOnWomen and/or racism anyway.

DRayRaven on September 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM

This.

Ricard on September 4, 2014 at 10:57 AM

The Law of Unintended Consequences raises its ugly head.

socalcon on September 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM

It looks good, but remember that we can no longer rely on laws.

I could spend the majority of the day listing examples of lawlessness perpetrated by judges angling for a promotion.

ha_tspc on September 4, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Yeah, well, I’ll be voting for Orman in any case and I hope he wins. Pat Roberts is absolutely dreadful and does not deserve to serve as a Senator for Kansas or any other state for that matter.

Paperclips on September 4, 2014 at 11:20 AM

It’s wonderful to see dims are the ones self destructing this cycle. A nice change.

cat_owner on September 4, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Would Democrats really turn out to vote for the Independent anyway?

Might they just stay home?

petunia on September 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Oops.

Oxymoron on September 4, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Gallup: Obama’s Approval Rating 15-Points Underwater…

Approval back into the 30′s.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2014 at 8:41 AM

That’s not shocking. I talked to a friend last night who listens to sports talk radio while working. He’s a huge Broncos fan and coaches his son’s football, basketball, and baseball teams. He pays attention to politics thru Facebook so he’s a little more informed than most people but not by much.

He’s a pretty good indicator of what the average person hears every day. He didn’t even know that there was a 2nd-hand account of Officer Wilson’s side of events in Mike Brown’s shooting.

He told me that news of ISIS is everywhere and wanted to know why Obama won’t do anything. When I mentioned that Obama has known how dangerous they are for a year and that he took a month to decide on sending in 1st-tier operators to rescue American journalist prisoners, he shook his head and asked, “Isn’t there some way we can get rid of Obama?”

UnstChem on September 4, 2014 at 11:47 AM

In any case, there is such a thing as being too clever by half, and Democrats may have even exceeded that measure in Kansas. This tawdry and corrupt move will taint their entire ticket, and probably Orman by association as well.

It’s always great fun when devious people wind up outsmarting themselves. The poetic justice leads to a certain … schadenfreude.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 4, 2014 at 12:09 PM

1. what makes you think theres a movie playing?
2. its pee wee herman

t8stlikchkn on September 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Two election law statutes have raised questions about whether Taylor gave sufficient cause to remove himself from the ballot

That is utterly amazing
/grammar

williampeck1958 on September 4, 2014 at 12:15 PM

My two twenty-something libertarian leaning sons have both commented that Orman is just creepy in his ads. They were very negative about his demeanor and his sales pitch before the primary and they haven’t changed their minds.

Chad Taylor is the next big thing in Kansas Democrat Party politics – a very slick DA – my guess is he withdrew because he had no intention of losing to Roberts and/or Orman.

That huge 1st District of Western Kansas, probably 50-60 counties – usually votes 80-85% Republican and I have no reason to believe it will be any different this year.

It’s time for pragmatism – I voted for Wolfe, but it was not meant to be (because of that huge 1st District Republican monolith voting bloc). I will vote for Roberts based on his pro-life record – not a chance in heck that I would give the KS Democrats a vote in Washington.

kansaskaye on September 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM

That huge 1st District of Western Kansas, probably 50-60 counties – usually votes 80-85% Republican and I have no reason to believe it will be any different this year.

kansaskaye on September 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM

This is a good point. All but 4 of those counties went for Roberts in the primary, as well. So if they (we, though I voted for Wolf) voted for Roberts in that primary, I don’t see them switching votes now.

cptacek on September 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Chad Taylor had better hire some good protection, before the Dems decide to Vince Foster him.

CapnObvious on September 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM

This situation is just one more example of why it is important to elect a Secretary of State who believes in enforcing election laws as they are written.

Bravo Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach!

wren on September 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Perhaps I should point out that DC’s 3rd Senator and his Democrat place holder is losing to an INDEPENDENT candidate?

Brock Robamney on September 4, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Here’s hoping that Humpbot is getting good and limber. I have a feeling he’s going to be quite busy come November.

Gwillie on September 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM

When candidates less interested to serve than W.T.Sherman are needed, the KS Dems will nominate them, and then they’ll all go off somewhere for the duration.
As Will Rogers said: I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.

Another Drew on September 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Isn’t it usual for the courts to allow Democrats to proceed with illegal acts?

virgo on September 5, 2014 at 1:09 AM