.@rickhasen Can you say more on why you think Kobach's version of events is more likely to be accepted if there's no factfinding by Court?
-
-
@rickhasen Is Taylor's claim about what he was told *necessary* for his case? Doesn't it shift issue to whether letter itself was enough? -
.
@Taniel One argument is that if government said it was enough, it cannot now claim it is not enough (that's estoppel or waiver) (1/2) -
.
@Taniel the problem is that it is hard to make an estoppel claim against the government based on gov't worker misinformation (2/2)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rickhasen@Taniel KS law seems to require vacancy be filled- any reason to think a Shermanesque Dem replacement would be less of a spoiler? -
@LPDonovan@rickhasen There's also timing issue: How long before Court declares vacancy, and then how long before Dems can hold convention? -
.
@Taniel@LPDonovan If court sides with Taylor, they could say "too late" for a replacement. Call it the "Reverse Torricelli" -
.
@Taniel@LPDonovan Ironic that Dems begged for replacement in NJ Torricelli race but will prefer NO replacement in#KSSEN race - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@rickhasen But maybe letter + statute is enough to get Taylor off ballot -
@DKElections@rickhasen "facts" on offer here do seem fairly confined, no? -
@joshtpm@DKElections not sure what you mean by "confined." Q is whether gov't official gave assurances letter was ok. -
@rickhasen mean that number of facts, open questions fairly tight, not far-flung as in many other cases -
@joshtpm true, but KS Supreme Ct. passed up chance to appt. district court judge to do factfinding on this single, important question -
@rickhasen right. so they're saying, however confined, we don't really care, not necessary for decision, yes? -
.
@joshtpm exactly. And question is why they would say it. Most likely reason is that they think it irrelevant for outcome of case. (1/2) -
.
@joshtpm Fact cd be irrelevant b/c they view "pursuant" language enough under statute. Or they don't and reject estoppel against govt (2/2)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rickhasen@Taniel guessing the dispute of fact is if he signaled why he couldn't continue.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.