Will Tea Party, GOP establishment be 'mending fences' to win Senate in November?

After a long, unapologetic effort to defeat Tea Party and other so-called “unelectable” candidates in GOP primaries, the Washington establishment will likely need Tea Party voters in November to help swing several tight Senate races and win control of the upper chamber.
Republicans appear poised to win three of the net total six seats required to take the Senate. But they are locked in six other, too-close-to call contests in their effort to win the remaining three seats.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee on Friday dismissed the notion that party voters are not united behind their candidates.
“Can you point to a race … ? It’s a false narrative,” said group spokeswoman Brook Hougsen, who cited a recent George Washington University survey that shows Republicans with a 16-point advantage over Democrats (52-to-36 percent) in a generic poll on competitive Senate races.
Kevin Broughton, spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, a political action committee, singled out a few races, particularly in Kansas and Mississippi, but suggested his troops will rally for the general election.
“While Tea Party people and conservative activists might have a bad taste in their mouth, the goal is to keep Barack Obama from making more bad appointments to the federal appeals courts,” he said. “And the way you stop that is to take away (Nevada Sen.) Harry Reid’s Democratic majority and his nuclear option.”
Broughton said they will focus on such grassroots efforts as get-out-the-vote, instead of buying TV or other media spots. 
The establishment and its deep-pocket supporters made clear from the start of the 2014 election cycle that their goal was to field a full squad of electable candidates, thus avoiding past mistakes, and to weed out anybody who might get elected and undermine their legislative agenda.
“Our job is to win a GOP majority,” NRSC strategist Brad Dayspring said in terse November 2013 tweet.
Two months later, the Chamber of Commerce made clear that Big Business was also going to work -- vowing to support candidates “who want to work within the legislative process” and to unleash “enough resources to run the most effective political program of 2014.” 
The results were indeed impressive.
All six Republican senators who faced promising Tea Party-backed challenges won their primaries, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who in March boldly predicted he and the rest of the Washington establishment would “crush” far-right advocacy groups and their candidates. 
“I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country,” the five-term Kentucky Republican told The New York Times.
The other wins came in Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Kansas, where the NRSC helped incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts to victory with more than 40,000 phone calls in the final three weeks of his campaign.
In Mississippi, Tea Party-backed candidate Chris McDaniel forced GOP incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran -- who had strong inside-the-beltway financial and grassroots support -- into a runoff to retain his seat.
Politico described the contest as “a flashpoint in the GOP civil war.”
The North Carolina Senate race is among the six deadlocked races.
The Washington establishment has invested in candidate Thom Tillis, a state House leader who defeated a field of Tea Party-backed challenger in a May primary and now faces incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagen.
The U.S. chamber has so far put $1.2 million into the race, according to OpenSecrets.org.
The other races are in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana and now Iowa -- all considered “tossups,” according to the nonpartisan website RealClearPolitics.
“There will have to be some fence mending with these groups, particularly in states with late primaries,” Andrew Smith, a University of New Hampshire pollster and political science professor, said earlier this week.
He said the GOP establishment must get those groups energized and that the best way is to “make it easy for independent voters” by tying every Democratic candidate to President Obama.
Republicans blame Tea Party-backed and flawed candidates for squandering the party's shot at Senate control in 2010 and 2012, especially in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and Indiana.
In Delaware, for example, Christine O’Donnell rode the 2010 Tea Party wave to victory over nine-term Rep. Mike Castle in the state’s GOP Senate primary, only to run a disastrous general-election campaign and lose the Republican-held seat by 17 percentage points.
“I’m sure a lot of party leaders are also saying, ‘Look, you saw what happened in 2010 and 2012. Don’t let it happen again,’ ” Smith said.
This weekend, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund sent an email to members attacking Colorado Democratic Senate nominee Rep. Bruce Braley. The email in part criticized Braley for his support of ObamaCare but made no mention of Republican nominee Joni Ernst, who has support from the Washington establishment and such Tea Party stalwarts as 2010 GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
“By any measure, Republicans are fired up and ready to deliver victories to their candidates in November,” said Ed Goeas, president and chief executive of the Tarrance Group, which helped in the GWU poll.   

NFL Cartoon

Democrats' big guns court women voters

With little more 40 days until voters head to the polls, the 2014 midterm election cycle marks the first in modern history in which Democrats find themselves scrambling to reclaim the lion’s share of the female vote in such elections.
Women tilted Republican in 2010, an unprecedented development since exit polling for congressional races began in 1992, and both parties recognize the critical role women will play in determining whether the GOP regains control of the Senate.
With such concerns in mind, the Democratic Party’s biggest guns – President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the party’s putative frontrunner if she runs in 2016, as many expect – descended on Washington’s Marriott Marquis Hotel, site of the 21sr annual conference of the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum.
The event represented a homecoming of sorts for Clinton, who co-founded the group back in 1993, when she was First Lady. Conceding that midterm elections are not as “glamorous” as presidential contests, Clinton urged the several hundred people in attendance to vote in November, singling out a number of female candidates locked in tight House and Senate races across the country. “This election is a crucial one,” she said.
While touting her own record on women’s issues – a term Clinton herself discounted, preferring instead “family issues” – the potential 2016 contender also praised the records of Obama and Biden, who has made no secret of his interest in pursuing the Democratic presidential nomination.
Following the rocky rollout for her book this spring, when Clinton’s comments about her finances prompted criticism that she has lost touch with ordinary Americans, she used the DNC event to emphasize that she understands the challenges faced by working mothers. 
She recounted her own days as a young attorney in Arkansas, when her husband, the future president, was the state’s governor, and the couple occasionally had problems lining up day care for their daughter Chelsea.
Obama argued that America is “better off” now than when he became president, and that “strong women” will help the nation reach its best days in the years to come. He also rose to the defense of the embattled DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. Published reports over the past week have alluded to dissatisfaction with Wasserman-Schultz within Democratic ranks – alternately linked to the White House and the Clinton camp – and suggested that some party activists are angling for her replacement.
“Nobody, anywhere, works harder than Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” the president said in comments that followed the congresswoman’s staunch defense of the Obama administration’s record on issues of concern to women.
Biden also defended the DNC chair, saying, “If we want anybody to do that 60 seconds or 120 seconds we get to respond to some attack on the president or on the administration, the best person…is always Debbie.”
As the principal architect of the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law enacted 20 years ago, Biden enjoys a solid reputation among women voters. However, he committed a gaffe Friday when, in his remarks before the mostly female crowd, he praised the moderation of a number of Republican senators with whom he used to collaborate on legislation – and specifically named former Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon, who was forced to resign in 1995 amid multiple allegations of sexually harassment.
Polls show no clear trend lines for women voters in key races for the Senate, where Republicans need to win six seats to reclaim majority control of the chamber. Some analysts argue that that bodes well for the GOP, because it shows Democratic candidates are not enjoying the kind of lopsided support from women that they may need in order to offset traditional Republican strength among male voters.
With videos of the beheadings of two American journalists driving fears about the deteriorating state of the Middle East, and U.S. military forces preparing for war against the terrorist army known as ISIS, one female conservative suggested this election cycle will witness the return of “security moms” – female voters distrustful of Democrats on national security issues.
“After all of the unraveling around the world this summer with President Obama’s foreign policy – in the Middle East, with ISIS, in Russia, new relationships with China – we see that unraveling is unsettling to women,” said Gayle Trotter,an attorney and senior fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum in Washington. “More women are saying now that foreign policy is something that they’re very concerned about for the midterm elections.”

Goodell says NFL got it 'wrong,' announces partnerships with anti-violence groups

NEW YORK –  Commissioner Roger Goodell says the NFL wants to implement new personal conduct policies by the Super Bowl.
Goodell was short on specifics at a news conference Friday, his first public statements in more than a week about the rash of NFL players involved in domestic violence. More defiant than contrite as he was hammered with questions, Goodell said he has not considered resigning.
"Unfortunately, over the past several weeks, we have seen all too much of the NFL doing wrong," he said in his opening statement. "That starts with me."
The league has faced increasing criticism that it has not acted quickly or emphatically enough. The commissioner reiterated that he botched the handling of the Ray Rice case.
"The same mistakes can never be repeated," he said.
Goodell said he would meet with NFL Players Association chief DeMaurice Smith next week, and they would work with outside experts to evaluate the league's policies.
Among the areas that will be examined is Goodell's role in discipline. The commissioner now oversees all personal conduct cases, deciding guilt and penalties.
"Nothing is off the table," he said.
Goodell said he believes he has the support of the NFL's owners, his bosses.
"That has been clear to me," he said.
The commissioner and some NFL teams have been heavily criticized for lenient or delayed punishment of Rice, Adrian Peterson and other players involved in recent domestic violence cases. Less than three weeks into the season, five such cases have made headlines.
Vikings star running back Peterson and Carolina defensive end Greg Hardy are on a special commissioner's exemption list and are being paid while they go through the legal process. Arizona running back Jonathan Dwyer was placed on the reserve/non-football illness list, meaning he can't play for the team again this season. Ray McDonald, a defensive end for San Francisco, continues to practice and play while being investigated on suspicion of domestic violence.
As these cases have come to light, such groups as the National Organization of Women and league partners and sponsors have come down hard on the NFL to be more responsive in dealing with them. Congress also is watching to see how the NFL reacts.
Rice was initially suspended for two games. After defending the punishment at first, Goodell admitted more than a month later that he "didn't get it right" and announced tougher penalties for future domestic violent incidents.
Then when a video emerged of the assault on his then-fiancee, the Baltimore Ravens cut the star running back and the league banned him indefinitely.
Goodell reiterated Friday that he didn't believe anybody at the NFL had seen the video before it was published by TMZ. The Associated Press reported last week that a law enforcement official says he sent the video to a league executive five months ago.
Citing Rice's appeal of his indefinite suspension, Goodell declined to specify Friday how the player's description of what happened was "inconsistent" with what the video showed — the commissioner's reason for changing his punishment.
The NFL asked former FBI director Robert Mueller to conduct an investigation into the league's handling of the Rice case. The law firm where Mueller is now a partner, WilmerHale, has connections to the NFL. Goodell insisted Friday that it wasn't a conflict of interest because Mueller himself has not previously worked with the league.
Goodell acknowledged he has learned that interviewing Rice and his now-wife together is an inappropriate way to handle a domestic violence case.
The commissioner declined to address whether any women were involved in the decision to suspend Rice for two games, but conceded that's "exactly what we're concerned about."
"We didn't have the right voices at the table," he added.
The NFL has since added domestic violence experts as consultants. It also announced it is partnering with a domestic violence hotline and a sexual violence resource center.
Goodell said Friday that he will establish a conduct committee. One of the key questions is how to balance the league's desire to take a stance against violent acts with the due process of the legal system.
In a memo to the clubs late Thursday, Goodell said that within the next 30 days, all NFL and team personnel will participate in education sessions on domestic violence and sexual assault. The memo said the league will work with the union in providing the "information and tools to understand and recognize domestic violence and sexual assault."
The league will provide financial, operational and promotional support to the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

49 Turkish hostages held by ISIS freed, prime minister says

ANKARA, Turkey –  Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Saturday that 49 hostages who were seized by Islamic militants in Iraq have been freed and safely returned to Turkey, ending Turkey's most serious hostage crisis.
The hostages were seized from the Turkish Consulate in Mosul, Iraq on June 11, when the Islamic State group overran the city in its surge to seize large swaths of Iraq and Syria.
Their release contrasts with the recent beheadings of two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker by the Islamic State group, but it wasn't immediately clear what Turkey had done to secure the safe release of the hostages.
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc said the hostages are 49 Turkish consulate employees — 46 Turks and three local Iraqis — including Consul General Ozturk Yilmaz, other diplomats, children and special forces police.
The hostages were released early on Saturday and had arrived in Turkey, Davutoglu told Turkish reporters during a visit to Baku, Azerbaijan. He said he was cutting his visit short to meet them in the province of Sanliurfa, near Turkey's border with Syria.
He didn't say where the release took place, but the arrival of the hostages in Sanliurfa indicates they may have been moved from Iraq to Syria, demonstrating the Islamic State group's cross border reach.
Turkey had been reluctant to join a coalition to defeat the Islamic State group, citing the safety of its 49 kidnapped citizens. The United States had been careful not to push Turkey too hard as it tried to free the hostages.
The extremist group beheaded two U.S. journalists and a British aid worker who were working in Syria as payback for airstrikes that Washington has launched against them in Iraq.
Leaders gave only limited details of the release and it wasn't clear if Turkey had paid ransoms to have the hostages released, or what other method had been used to avoid their hostages meeting a similar fate.
Davutoglu said the release was the result of the intelligence agency's "own methods," and not a "point operation" involving special forces, but didn't elaborate.
"After intense efforts that lasted days and weeks, in the early hours, our citizens were handed over to us and we brought them back to our country," Davutoglu said.
Meanwhile, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Turks were freed through "a successful operation."
"I thank the prime minister and his colleagues for this operation which was pre-planned, whose every detail was calculated, which lasted through the night in total secrecy and ended successfully this morning," Erdogan said in a statement.
Thirty-two Turkish truck drivers who were also seized in Mosul on June 6 were released a month later. Turkey did not provide information surrounding their release.

White House fence jumper sparks evacuation

Bailey: "This just shows how weak and stupid Democrat elected Obama's Regime has become. It's really scary as this is the government that is suppose to protect us!"

WASHINGTON –  A man jumped over the fence of the White House on Friday and made it through the front door before officers managed to apprehend him, the Secret Service said. President Obama had departed the White House just minutes earlier.
The rare security breach was likely to renew intense scrutiny of the Secret Service, an agency whose storied history has been marred in recent years by multiple allegations of misconduct by officers. It was unclear whether a fence-jumper has ever made it into the White House before.
After scaling the fence on the north side of the White House, the intruder darted toward the presidential residence, ignoring commands from officers to stop, said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan. He was ultimately apprehended just inside the North Portico doors — the grand, columned entrance that looks out over Pennsylvania Avenue.
Donovan said the man appeared to be unarmed to officers who spotted him climbing the fence, and a search of the suspect turned up no weapons. The suspect was transported to a nearby hospital for examination after complaining of chest pain. He was charged with unlawful entry into the White House complex.
The Secret Service identified the suspect as Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, of Copperas Cove, Texas. Attempts to reach Gonzales or his relatives by phone Friday evening were unsuccessful.
The incident prompted a rare evacuation of much of the White House. Inside the West Wing, White House staffers and Associated Press journalists were rushed into the basement and out a side exit to a nearby street by Secret Service agents — some with their weapons drawn.
Although it's not uncommon for people to make it over the White House fence, they're typically stopped almost immediately and rarely get very far. Video from the scene showed the suspect, in jeans and a dark shirt, sprinting across the lawn as Secret Service agents shouted at nearby pedestrians to clear the area.
"This situation was a little different than other incidents we have at the White House," Donovan said. "There will be a thorough investigation into the incident."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who chairs the House Oversight Committee's subpanel on national security, said it was "totally unacceptable" that the fence-jumper made it inside the White House. Chaffetz said he's been investigating the Secret Service for more than a year and that there have been many security breaches that were never publicly reported.
"Unfortunately, they are failing to do their job," Chaffetz said in an email to the AP. "There are good men and women, but the Secret Service leadership has a lot of questions to answer."
The incident occurred shortly after 7 p.m., only minutes after Obama and his daughters, along with a guest of one of the girls, left the White House aboard Marine One on their way to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland where Obama and his family were to spend the weekend. First lady Michelle Obama had traveled separately to Camp David and was not at home.
The Secret Service's elite reputation has suffered a succession of blows in recent years, and Friday's breach marked yet another setback in the agency's efforts to rehabilitate its image.
In 2012, 13 agents and officers were implicated in a prostitution scandal during preparations for Obama's trip Cartagena, Colombia. The next year, two officers were removed from Obama's detail after another alleged incident of sexually-related misconduct. And in March, an agent was found drunk by staff at a Dutch hotel the day before Obama was set to arrive in the Netherlands.
Obama appointed the agency's first female director last year as a sign he wanted to change the culture and restore public confidence in its operations. An inspector general's report in December found no evidence of widespread misconduct.
The Secret Service has struggled in recent years to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the first family's security and preserving the public's access to the White House grounds. Once open to vehicles, the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House was confined to pedestrians after the Oklahoma City bombing, but officials have been reluctant to restrict access to the area further.
Evacuations at the White House are extremely rare. Typically, when someone jumps the White House fence, the compound is put on lockdown and those inside remain in place while officers respond to the situation. Last week, the Secret Service apprehended a man who jumped over the same stretch of fence on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, prompting officers to draw their firearms and deploy service dogs as they took the man into custody.

Mother of Slain Journalist James Foley Drops Bombshell on TV

Not that red-blooded Americans need any more reason to desire a total shake-up of the entrenched establishment… nevertheless, here’s a bit more fuel to add to the fire.
Diane Foley told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview that she was both “embarrassed” and “appalled” at how the situation regarding her son’s capture and eventual execution played out. Primarily because the government looked right past the plight of her son and treated her and her family as an “annoyance.”
Diane Foley she wasted no time in indicting the government with serious “mishandling” of her son’s capture and treatment. For example, she told Cooper that many times she and her family knew more about the whereabouts of her son James than authorities ever did.
“Jim was killed in the most horrific way. He was sacrificed because of just a lack of coordination, lack of communication, lack of prioritization,” Foley said. “As a family, we had to find our way through this on our own.”
The Foley’s are like any other family who love their children. They weren’t selfish; they merely wanted to be reunited with their loved one.
At times, when it seemed like the U.S. government wasn’t doing enough to help them, the Foley’s considered raising ransom money to free their son.
Shockingly, they were told by the state department that, if they were to do that, they would be charged with a criminal offense.
The Foley’s were left with very little recourse, and were forced to depend on a government that didn’t really seem all that interested in helping free their son.
“I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance [to the U.S. government],” she said in the interview. “It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will.”
As outrageous as it is, perhaps it isn’t all that shocking.
The Obama administration has been very calculating and very secretive in its handling of affairs internationally, often using situations like this as mere political props.
For instance, Foley revealed to Cooper that more than once they were told by U.S. government officials they were “not go to the media,” and that the “government would not exchange prisoners” or carry out “military action” to help free her son.
Why wasn’t the government interested in helping the Foley’s? The answer to that question might have something to do with America’s desire for military engagement with ISIS.
Keep in mind, much of the establishment is always looking out for their best interest. If you’ll recall, just a few short months prior, right as the VA scandal broke, Obama hastily arranged a hostage negotiation for Bowe Bergdahl, despite lacking the constitutional authority to do so.
His release served Obama and his administration as much as it did Bergdahl.
So, if you look at it in a certain light, James Foley might have served the U.S. government’s interests better dead than he ever would have alive.
As his mother said, “Jim would have been saddened… Jim believed, till the end, that his country would come to (his) aid.”

They're Back Cartoon

Immigration worker union warns ‘serious threat’ of ISIS entering US

The union representing America's immigration caseworkers warned Thursday of the "real and serious threat" that Islamic State terrorists could gain entry to the United States, either by slipping through the southern U.S. border or exploiting "loose and lax" visa policies. 
Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, issued the warning in a written statement. He's the latest to raise alarm that the Islamic State may be planning to infiltrate the U.S., though top security officials have said they see no evidence of such a plot at this stage. 
Palinkas specifically alleged the administration has made it easier for terrorists to "exploit" the country's visa policies and enter the homeland. 
He complained that the administration has "widened the loophole" they could use through the asylum system, and has restricted agents from going after many of those who overstay their visas. 
Further, he warned that executive orders being contemplated by President Obama would "legalize visa overstays" and raise "the threat level to America even higher." He said there is "no doubt" many are already being "targeted for radicalization." 
Palinkas' union represents 12,000 workers with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which handles immigration documents. 
His statement, though, also backed recent claims from lawmakers and others that ISIS is already looking at the southern border. Palinkas cited the threat that "ISIS has already or will soon slip across our porous southern border." 
On Wednesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said at a House hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that he had "reason to believe" that four individuals were apprehended trying to cross into the U.S. from Texas on Sept. 10, and that they "have ties to known terrorist organizations in the Middle East." 
Johnson said he had "heard reports to that effect" but could not speak to their accuracy. 
Johnson, though, stressed that the government had "no specific intelligence or evidence to suggest at present that ISIL is attempting to infiltrate this country though our southern border." 
At the same hearing, National Counterterrorism Center head Matthew Olsen also said: "There has been a very small number of sympathizers with ISIL who have posted messages on social media about this, but we've seen nothing to indicate there is any sort of operational effort or plot to infiltrate or move operatives from ISIL" into the U.S. through the southern border. 
Still, Johnson said the U.S. needs to be "vigilant" and aware of the possibility of "potential infiltration by ISIL or any other terrorist group." 
Warnings have been circulating for weeks about that possibility. 
In August, the Texas Department of Public Safety put out a bulletin that said ISIS social media messages showed "militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of US, for terror attack." 
Chaffetz, in an interview with Fox News, said he's concerned about that prospect. 
"We have a porous border," he said. "I'm worried about them actually coming to the United States and crossing that porous border and getting into the homeland."

Kansas must remove Dem candidate from Senate ballot, state court rules

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the state must remove the name of the Democratic candidate running against Republican Sen. Pat Roberts from the November ballot, adding another twist to a now-hotly contested race. 
The court's decision leaves independent Greg Orman, who has been rising in the polls, as the only major opponent currently in the running to take on the 78-year-old incumbent. 
The court agreed with Democrat Chad Taylor, saying his formal letter of withdrawal to the secretary of state's office was sufficient to get his name off the ballot.
The court also said it did not "need to act" regarding Secretary of State Kris Kobach's "allegation" that the Democratic party must name a new candidate for the race. Kobach said earlier Thursday that the Democratic Party is legally obligated to pick a new nominee and set a Sept. 26 deadline.
The Roberts campaign has repeatedly accused Democrats of playing dirty politics after national Democrats such as Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill reportedly nudged Taylor out of the race earlier this month to make way for Orman. 
Roberts' campaign manager Corry Bliss said in a statement the court's decision is deliberately disenfranchising "over 65,000 voters" for "political purposes." 
"In a bow to Senators Claire McCaskill and Harry Reid, liberal activist Supreme Court justices have decided that if you voted in the Democrat Primary on August 5th, your vote does not matter, your voice does not matter, and you have no say in who should be on the ballot on Election Day," he said. "This is not only a travesty to Kansas voters, but it’s a travesty to the judicial system and our electoral process."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee also decried the decision, saying the Democratic party now has a "clear legal obligation" to name a new candidate. 
"Greg Orman and his liberal friends like Barack Obama might not like it, but they have to abide by the law just like everyone else," spokesman Brad Dayspring said. 
Orman's campaign manager said in response to the decision Orman would run against a broken political system no matter how many candidates were on the ballot.
"Kansas voters from across the political spectrum are fed up with the mess in Washington, and that's why Republicans, Democrats and independents are supporting Independent Greg Orman for Senate," Jim Jonas said. 
Taylor announced his withdrawal earlier this month, but Kobach, a conservative Republican publicly backing Roberts, declared that Taylor didn't comply with a state election law limiting when nominees can withdraw. Taylor petitioned the Supreme Court to remove his name from the ballot.
Kansas law says party nominees can have their names removed from the ballot if they declare that they'll be incapable of fulfilling the duties of the offices they seek. Taylor's letter said that he was leaving the race "pursuant to" the relevant law but did not say why, and he's never publicly given a reason for dropping out.
"We conclude the plain meaning of 'pursuant to (the law)' contained in Taylor's letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected," the justices said.
Kobach argued that Taylor must explain himself, even if he simply says he can't serve as a senator, without giving more details.
Republicans need to gain six Senate seats to take the majority from Democrats and Kansas is one of about a dozen races nationally that could determine the outcome.
Kobach had said a quick decision was needed because ballots need to be printed Friday.
In another wrinkle, a registered Democratic voter in the state filed a new petition with the Kansas Supreme Court Thursday night asking it to force the party to name a new nominee.
David Orel of Kansas City, Kansas, filed the petition after his attorney sent the party a letter saying Orel wants to vote for a Democratic candidate.