Discussion: The Kobach Voting Rights Trial: Live Updates

6 Likes

Go Fish!

5 Likes

So is this on the merits, or on the various shenanigans that Kobach has been pulling on the way to the trial? (I think yet again of my grandfather, who had no birth certificate, because it was destroyed in an earthquake/fire. Kobach and crew wouldn’t have wanted him to vote. Well, yeah, they would because he was a conservative white guy, but he would have had trouble meeting their criteria.)

12 Likes

Whatever Happened to Kansas?

4 Likes

Whatever happened to the USA

11 Likes

Same thing with my FiL. He was born at home and Tennessee didn’t require birth certificates for home births. When he wanted to join the National Guard in 1940, his mom had to write a note verifying his age.

5 Likes

is in Kansas City, Kansas

Road trip!

Looking forward to comparing TPM coverage to conventional media coverage – at least, the conventional coverage that filters down to someone who doesn’t see any TV news.

5 Likes

My grandmother (deceased) was born on the kitchen table at the family farm in the early 1900’s. Records were no kept for such births other than a notation in the family bible and the baptism at the local (rural) church. No way Kobach would have allowed her to vote.

5 Likes

I’m married to a genuine Elvis fan.
Since we got married, I’ve realized that every day, somewhere out in the world, I will have an ‘Elvis sighting’: an article about him, an ad using his likeness, his music in the grocery store, something.

This is my ‘E.L.V.I.S. sighting’ for today.

3 Likes

The judge handed Kobach grounds to appeal when she denied his motion to enter the updated exhibit.

Not saying he’ll win, but he’ll probably appeal that.


He’ll be told . . .

The appeals court would tell them…

Go Pound Sand


======
~OGD~

4 Likes

Interesting. My thought was that the data was entered late, intentionally so that it would get thrown out. Two for: demonstrate that it exists (the Fox News type of “We Have the Numbers” with inscrutable data) AND not let anybody see that data (hence it’s inscrutable) because it is thrown out. Add your thoughts and it is a three-for then use the grounds of its inadmissibility to appeal.

5 Likes

I was thinking that it was intentionally entered later so that no one would be able to demonstrate that it was baloney before the trial was over. But you may be right. Also baloney: the insistence that no one be allowed to check the new list against the underlying data. There are procedures for clearing people to see restricted data, and for preventing unwanted releases, and if Kobach were serious he would have started putting those procedures in play months ago.

Of course, this is a guy who shut down a whole presidential commission rather than allow oversight.

10 Likes

As a general matter, a district court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is subject to an “abuse of discretion” standard, which is among the more difficult standards to overcome on appeal. The same is true for failure to abide by the court’s 24 hour rule: district courts are afforded great authority to manage their own business. So yeah, as a technical matter, an adverse evidentiary ruling is a grounds for appeal, but the likelihood of success is negligible.

12 Likes

It could be, but that assumes a bit much about Kobach’s cognitive abilities. He is not known to be the brightest bulb in the box.

3 Likes

true - but he pals around with some devious folks who - along with him - devote endless hours devising ways to attempt to outsmart 'the system.

I look forward to his political career joining the way of ashbin of history.

5 Likes

He can appeal but it is unlikely to be overturned because the judge gave an reasonable order so that neither side would be prejudiced. Kobach violated that order and judges have discretion to impose order in their courtrooms. Now if the judge had allowed the exhibit, in spite of the violation of the reasonable order, the ACLU could appeal and may in fact win based on that they were unduly prejudiced in their ability to respond to the new numbers which would be a abuse of discretion by the judge. So, no Kobach can appeal but it is extremely unlikely that the exhibit or that particular set of data would be sufficient to overturn a lower court’s ultimate decision - whatever it is.

11 Likes

Is this a jury or a bench trial?

From the 1pm update:

In both testimonies, the cross examination by the state of Kansas
focused on the other ways the witnesses could have, in theory, sought to
comply with the law. The state’s lawyers also questioned whether they
had tried hard to enough to provide the documents.

Because made-up-on-the-spot procedures that no one suggested at the time are an obvious remedy for arbitrary and capricious disenfranchisement. And as each new instance of disenfranchisement is litigated, the secretary of state’s office will come up with new pretend ways that the victims could have gone to significant expense and inconvenience to mitigate the problem.

Kobach has spent years plotting against the legitimate governance of the United States.

12 Likes

This is going to be a critical case. Kobach will appeal all the way up to the SC, which means whatever happens is going to end up having some kind of national effect. The law itself, just like all the other similar laws, is nakedly partisan, and meant to prohibit legal voters from voting if they are in groups that don’t vote for Republicans. It’s disguised as “securing the vote”, but considering that 0.001% of voters in Kansas voted illegally, while this law could limit up to 10% of voters, it’s obvious it’s meant to conflate “illegal immigrant” voting with “non-white conservative” voting. It’s great red meat for the right, who willingly ignore how it violates the Constitution in order to keep them in power, but it’s so unfair and unAmerican that it should be obvious that it needs to be stopped.

Kobach not sending in the voting data was on purpose, it allows him to say whatever he wants is in the data, complain that the trial is unfair, and continue the process through appeals. It’s more of a propaganda campaign than anything…the best thing the judge could do is allow the plaintiffs access to the data and see what they dig up.

7 Likes