Rand Paul May Already Face a Hurdle for 2016

A state law in Kentucky does not allow a candidate to run for both president and senator on the same ballot.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 07: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) takes the stage before addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord International Hotel and Conference Center March 7, 2014 in National Harbor, Maryland. The CPAC annual meeting brings together conservative politicians, pundits and their supporters for speeches, panels and classes. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
National Journal
Michael Catalini
March 17, 2014, 3:27 p.m.

A Ken­tucky polit­ic­al fight over a state law that gov­erns elect­or­al bal­lots is emer­ging as an early test for Sen. Rand Paul should he de­cide to run for pres­id­ent in 2016.

Ken­tucky’s ju­ni­or sen­at­or re­cently won straw polls in New Hamp­shire and at CPAC, and it’s no secret he is weigh­ing a cam­paign for the White House. There’s just one prob­lem: Ken­tucky law pro­hib­its can­did­ates from ap­pear­ing twice on the bal­lot, a po­ten­tial obstacle if you’re run­ning for Sen­ate and pres­id­ent.

That’s where Paul’s GOP al­lies come in. Da­mon Thay­er, ma­jor­ity lead­er of the Ken­tucky Sen­ate, is shep­herd­ing a bill through the Le­gis­lature that would solve the prob­lem, and last week Mitch Mc­Con­nell, minor­ity lead­er in the U.S. Sen­ate and Ken­tucky’s seni­or sen­at­or, said he sup­ports the ef­fort.

State Sen. Joe Bowen, who chairs the com­mit­tee that handled the bill, says Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­ans have been dis­cuss­ing the meas­ure since be­fore the cur­rent le­gis­lat­ive ses­sion began earli­er this year. For them, it ac­com­plishes two things: It helps an in­flu­en­tial polit­ic­al fig­ure, and it raises the state’s pro­file. They say it’s no dif­fer­ent from Rep. Paul Ry­an run­ning for his House seat and the vice pres­id­ency in 2012 or Joe Biden run­ning for his Sen­ate seat in Delaware and the vice pres­id­ency in 2008.

“We’re mo­tiv­ated to al­low him to run for both of­fices,” Bowen said. “My in­terest is, one, he’d make an ex­cel­lent pres­id­ent, and two it’d be good for the com­mon­wealth of Ken­tucky.”

Paul’s camp casts the state Sen­ate bill as a kind of in­sur­ance policy and in­sists that the Ken­tucky law per­tains only to state of­fices and not their fed­er­al coun­ter­parts.

“We are not seek­ing to change the law, but rather to cla­ri­fy that the Ken­tucky stat­ute does not ap­ply to fed­er­al elec­tions,” RAND PAC Ex­ec­ut­ive Dir­ect­or Doug Stafford said in a state­ment. “Fed­er­al law gov­erns fed­er­al elec­tions, and the Su­preme Court has made it clear that states can­not im­pose ad­di­tion­al qual­i­fic­a­tions bey­ond those in the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

That’s an ar­gu­ment that Paul might have to press in court be­cause the state House and gov­ernor­ship in Ken­tucky are con­trolled by Demo­crats, and neither shows any sign of sup­port­ing the Sen­ate bill, which Bowen said he ex­pects will pass the up­per cham­ber be­fore the end of the ses­sion.

Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue Demo­crats should back the meas­ure be­cause it could one day help them. They cast the bill as non­par­tis­an.

“There are some naysay­ers,” Bowen said. “There are some naysay­ers on apple pie.”

But Ken­tucky Demo­crats aren’t about to change their minds. Demo­crat­ic House Speak­er Greg Stumbo has shot the idea down.

“If you’re gonna run, you oughta make up your mind and run for one of­fice and one of­fice only,” Stumbo said last month.

Still, Re­pub­lic­ans are tak­ing some heart. The pro­pos­al won the sup­port of Demo­crat­ic state Sen. Mor­gan McGar­vey, which en­cour­aged Bowen. He blames some of the op­pos­i­tion on end-of-ses­sion ten­sion.

“Nerves are frayed,” he said. “We’re wind­ing down. Maybe they have a change of heart. Talk is cheap.”

What We're Following See More »
AND VICE VERSA
Plurality of Trump Voters Just Want to Stop Clinton
14 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday." When Trump supporters were asked to give their primary reason for supporting him, 47% said to block Clinton from winning. In almost a mirror image, 46% of Clinton supporters said they were primarily out to thwart Trump.

Source:
IF HE’LL JUST LISTEN…
Many GOPers Still Think Trump Can Be Brought to Heel
31 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
INCLUDING CLINTON
Trump Finance Guru Has History of Contributing to Dems
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.

Source:
AT LEAST NOT YET
Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Source:
×