'Can a magazine jump a shark?' The New Republic redefines 'voter suppression'

Welp, give The New Republic points for creativity with this one:

Kansas Republicans just invented a new form of voter suppression http://t.co/NyzodKLkar

— The New Republic (@newrepublic) September 5, 2014

So here’s the deal: Kansas Democrat Chad Taylor has been running against incumbent GOP Senator Pat Roberts, but the Independent candidate is currently beating him in the polls. So, what’s a flailing Dem to do? Why, drop out of the race, of course.

Unfortunately for Taylor, Kansas’ secretary of state isn’t letting him off the hook so easily. And The New Republic really doesn’t like that. Because … voter suppression?

The case will now go to the courts. Election law guru Rick Hasen writes that though Taylor has a case, the question of what the courts will do is a tossup. If they rule for Kobach, then Democrats will have to undertake the awkward task of asking voters not to vote for the Democrat on the ballot. But they’ll also have vouchsafed the strategy Republicans always employ when they fear the electorate isn’t on their side. Normally that means making it hard for Democrats to vote in the first place. This time around it means trying to trick low-information Democrats into voting for a candidate who isn’t running. But it’s still voter suppression.

It is? Since when?

https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/507981301241380864

How does he come up with this stuff? http://t.co/DgWnbQxfzU

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 5, 2014

https://twitter.com/dbetzel/status/507983790619492352

https://twitter.com/seanagnew/status/507984218106781696

Seriously, that’s hilarious. A candidate having to obey election laws is now “voter suppression”.

— American Journalists Publish Chinese Propaganda (@JohnEkdahl) September 5, 2014