So reports Jonathan Shorman.

Update: The district court’s opinion reviewing an earlier magistrate judge’s sanctions order against Kobach is here. Particularly noteworthy is the district court’s comment that SOS Kobach’s conduct “demonstrate a pattern” of misleading statements to the court showing Kobach’s lack of credibility:

The undersigned echoes Judge O’Hara’s warning in the Order compelling production that “when any lawyer takes an unsupportable position in a simple matter such as this, it hurts his or her credibility when the court considers arguments on much more complex and nuanced matters.” Doc. 320 at 8 n.22. These are not the only two statements made or positions taken by Secretary Kobach that have called his credibility into question. See  Doc. 338 at 18–19 & n.59 (discussing xontradictions between position taken in response to class certification, and later on mootness issues); Doc. 145 at 2–4 (discussing Defendant’s misleading recitation of the record before this Court at the time it ruled on the preliminary injunction motion in his motion for stay pending appeal); see also Bednasek v. Kobach , Case No. 15-9300, Doc. 165 at 12 n.23 (documenting Defendant’s mischaracterization of summary judgment exhibit). Indeed, his assertion in this motion for review that his editing explanation was fairly raised before Judge O’Hara in the first instance is precipitously close to unsupportable. While these examples do not form the basis for any sanctions award imposed by Judge O’Hara, they do demonstrate a pattern, which gives further credence to Judge O’Hara’s conclusion that a sanctions award is necessary to deter defense counsel in this case from misleading the Court about the facts and record in the future.