Skip to comments.Virginia 2011 Candidate for Legislature has Impact on Pres. Primary (Newt & Perry have a case?)
Posted on 12/25/2011 4:41:06 PM PST by smoothsailing
December 25th, 2011
There are currently many news stories and blog discussions about the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law. Some large blogs, such as Red State, have over 300 comments about the story. Some defend the current Virginia ballot access laws on the grounds that in past presidential elections, a fairly large number of Republican presidential primary candidates managed to qualify.
But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.
The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponents primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.
The Democratic Party of Virginia has been opposed to the strict law on primary ballot access, and has been in the habit of collecting signatures for all Democratic presidential candidates recognized by the party. In 2008, the state party collected 7,300 signatures for all its candidates, thus easing the burden on them and requiring them to collect only 4,000 to 5,000 on their own.
Any Virginia freepers know about this Michael Osborne court case?
I don't know if this is true. If it is, Gingrich and Perry have a legitimate case for having their names placed on the ballot.
FYI. I don’t know if this is newsworthy or not, but if true it may be helpful to the Gingrich and Perry campaigns.
If this report is true, then every single argument from the “rules are rules” crowd is totally blown out of the water. Every single one of them.
And yes- if this report is true - then Newt and Perry would certainly have a case and maybe the others as well.
But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked.
>> But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked.>>
And in 04 there wasn’t even a primary I might add. So basically this “long tradition” that “many many candidates have had no trouble meeting” is really only in its third primary cycle and the first one when anyone bothered to check the signatures.
Where are the rules are rules folks tonight? Not looking so smart.
The other question is: What purpose does the Virginia ballot access process serve (the answer is obvious)? Other states only require registration and the payment of fee.
He's already had sit downs with Romney.
Guess he's doing a flip flop from Conservatism to baby killing and give aways to the illegal aliens, plus a little more Fascism in the vending of medicine.
Ken Cuccinelli probably ought to check out the Governor's real relationship to this situation ~ maybe get him booted out of office so the Lt. Governor can move up ~
Here’s an article on this fellow Osborne and his lawsuit...
I’m no lawyer, but it looks like an equal protection issue.
>> Virginia’s Governor is currently a Republican. He can DO SOMETHING ~ but he’s not lifting a finger. >>
You may be right about your suspicions on this, but it is Christmas weekend so I’ll hold a wait and see on this.
We’ll see if McDonnell stays on the sidelines over the next week. Yes I know about his ties to Romney - but the test will be what he does or does not do or does or does not say about this during this week.
Cuccinelli is who I’d be speed dialing if I were Gingrich or Perry.
I agree it could be an equal protection issue - something some lawyers on FR have also stated. I think it’s a terrible PR issue for the Va GOP whether or not it is legitimately an equal protection issue. The application of the law is obviously open to criticism of being arbitrary and capricious.
If this report is true, then every single argument from the rules are rules crowd is totally blown out of the water. Every single one of them. And yes- if this report is true - then Newt and Perry would certainly have a case and maybe the others as well.Come on now... You know that matters not a wit...
>> What matters is the narrative that this provides the media and the establishment. This will provide multiple news cycles worth of fodder to beat Newt over the head with. >>
In their minds, yes, but this will make it backfire. They thought they had a legitimate organizing issue or competency issue here, and it turns out all they had was BS vapor. It will likely backfire. They’ll go away just like ALL the rules are the rules trolls from this forum yesterday have.
Hear it? Crickets...........
It looks like the VA GOP got spooked by the Osborne lawsuit and decided to show an appearance of good faith prior to trial by applying a new standard to Republican candidates at all levels of government, be it state or federal.
We'll have to see O'Donnell get up and publicly denounce Romney to believe otherwise.
bob mcdonnell ~ please to excuse. The guy misspells the name ~ just shows you how horribly illiterate some of the highlanders were in the good old days.
In the numbers game... Virginia doesn’t really matter, unless it comes down to the wire at the end.
Where it matters is in the perceptions game - especially in how it can be used to sow doubt in someone’s campaign.
I wondered today if the ignorant masses would know the difference between not being on the ballot in VA for the primary and not being on the ballot in VA for the general. What do you suppose will go through the minds of the great unwashed if they get the notion that Newt has already forfeited one state if he goes up against Obama?
Newsworthy all right, if it’s true.
Here’s a confirming report on it:
Delegate hopeful Michael Osborne files lawsuit
Oct 25, 2011
BRISTOL, Va. Claiming the states election laws treat independent candidates like himself unfairly, Michael Osborne filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging how Virginia reviews its candidate petitions and asking a judge to remove his opponents name from the ballot in next months election.
The way [state election officials] deal with the signatures on those petitions is discriminatory to independent candidates, said Osborne, an independent candidate who is running for the Virginia House of Delegates 5th District seat in the Nov. 8 election.
In the lawsuit, which Osborne filed in the Bristol Virginia Circuit Court, the independent candidate asks a judge to issue an injunction removing Republican Israel OQuinns name from the ballot because the review process Boyles conducted of his qualifying petitions was inadequate.
Osbornes lawsuit also asks a judge to bar the defendants, 5th District Chairman Brandon Boyles and Donald Palmer, secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, from certifying any candidates until they have developed a standardized qualification process that can be checked to ensure fair and equal application of the law.
According to the states election laws, candidates seeking a seat in the state house of delegates must collect signatures from at least 125 registered voters who live in the district they hope to represent to get their names on the ballot in an upcoming election.
But the rules independent candidates must follow when reviewing their petitions differ greatly from those party-affiliated candidates like Osbornes opponent, Republican Israel OQuinn, must follow in order to get their names on the ballot. Its this difference that lies at the heart of Osbornes suit.
According to the law, independent candidates must submit their petitions to the local registrars office so that a person can review them and make sure each signature came from someone who lives inside the district and is registered to vote.
Any signature that fails to meet either one of these qualifications is disqualified, as are any signatures that have been collected by someone who lives outside the district or isnt registered to vote. The names of candidates who fail to meet the 125-signature-requirement after this review are not placed on the ballot.
However, people seeking the Republican or Democratic Partys nomination for a particular office must simply turn their petitions over to their local party officials who are then responsible for reviewing each signature and making sure it follows the rules.
Any candidate who submits a set of petitions to the local party chairman, in this case 5th District GOP Chairman Brandon Boyles, deems legitimate is added to the ballot in a primary election. The winner of this primary is then declared the partys nominee and is added to the ballot in the general election.
Virginia May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich. a Recount May Be Needed!
“But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked”
Hmmmmmmmm, I did not know that. IMHO that puts a new light on things. Maybe there is a way out of the madness at least for Perry and Newt. I am not sure if the others submitted 10,000 signature.
Thanks. Just hit the same confirming article with google. +bn
The guy misspells the name ~ just shows you how horribly illiterate some of the highlanders were in the good old days.
Now, you’re just showing how ignorant you are TODAY!!! McDonnell is the Scottish spelling for his name just like O’Donnell is the Irish spelling. It’s a perfectly good Scottish name. Now, try to post something more substantive.
I’m no fan of Romney, Gingrich, or Perry.
That the Gingrich and Perry organizations didn’t bother to collect signatures to the level where they could stand scrutiny (and that’s the name of the game for petitions like this) regardless of the Osborne case.
It bugs me that McDonnell doesn’t weigh in and that he can be seen as possibly not being even-handed.
Well you don’t have to get snippy about it.
The following is the key in this case as I see it.
But the rules independent candidates must follow when reviewing their petitions differ greatly from those party-affiliated candidates like Osbornes opponent, Republican Israel OQuinn, must follow in order to get their names on the ballot. Its this difference that lies at the heart of Osbornes suit.......
The above from the link JimRob posted in #20.
The GOP primary election qualification is all within the party and not involving independents or some other parties nominees. Now the reasoning maybe valid to use for the process within the party. What was the outcome of this case since it was filed back in Oct. Has it had a court hearing or resolution as of yet?
“Oh, gee, we didn’t know the state party changed the policy because they got sued!”
So? That’s exactly the reason you have state and local campaign organizations. So that you have folks who know the area, know the players, and keep abreast of what’s happening in the area that might affect the campaign. That’s exactly the reason you pay lawyers good money. So that you have folks who keep an eye on the election statutes and case law and regs. So that you know stuff like this is coming down before the filing deadline and send guys out to get more sigs. So that you’re NOT standing there with your thumb up your bum after you get disqualified going “waitwutthatain’tfayerrrrrr...” Things like that are exactly the boring minutiae you need to take care of if you’re running a serious campaign. You know, the kind of thing That Woman was getting hazed pretty mercilessly around here for not getting handled. Well, what were the “serious” campaigns doing all those months? Because it really doesn’t appear as if they were getting prepared to handle it, either.
Stuff like this doesn’t really make me think “Oh, you poor things, your candidates got screwed.” No, it makes me think “I already thought your guys were sloppy. Now I think they’re complete flippin’ amateurs.”
"Virginia May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich. a Recount May Be Needed!
Posted on 25 December 2011.
Im no attorney but I do know how to find and read the laws of Virginia.
Various reports have stated that the signatures turned in by Newt Gingrich included at least 2,000 that were invalidated because there was no address given with the signature.
If this were a Virginia Statewide office, that would be correct. But this is a Presidential Primary. And while the rules are similar, they are actually addressed in two separate sections of the Virginia Code.
There is a requirement in a Statewide General Election that the address be included, but there is no such requirement for a presidential primary. The number of signatures are the same, 10,000 and 400 per Congressional District. But the address requirements are different."
Thanks for the post. The story you link to points out the possible different standards that may apply to state and federal elections. Another factor in primaries is the standards political parties set for themselves. This also looks like a factor in the Osborne case.
Does anybody know why the signatures were rejected? Does anybody even know if and how many ballots were rejected for missing addresses? It seems that you would first need to know why the ballots were rejected to make a determination about whether the “rejections” were valid.
The VA GOP published a letter that announced that any candidate who submitted a petition with more than 15,000 signatures would not be checked (’shall be deemed to have met the threshold for qualification and will be certified’).
Romney submitted 16,000 signatures. Newt submitted 12,000.
I am curious to know when the VA GOP invented the 15K Safe Harbor rule. The letter from the VA GOP is undated (which is itself curious). The PDF file contains a hidden Microsoft Word creation date of 12/21/2011.
Why wouldn’t they check signatures?
Thanks for posting. :)
Then this was a false alarm all the way around. But who wanted the alarm to sound? And why?
/Author(Dave Rexrode) /Creator( Microsoft Word 2010 ) /CreationDate(D:20111221100053-05'00') /ModDate(D:20111221100053-05'00') /Producer( Microsoft Word 2010 )
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
So what this guy is saying is that if you get 15,000 signature they don’t check for forgeries.. Obviously the problem is they needed to forge another 3,000 signatures.
Perry back on the ballot!
Basically yes. If you submit more than 15,000 sigs you get accepted automatically.
This was changed in May however there is precedent in VA for the court overruling the State Board of Elections rules to allow candidates on the ballot. This is not over.
Interesting, perhaps the state will check the Ron and Mitt petition names and find less than 10,000 are valid...
Anyway, here is what the state tells the candidates. Perry and Newt should have taken it to heart:
Circulate on or after July 1, 2011;
Must be on the form prescribed by the State Board of
Elections (copy enclosed). It is suggested that the candidate
or group complete the top portion of the petition form and then
print or photocopy as many copies of the form as needed.
The form may not be altered in any way.
Must be signed by not less than 10,000 qualified voters in
Virginia, including at least 400 qualified voters from each of
Virginia=s eleven congressional districts, who attest that they
intend to participate in the primary of the same political party
as the candidate named on the petition.
Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign
a petition, it is recommended that 15,000 - 20,000 signatures
be obtained with at least 700 signatures from each
Must provide the true signature, the printed full name and the
full resident address of each qualified voter and the date each
signed the petition.
Although the last four digits of the social security number is
requested, it is not mandatory that it be provided.
Must, on each page, provide an affidavit signed under oath by
the person who circulated it that s/he personally witnessed the
affixing of the signature of each voter on the page and that
s/he is registered, or eligible to be registered, to vote in
Note that a circulator cannot witness his own signature.
Falsely signing this affidavit is a felony under Virginia law.”
Bunch of effin professional election law professors on the threads yesterday.
Seems like some pigs are more equal, eh?
McConnell is the authentic and correct way to spell it.
read the article linked at post #21...
The section of Virginia code dealing with Presidential Primaries
does not include a requirement to collect addresses of signers
like the code section dealing with state and local elections does.
Are you sure? If so, why did Osborne file suit in October? Also, see post# 33 and 34.
Don’t you supposed that the lawyers for the affected campaigns have gone over square inch of the VA laws by now?
PETITION OF QUALIFIED VOTERS FOR PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY - 6-1-11 don't know what the difference is between this one and the one above