Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SIGNATURES NOT PREVIOUSLY CHECKED IN VIRGINIA ^ | December 25th, 2011 | Richard Winger

Posted on 12/27/2011 3:12:33 AM PST by Yosemitest

TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bachmann; huntsman; michaelosborne; newt; perry; primary; santorum; va2012; virginia; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 12/27/2011 3:12:37 AM PST by Yosemitest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

I KNEW there was something rotten in the state of Virginia.

2 posted on 12/27/2011 3:48:42 AM PST by Flintlock (Photo ID for all voting--let out deal rest in peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

There is nothing wrong with checking signatures and Republicans should do this in every state and local election, setting a high standard for ethics against the liberal non-standard.

What is wrong is changing the rules a few weeks prior to a filing deadline.....and then, not changing the rules consistently.

You see, Virginia now says that if you submit the 10,000 required signatures, each one will be checked for veracity(Gingrich-Perry).

But if you submit 15,000 signatures, none of the signatures will be checked for veracity(Romney - Paul).

3 posted on 12/27/2011 4:00:57 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Were sigantures checked the same way for all candidates? If not there is unequal treatment and it is unlawful.

4 posted on 12/27/2011 4:04:06 AM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

I understand the controversy surrounding this primary, but the idea of collecting signatures that won’t be checked strikes me as ridiculous. Why even bother going to the trouble?

5 posted on 12/27/2011 4:12:31 AM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

That is not the big part of the story but what is may have been a violation of the Code of Virginia ...from what I was reading...Virginia Code states in section 24.2-545 “B. Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth, “....It clearly does not mention “addresses” like in section 24.2-506.........So per what I see (See link below)...since this section does not mention the word “address” like the other section, were the ones that were kicked out for not having an address really a violation?

“Virginia May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich. a Recount May Be Needed!”

6 posted on 12/27/2011 4:28:33 AM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Yeah and where are all the "Newt Haters," Romeny-Bots, Paul-inistas and sundry other, Leftist Trolls who have been posting articles to try and make it seem that there was "nuttin' to see here; all Newt's fault;" how he should have known better; how if he can't manage a campagaign, how can we expect his to manage the Presidency, etc., ad nauseum!

There were even some who insisted it was NOT the fault of the Virginia Republican Party but that this was "The Law" of the State.

Bovine Excrement!

As we see here, it WAS the Republi-Tard Party who "Changed the Rules" and had nothing to do with State Law, thus who now wants to argue that the "FIX WAS NOT IN" for Mittens???

7 posted on 12/27/2011 4:35:30 AM PST by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

This is strictly the R’s fault.

If they are not smart enough to confer with the DNC when it comes to ANYTHING remotely shady in the election process, they deserve to lose.

I was observing the other day that since I quit drinking in 1990, we have have Clinton, Bush II and BO as leader.

I must commend myself for NOT drinking again -
I guess the prior leaders did not bother me as I was in a constant happy state and was able to stand the ‘heat’. Though Johnson, Nixon(Ford) and Carter did try my patience, but at least I could increase my intake to make things ‘well’.
Also, not only a few ‘stinkers’ in there (since 90) but the alternate choice we were given also sucked - without exception. BushI/Clinton, Dole/Clinton, BushII/Gore, BushII/Kerry, McCain/BO, (all of the above)/BO.

Pretty sad state of affairs when a nation of 300 mill (give or take etc) and that is the best we can come up with.

And in one we had two ‘losers’ from the same (small/secret) fraternity - now that is really narrowing it down.

8 posted on 12/27/2011 5:04:05 AM PST by xrmusn ((6/98) EGOIST - A person of low taste, more interested in himself than me. A. Bierce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Can’t they post the signatures on line so people can confirm or deny their signatures for accuracy? Just wondering.

9 posted on 12/27/2011 5:27:40 AM PST by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Rules are for conservatives. If liberals lose, rules can be changed afterwards. Bachnann and Santorum are kept out, but Nancy Pelosi and Al Sharpton ally is squeezed in.

10 posted on 12/27/2011 5:52:54 AM PST by heiss (heartless and inhumane (radical rightwinger))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heiss
Santorum, Bachmann and Huntsman never submitted one signature. They didn't even attempt it. Perry and Newt submitted above the required amount and had enough rejected to disqualify them.

I can only assume Santorum, Bachmann and Huntsman didn't try because they never expected to make it to Super Tuesday. Newt was the first candidate to announce and he scrambled at the end because I believe he too never thought he had a chance.

Paul and Mitt ran last time.

11 posted on 12/27/2011 6:10:26 AM PST by normy (Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: normy

Santorum, at least, was reported to be trying to reach 10k signatures and had announced a ‘last push’ for them before the deadline, but fell short. There’s no point in turning in what you’ve collected if it came to less than 10k. I presume Bachmann was in the same situation.

12 posted on 12/27/2011 7:48:17 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
I understand the controversy surrounding this primary, but the idea of collecting signatures that won’t be checked strikes me as ridiculous. Why even bother going to the trouble?

I don't get this either. Were people really under the impression that the signatures wouldn't be checked? Doesn't that open this up to fraud, especially on the part of liberals crossing over to try and boost Republican candidates that would otherwise have no chance.

I still have some criticism leveled towards Gingrich (and Perry). They should have been able to collect 20,000 signatures. It would have been a lot harder for the Republicans in Virginia to throw out 50% of the signatures.
13 posted on 12/27/2011 12:07:18 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

FIrst of all, your link is bad. It just goes to the main page, not any article.

Second, the article as you posted it has no actual facts. It asserts something but has no evidence.

Third, the article AS YOU POSTED IT contains one link, which of course I tried because your main link was no good. And that link took me to a LGBT web site. So thanks for that. Could you please not include links to LGBT web sites without some sort of warning?

I’ve seen multiple people assert that virginia never checked the signatures before. I can find nobody who has actually found a memo saying that, nor has anybody in the RPV confirmed that assertion.

It might be true. If it is, that doesn’t change the fact that the law says the signatures have to be valid, and it is the RPV’s job to validate the signatures, and if they weren’t before, that was the problem, not that they are doing so now.

You might as well argue that we shouldn’t require Voter ID because we didn’t before.

I’d prefer if we hadn’t checked the signatures, but it’s not the RPV’s fault that they did their job and the candidates didn’t do the job they had, which was to get 10,000 VALID signatures.

14 posted on 12/27/2011 1:26:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Lot of bloggers asserting they are legal experts now.

The Virginia Board of Elections is responsible for implementing the law. Their letter to candidates, sent back in May, said they needed the addresses. So if the addresses weren’t needed, that was an error by the Virginia state government, not some plot by the RPV.

But the forms and the direction haven’t changed, so they’ve been requiring signatures for some time now. Which gets back to the question of whether they verified these before or not. But it’s not really a question of “violating the code of virginia”, because it’s Virginia government insisting that the addresses are needed.

15 posted on 12/27/2011 1:37:10 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

I don’t want to get in with the conspiracists or the whiners.

But I did want to explain what makes this job so hard. The issue isn’t simply collecting signatures, although 10,000 signatures is a lot of signatures — we can see that Wisconsin had no trouble tons of signatures for their recall efforts, so you can do it if you really work at it.

We don’t have party registration, and the RPV and local candidates guard their mailing lists, so it’s not easy to target voters.

The rules about the signatures are onerous. For example, we have 100+ counties and cities. Each petition submitted must have signatures for ONLY ONE political entity, be it a county or a city. So you need to have 100+ sets of petitions. Then, for some of those counties, there are more than one district, so you’d need sets of petitions for each district in each county.

Each petition has to be double-sided. That isn’t as bad as it was a few years ago, it’s easy to do double-sided these days. Each petition has to be handled by a person who is old enough to vote in our state, and otherwise eligible to vote (but not registered). The people signing have to be registered.

Each petition has to be signed and notarized for the person collecting the signatures.

The signers have to affirm that they will be voting in our primary.

So you can’t just camp out at the metro and collect signatures. You’ll get people in different districts, in different counties, registered and not, and who won’t want to say they are voting in the primary. You need their full address, and their full signed name, and the form ASKS for 4 digits of their SS even though that is optional.

When I collected signatures in 2008, I don’t remember getting a notary for my Fred Thompson signatures. I’m guessing they notarized it later (which would be improper, but I didn’t know the rules). The Romney team sent a guy to collect the petitions who WAS a notary, and I signed the page in front of him so he could stamp it.

The easiest way to collect signatures is to show up on election day. Then you know the people are registered, are republicans, and live in the county and vote in the district.

This year was slightly harder because of redistricting. Some people still don’t know what district they are in.

I’m not making excuses for candidates, but I do understand how hard it is. Romney and Paul did it somehow, and I don’t think they were forging signatures. They just started early and worked at it.

16 posted on 12/27/2011 1:46:44 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Thank you for the reply
First the blogger I linked to happens to also write for a paper (or did) so he is not “just a blogger” like me
Second (and I ask because I am trying to sort this out I am not PMS’ing on you)so what you are saying is the RPV is above the “Code of Virginia” and can ask for something that is not in the Code (like their letter stating they want addresses)?
Third if the Code of Virginia is wrong in what is has, it is still the Code correct?
I know that we lost a RPV volunteer to a horrible car accident so I am not trying to disrespect what RPV says but I still do not get how they can ask for (and that is the “law” over Virginia code)for something that right or wrongly is not in the Code.............

17 posted on 12/27/2011 4:44:35 PM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I agree with you, and I don't want to get in with the conspiracy theorists either.

My guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, if Newt and Perry had known that the signatures were going to be verified, they would have put a lot more effort into collecting signatures.

Now this is veering into conspiracy territory, but Newt was sure pushing hard to get signatures all the way up to the deadline. I wonder if somebody tipped him off.
18 posted on 12/27/2011 5:12:20 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

The courts in VA are going to be busy!

19 posted on 12/27/2011 9:53:04 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

I believe all of the candidates were advised to collect at least 15000 signatures because they were going to be verified.

20 posted on 12/27/2011 10:05:43 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson