Posted on 12/28/2011 7:17:08 AM PST by Kaslin
When I managed Pat Buchanan's presidential campaign in 1996, I learned that some states conducted fair and honest caucuses and primaries and that some did not.
Iowa, historically the first caucus state, and New Hampshire, historically the first primary state, conducted their political business fairly. New York did not.
Today Virginia's political system is beginning to resemble New York's in 1996.
To get on the Republican primary ballot in New York that year, a candidate needed to submit signatures from 1,250 registered Republican voters in each of the state's 31 congressional districts or signatures from 5 percent of registered Republicans in a district if that number were less than 1,250.
But that was not all. Only a registered Republican living in the district or a notary public could collect signatures; they could gather signatures only between Thanksgiving and Jan. 4; and signatures could be challenged by opposing campaigns.
As The New York Times reported then, petitions could be disqualified for technicalities -- for example, if they were bound "with paper clips instead of staples."
Early in 1995, virtually the entire New York Republican establishment -- including then-Gov. George Pataki and then-Sen. Alfonse D'Amato -- endorsed then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas for the Republican presidential nomination. They made clear that they wanted to lock other candidates out of New York's primary and award Dole New York's delegates without giving the grass roots of their own party any say in the matter.
"New York State's party chairman, William Powers, vows to have the party's full complement of 33,000 committee people out circulating petitions for Mr. Dole, which will make it hard for other candidates to find Republican field workers," The New York Times reported March 30, 1995. "Candidates who try to provide voters with a choice by circulating nominating petitions will also be tortured by ballot-wise lawyers ready to raise every nit in New York's nitpicking election law to get their petitions declared invalid."
This confronted Dole's rivals with a strategic dilemma.
On the one hand, attempting to get on New York's ballot would carry enormous costs. A candidate could either pay massive sums to hire people to circulate petitions or build a massive grass-roots army of in-state volunteers. The first means would take money that a non-establishment candidate could not readily spare from earlier contests. The second would drain operatives and institutional focus from those contests.
On the other hand, a candidate who failed to qualify for New York's ballot not only would lose any chance at winning some of New York's delegates but also might sustain a momentum-draining public relations hit -- just a few weeks before the all-important initial contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. The press and opponents could say: "He is not a serious candidate. He did not even get on the ballot in New York."
Some major candidates -- including then-Sen. Phil Gramm and former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander -- decided not to compete in New York.
Buchanan and Steve Forbes did.
The Buchanan Brigades built a grass-roots army of 800 volunteers backed up by field organizers the campaign diverted from early primary and caucus states, notably Iowa.
When the Jan. 4 deadline came, Buchanan submitted sufficient signatures to qualify in 17 congressional districts. Forbes qualified in all 31.
Then the Dole campaign started challenging Buchanan's and Forbes' petitions.
A federal appeals court ruling eventually allowed Forbes to remain on the ballot in 31 districts and gave Buchanan access in 23.
The night of that 1996 primary, according to the New York Daily News, Sen. D'Amato said, "To those Republicans who felt the process could have been a fairer one, you were absolutely right."
"In hindsight," D'Amato said, "I probably should have asked the Legislature to consider opening up the primary system and consider making it easier for a legitimate candidate to get on the ballot."
Nowadays it is easier to qualify for New York's presidential primary.
But in Virginia, according to a law the Virginia State Board of Elections says was enacted in 1998, a candidate must submit at least 10,000 signatures from registered voters who intend to vote in the primary. Among these there must be at least 400 from each of Virginia's 11 congressional districts. The signatures must be gathered after July 1, submitted by Dec. 22 and certified by the state chairman of the party in question.
Facing these criteria, only four Republican presidential candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- submitted signatures in Virginia.
On Saturday, Virginia Republican Party Chairman Pat Mullins announced that only Romney and Paul had met the requirements.
I spoke with Mullins about the process Tuesday. He said that in certifying the candidates, he consulted with his general counsel and set up a process to faithfully follow the election law as it is written. Representatives from each of the four campaigns who had submitted signatures were present when volunteers reviewed their submissions. The media were welcome to witness the process.
But, Mullins said, "I was not happy at all in signing that certification with only two names on it."
He would like to see the Virginia law changed so that it strikes a balance between keeping frivolous candidates off the ballot and allowing all serious candidates access.
I would loosen it further: Let anybody on the primary ballot who meets the constitutional qualifications for president. Let voters decide whom they want their party to nominate.
Virginia's current system is designed to take power away from voters and give it to party bosses and establishment candidates who can raise massive amounts of money early in a campaign. It is wrong.
Newt had the signatures but the rules changed long after they were obtained. The GOP in Virginia is corrupt. Anyway all 50 States have rules and it takes one hell of a huge staff and very expensive to qualify dumb rules that are not the same.
Please provide the source for this assertion.
They also did a last minute change in the rules, just weeks before the petitions were due. Nobody had the ability to react in time to the new and ridiculous requirements.
The state law governing the primaries has been unchanged since 1999. Candidates need 10,000 valid signatures with 400 at least coming from each of the 11 Congressional districts. Those are the rules according to state law. If you are referring to the alleged Mullins letter that indicated if a candidate had 15,000 or more signatures with at least 600 being validated from each Congrssional District, it wasn't necessary to validate all the signatures. It remains to be seen if the certification process used this alleged certfication system.
Regardless, all a candidate needed was 10,000 valid signatures from registered voters with at least 400 coming from each CD.
“The GOP in Virginia is corrupt.”
Bullshit. Care to backup that Bullshit remark?
If the candidate you would like to vote for is not allowed you could CAST a NO VOTE. Go to the polls and receive either a ballot or access to the machines and cast the vote without marking for a candidate. Virginia could end up with a large number of “NO VOTES” which may help to get this fixed. Of course there are those who say it’s “FIXED” now.
If the machines won’t take a NO VOTE, then just leave after signing the poll list, there will still be a desparity in the numbers in the poll book and votes cast, of course the problem with that is that in some precients they may vote for you.
Some minor party — I think it was the Socialist Workers — once got their New York petitions thrown out because the staple was in the wrong place.
Newt did not have the signatures, that's why he will not be on the ballot. He obviously is a very poor organizer as he couldn't get 15,000 signatures out of an electorate of more than 5,000,000, in his home state. Maybe he should have considered this before he took his cruise.
Which is exactly the reason it is in place.
The party bosses {of both parties}, like union bosses want the money and power that comes with control.
If the candidate you would like to vote for is not allowed you could CAST a NO VOTE. Go to the polls and receive either a ballot or access to the machines and cast the vote without marking for a candidate. Virginia could end up with a large number of “NO VOTES” which may help to get this fixed. Of course there are those who say it’s “FIXED” now.
If the machines won’t take a NO VOTE, then just leave after signing the poll list, there will still be a desparity in the numbers in the poll book and votes cast, of course the problem with that is that in some precients they may vote for you.
“How did that happen? I mean, is write-in forbidden, or is it just not provided for? Which politicos need to be taken out back and shot for that decision? “
It “happened” by reason of a corrupt Republican Party “establishment.” And we thought that only the RATs did stuff like this. The RINOs who “run the GOP” don’t care about the average Republican voter getting his chance to voice his opinion in primary elections, they continue to run the “it’s my turn” program when it comes to presidential candidates. They are probably all pissed off that there are ANY other candidates besides Muff Romney. The Conservative voters have two enemies, the RATs AND the RINOs!
Newt and Perry *DID* get over 10,000 signatures.
How many times will people with no knowledge of that continue to post this cr@p.
Actually, they did meet the requirement. The requirement is to submit 10,000 or more names of registered Virginia voters, with 400(?) coming from each district.
Perry and Newt both submitted more than 10,000.
That the VAGOP supposedly checked the names is not a requirement. It is for local and state elections, but not for national elections. Furthermore, the VAGOP did not apply that standard to all candidates, selectively choosing to not do so for Romney and Paul.
That is an unequal application of law and is contrary to equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
As precedence has already been set in past elections (ie: the non-checking of submitted names... in all previous Presidential primaries), then that is the standard they must uphold for all, not for some (Romney and Paul).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty cut and dry here. The VAGOP disregarded it’s own rules and precedents, following them for Romney and Paul... but ignoring them for the rest.
See post #31.
See post #31.
See post #31.
If they can argue their case on the basis of unequal application and enforcement, then they have a valid point.
If they cannot, they are just another Al Gore whiner.
It is that simple.
FWIW, it is SOP to at least cross-check a sampling of names, expanding said checks if those samples produce too many invalid or bogus voters. The same standard should be applied to all candidates.
Wrong. Since 1999 there has been a rule that 15,000 signatures would exempt a petition from scrutiny. Romney knew this and submitted more than 15,000 signatures. Gingrich knew this but did not submit 15,000 signatures. Now he's whining that it is unfair? He has shown that, not only can't he run an efficient campaign even in his own state, he is a crybaby.
Man up and move on. Sheeesh!
That was one reason I strongly supported Sarah Palin early on, and was disappointed at her decision later. She cleaned house on her own party in Alaska, when it was needed. I'd love to see that done everywhere; but it'll never happen in the RAT party or among the RINO establishment.
We are in desperate need of term limits, too; career politicians are 90% of the problem!
Yep
EXACTLY. But from what I have been reading it doesn't seem that is what was done. Because they broke the 15,000 imaginary threshold, neither Romney or Paul had that done to their petitions, but because neither Gingrich or Perry didn't make that threshold (although meeting the state statute numbers) they were subjected to verification - which is not required by statute for national office.
“We are in desperate need of term limits, too; career politicians are 90% of the problem!”
Right you are JimRed, although 90% may be low! The Senate is by far the worst of all. The oldest 21 Senators have a combined “service” of more than 500 years, and that doesn’t fold in the fact that the Lautencorpse ( born 1/23/24) is listed at only the past 8 years and doesn’t include the time before he “took a break” from the Senate. The only good news is that the RATs know that the Senate is going to turn, so already eight of them have decided to “retire.” The most egregious is Inouye, who’s 87 years old and has been in the Senate since 1963! Akaka is only 4 days younger, but says he’s retiring. Just incredible!
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.