Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia Must Change Its Election System
Townhall.com ^ | December 28, 2011 | Terry Jeffrey

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2012election; cultureofcorruption; gopestablishment; howtostealanelection

1 posted on 12/28/2011 7:17:13 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.

Yep. Exactly.

2 posted on 12/28/2011 7:22:47 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As a registered voter in VA...THIS will be the FIRST primary I refuse to vote in. EVER.

I’m pissed about this. Now that Cain is out (who I’d have voted for all the way to the top), I am for Newt who does have the most experience and is pro-Israel. I’m uninterested on both ballot choices we will have..and we cannot write in (total B.S.) So, first time ever I will not participate in primaries. It actually sucks.


3 posted on 12/28/2011 7:26:56 AM PST by sevinufnine (Sevin - "If we do not fight when we know we can win, we'll have to fight when we know we will lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I would loosen it further: Let anybody on the primary ballot who meets the constitutional qualifications for president.

Perfect. Shouldn't be more than several thousand natural-born over-35ers living in the US for at least 14 years who'd like to see their names on a ballot.

4 posted on 12/28/2011 7:30:52 AM PST by dorothy ( "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

If Perry’s case wins, you may get your chance to vote for who you want. Let’s hope his case intervenes for Virginia voters like yourself.


5 posted on 12/28/2011 7:34:28 AM PST by TexMom7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

5 months to gather 10,000 signatures.

Even Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich did this in 2008.

Get the feeling we have a lot of unserious candidates out there this time.


6 posted on 12/28/2011 7:39:20 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Free TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexMom7

I hope so because locally here’s an article from a week ago where Newt is ahead in VA favorites:

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/obama-bike.jpg

Worse...the reason he’s not on is (and it’s enrages me) they say they cannot “validate” that the signatures are authentic or that they are valid, registered voters. Well hell...that doesn’t stop most felons from voting, or illegal aliens...or democrats going from precinct to precinct to vote multiple times...but does keep the #1 guy Virginians like OFF the ballot.

You’ve no idea how peaved I am about this!


7 posted on 12/28/2011 7:46:19 AM PST by sevinufnine (Sevin - "If we do not fight when we know we can win, we'll have to fight when we know we will lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

“As a registered voter in VA...THIS will be the FIRST primary I refuse to vote in. EVER.”

That is exactly what the GOP establishment wants you to do and your sitting out only emboldens them to do more things like this.

Virginia conservative Republicans should do the following in this election cycle:

1) After the holidays get on the phone and raise royal hell with the RPV. If you have made pledges for donations, threaten to withdraw them and that you will not donate anymore.
2) If this situation is not resolved and we are forced to vote for these two utter nitwits I say hold your nose and vote for Roach Paul who I think is a complete loon. But if he wins it will utterly humiliate and put a scare in the RINOs in the establishment. (I am for Newt too.)
3) If you are not active get active in your local party organization and clean out the RINOs at the leadership level.


8 posted on 12/28/2011 7:47:18 AM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

OOPs! I pasted the wrong thing FUnny! That is a photo I put on another story of our “dear leader” HA! Here’s the correct one....

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-there-is-a-new-gop-frontrunner-amongst-virginia-republicans-20111221,0,5104407.story


9 posted on 12/28/2011 7:49:41 AM PST by sevinufnine (Sevin - "If we do not fight when we know we can win, we'll have to fight when we know we will lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

Thanks for the advice. Hold my nose and vote for the crazy? Well, not a bad idea. I’ll make a few calls too.


10 posted on 12/28/2011 7:51:56 AM PST by sevinufnine (Sevin - "If we do not fight when we know we can win, we'll have to fight when we know we will lose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
No, you are just seriously ignorant.

In 2008, they took all candidates on 10,000 signatures and did not verify even one signature. And this is the very first time they have ever compared eligibility by verifying addresses.

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.

11 posted on 12/28/2011 7:53:27 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

What if they are wrong, and you get Paul elected anyway? Are you sure that Gingrich won’t have thousands go to his aid in Iowa? There are 40% who are still undecided and have not weighed in on this yet.

You are flirting with disaster and are being manipulated.


12 posted on 12/28/2011 7:56:23 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Big differences between Virginia and New York's former Mickey Mouse ballot qualification requirements:

  1. Collection time: 6 weeks in New York vs. 6 months in Virginia.
  2. Collection numbers: 1250 signatures per district in New York vs. 400 in Virginia.
  3. Petition circulators: Must be a notary or resident of the district in New York vs. no such requirement in Virginia.
  4. Technicalities: Disqualification for paper clips and other trivialities in New York vs. disqualification of invalid signatures in Virginia.

This isn't to defend Virginia's law, just point out that it is much less restrictive than New York's.

In a former life, I collected signatures for a third party ballot position in a small rural state. I would have been pleased if we had only been required to get 400. I went door to door in one small town and collected 20 in one hour.

Another guy on the team bettered that just by going into bars.

If somebody was conservative, they were generally happy to sign just to be offered another choice.

If someone told me they were a Republican, I would just ask "You're a fair minded person and support giving these people their own choice, don't you?" About 90% of them would then sign.

If someone told me they were a Democrat, I would tell them that this option would likely take away Republican votes and help their candidate. This only worked about 40% of the time, as most of them were either too dense to make the connection or thought signing might disqualify them from certain government bennies.

Long story short is that Perry and Gingrich are both trying to do what Al Gore did in Florida in 2000-- change the rules after the fact. This is not a particularly endearing quality for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief.

13 posted on 12/28/2011 7:57:04 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
5 months to gather 10,000 signatures.

Even Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich did this in 2008.

Get the feeling we have a lot of unserious candidates out there this time.


Exactly....wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls.
14 posted on 12/28/2011 7:59:00 AM PST by DJlaysitup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

They recommended everyone submit 15,000 on the chance that up to a third might be bogus.

That is not uncommon.

The only thing that is uncommon is that the 10,000 number is quite a bit higher than most states.

Still with either a volunteer base, organized through the internet, or some money and organization it’s really not that hard.


15 posted on 12/28/2011 7:59:30 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Free TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Decades earlier, Harry Flood Byrd, Sr., has policies in place that discouraged Democrat voter turnout to keep the then conservative power structure in charge.
16 posted on 12/28/2011 8:11:14 AM PST by Theodore R. (I'll still vote for Santorum if he is on the April 3 ballot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dorothy
Seems a whole bunch of so called conservatives support not keeping score in high school sports, I mean we are all winners don't you know. And actually scoring and doing the work is just so hard. Algore whinny all over.

Truth is I live in Virginia and I would not have signed to put either one on the ticket.

17 posted on 12/28/2011 8:14:28 AM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and nervous supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine
I’m uninterested on both ballot choices we will have..and we cannot write in...

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?

18 posted on 12/28/2011 8:32:20 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dorothy
Shouldn't be more than several thousand natural-born over-35ers living in the US for at least 14 years who'd like to see their names on a ballot.

Theoretical possibility, and always raised in the parade of horribles by the two establishment parties, but it tends not to happen in real life. There are many, many states with much easier ballot access rules than VA, and the specter of overloaded candidate lists just never happens.

And I'm not sure why it is this way. Maybe filling out even a simple application and paying a modest fee is just too much trouble. Maybe the financial disclosure rules put off those people who are only moderately skillful in hiding their financial skeletons. Maybe there really aren't that many people so narcissistic as to believe they can actually be president. Maybe there are a lot of people who’d rather just live their private lives in peace. Who knows.

So whatever the reason, the dreaded ballot overload problem is apparently a myth, and one perfectly suited to support the status quo. Which is how we got where we are now. Happy with that?

19 posted on 12/28/2011 8:41:04 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
LOL. Now the system that has been in place since 1999 must be changed because Newt and Perry couldn't comply with the rules. Funny, but I don't recall any of the candidates or anyone else for that matter complaining about VA's laws governing Presidential primaries.

The fact is that Newt was in VA, a place he has lived in for the past 10 years, the day before the deadline frantically collecting signatures at two rallies. The campaigns were notified on March 6th about the rules and signatures could be collected beginning July 1st. Here in Fairfax County, the Romney and Paul campaigns were collecting signatures at our monthly GOP county meetings. The FCRC has over 600 members alone. We also had state elections in November with all of the members of the General Assembly up for reelection throughout the state. It would have been easy to collect signatures there as well.

20 posted on 12/28/2011 8:42:56 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
Get the feeling we have a lot of unserious candidates out there this time.

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.

21 posted on 12/28/2011 8:47:26 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
In 2008, they took all candidates on 10,000 signatures and did not verify even one signature. And this is the very first time they have ever compared eligibility by verifying addresses.

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.

22 posted on 12/28/2011 8:49:42 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

“The GOP in Virginia is corrupt.”

Bullshit. Care to backup that Bullshit remark?


23 posted on 12/28/2011 8:50:56 AM PST by CJ Wolf (OMG - Obama Must Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

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.


24 posted on 12/28/2011 8:52:01 AM PST by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


25 posted on 12/28/2011 9:11:32 AM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Newt had the signatures but the rules changed long after they were obtained.

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.

26 posted on 12/28/2011 9:15:53 AM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
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.

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.

27 posted on 12/28/2011 9:43:56 AM PST by USS Alaska (Merry Christmas-Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sevinufnine

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.


28 posted on 12/28/2011 9:49:20 AM PST by duffee (NEWT 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“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!


29 posted on 12/28/2011 10:41:06 AM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

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.


30 posted on 12/28/2011 11:01:49 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Long story short is that Perry and Gingrich are both trying to do what Al Gore did in Florida in 2000-- change the rules after the fact. This is not a particularly endearing quality for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief.

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.

31 posted on 12/28/2011 11:07:25 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DJlaysitup

See post #31.


32 posted on 12/28/2011 11:08:44 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kabar

See post #31.


33 posted on 12/28/2011 11:11:12 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

See post #31.


34 posted on 12/28/2011 11:12:44 AM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
That is an unequal application of law and is contrary to equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

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.

35 posted on 12/28/2011 11:27:04 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Furthermore, the VAGOP did not apply that standard to all candidates, selectively choosing to not do so for Romney and Paul.

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!

36 posted on 12/28/2011 11:47:24 AM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vette6387
It “happened” by reason of a corrupt Republican Party “establishment.”

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!

37 posted on 12/28/2011 11:52:34 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Yep


38 posted on 12/28/2011 12:05:44 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
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.

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.

39 posted on 12/28/2011 12:20:11 PM PST by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

“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!


40 posted on 12/28/2011 12:21:46 PM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
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.

That may be in other states and in other circumstances... but the fact remains that in, at least, the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections... that was not done. Nor is it a requirement by VAGOP regulations for primaries on national-level offices. (it is for local and state offices, however)

They applied that standard to Romney and Paul... but then applied the state/local standard to all the rest of the candidates. Of which, only Newt and Perry met the VAGOP criteria as it is written and as it was applied in prior precedence.

And that's the crux of the matter. Two simple things:

1. they did not apply the same standards to all candidates
2. the standard used for everyone except Romney and Paul was not the standard written into VAGOP regulations

The only option is to apply the standards *AS IT EXISTS IN REGULATION* and *AS THAT STANDARD WAS APPLIED IN PRIOR PRECEDENCE*.

41 posted on 12/28/2011 12:22:38 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
What does that have to do with this? Seriously, that has no bearing.

---

The rules on the books is that any candidate who submits 10,000 or more names of registered Virginia voters, with 400(?) coming from each district... will get on the ballot.

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.

42 posted on 12/28/2011 12:23:04 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Thx for the link to the Terry Jeffrey article, very informative. It makes me wonder how many other "Terry Jeffrey's are out there with similar stories.
As far as allowing every swinging … on the ballot in VA, that my friend is the American way. It could also gen a good bit of revenue for the Commonwealth.
43 posted on 12/28/2011 12:36:01 PM PST by bksanders (Spewing Forth Vitriol at the Speed of Spit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
Perry and Newt both submitted more than 10,000.

10,000 what? Registered Virginia voters? We have no evidence that they submitted petitions signed by 10,000 Registered Virginia voters. If you have such evidence, please produce it. If you can't, your rantings are for naught.

44 posted on 12/28/2011 12:40:59 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good thing they didn’t axe me, ‘coz I’d tell ‘em that the Almighty State has no business organizing and carrying out and funding internal elections by private political parties. Let’s start out by reforming this absurdity.


45 posted on 12/28/2011 12:44:53 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I'm not sure what sampling techniques were used nor what Romney and Paul turned in.

But supposing Romney turned in 17,286 and Paul turned in 18,884 and the general disqualified signature rate was, say, 6%, then not sampling the signatures may have been statistically justified.

Further, if Perry turned in 10,380 and Gingrich turned in 10,651, then it would most certainly be prudent to examine their petitions since they are within the statistical disqualification rate range.

I really can't say from the information given. Thus, if the Virginia GOP can show that standard statistical sampling techniques were used and no political bias was involved, then there is ample justification for tossing the suit out.

However, another report is saying the Virginia GOP is requiring voters to sign a loyalty pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee. If so, that would certainly weaken their case since there is no precedent for doing it before.

46 posted on 12/28/2011 1:08:50 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

The state statute requires 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each of the congressional districts. For federal office there is nothing in the statute requiring verification, only for state and local (2 different statute sections.) At some point the RPV said there would be no verification if a 15,000/600 number was reached anything below would require verification, nothing said about sampling. My understanding is the RPV made this announcement very late in the game.

I live in an area totally ignored by TPTB - heck one of the GOP primary candidates for Governor in ‘09 didn’t even include this part of the Commonwealth on the map he used for his letterhead. I know no one that was approached by any candidate or the party itself to sign a petition by any candidate.

I gave up on the RPV quite a while ago and knew they were and would push for Romney, but did at least expect the other candidates on the ballot just like in ‘08, even though they were pushing for mcCain.


47 posted on 12/28/2011 1:57:27 PM PST by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
Odd how you missed the prior sentence, considering that it explained those "10,000" that you are so clueless about.

Here, I'll repost it for you. I know you'll probably not be able to read it, as you missed it already, but for those who can make use of it...

The rules on the books is that any candidate who submits 10,000 or more names of registered Virginia voters, with 400(?) coming from each district... will get on the ballot.

---

Selective editing to omit already posted, pertinent facts is exactly what we've come to expect from the MSM. How could a conservative stoop so low?

It's sad.

48 posted on 12/28/2011 2:43:53 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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