Posted on 12/29/2011 11:59:17 AM PST by smoothsailing
I don't know what Gingrich has in mind, but I'm glad Perry is taking this on.
Here's the original thread I started that sheds light on the Osborne case...
“Please enlighten me, is Rick Perry for or against the Federal Courts interfering in state election issues?”
Perry’s point is that the US Supreme Court has already ruled against a similarly restrictive law in Colorado, based on the US Constitution.
There is a reasonable chance the court will ask the VA GOP why it ignored established legal precedence.
I think you’ll get a lot by reading the case(s) I just posted for you. Please take the time to study that publication, and then you will probably want to monitor the federal court case. Whether Virginia acted in an irresponsible way that undermined our Republic is yet to be determined by the courts, but we’ll soon see.
I don’t live in VA, so I don’t know, but typically a computerized system will match up the exact address as written by the voter on the petition with the address they have on file. Also, this is an open primary, so Dems were signing up as well. And who knows what they were writing.
But as you say, the organizations of Romney and Paul (since they had run and collected signatures there before) made all the difference.
However, I believe the close scrutiny of signatures actually came into effect after the Romney/Paul signatures had been checked. I could be wrong on this; I am simply gleaning this from the fragmentary reports that appear in the press.
In that case, subjecting them to different standards would certainly be illegal.
Whatever the case, I think they should both withdraw, because while the intention of the law may have been good (making sure signatures were legit), its effect combined with the wierdness of having to get a certain number in each county makes it clear that the main agenda was for Party Central (either GOP or Dem) to be able to control the potential nominees.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”
Good for Perry being tough enough to push back! :)
Ever hear of the bully pulpit, being Gov of a state is a little like being the head of the party, he can call the party big wigs and grind them to do something... being conservative does not mean an absences of choices... if this goes down to blocking the other candidates from participating, what the hell does that say about fair play in the political process, especially where conservatism is concerned, and extra-especially the kind that Ron Paul brandishes. If the laws are screwed up then trash them, trash them on the air waves, in the public square, in print, then get the state legislature to do an emergency something or other to fix this... Gawd man, he can do something!!
Yes!
There is no Constitutional right to vote in a Primary Election.
Romney’s signatures weren’t checked, but since Paul had less than 15,000 all of his were.
And they spent 7 hours doing it.
That’s much more than just running “a computerized system “.
I think you have to credit the RPV with doing due diligence.
You’re right, Paul and Romney would have an easier time getting sigs, quickly, from Dems.
But I don’t see the point to their withdrawing now. I’d guess the court is going to strike down the requirement that pwtitions be gathered by eligible Va voters, but uphold the 10,000 reequirement so they won’t be on the ballot anyway. Don’t see what they would gain.
Might be cynical of me but I see having a ruling now may prevent the Dems from having a different ruling- one in their favor- later in some other circumstance.
And Perry may win...
Otherwise the majority of the votes cast in the Va ‘Republican’ primary may be by Dems!
If it were just a matter within the Party...
but the problem isn’t Party rules it’s the law.
There’s talk of changing the law before the primary. Kinda nebulous now, he could help with that of course.
She has jumped the Megalodon
....and I hope it changes things in Virginia! They were very
heavy-handed with this new procedure. Perry leads the way...
and HE can lead the country! :)
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...”
And what would that have to do with Perry’s case?
This is good and critical to Perry as it will be his first chance for a win.
Electors represent the will of the people, and VBE is denying Perry the right to attract or repel the interest of the people there.
A number of folks are arguing that since the outcome may affect people outside VA, the federal government has the right to tell VA how to run its elections. I think the founders made it pretty clear that the States were the ones to decide how to run their elections.
Of course, this is a primary, and the rules are those of the RP of VA. But I think it's consistent to expect the terms to be the same, unless of course there was any constitutional ability granted to the federal government specific to primaries.
BTW, if Gingrich chose to join the suit, on the side of the defense, it would help alleviate my concerns about him, at least a little.
Please cite the part of the Constitution that guarantees a person's right to be on a party's primary ballot and the part of the Constitution that guarantees a person's right to vote in a party primary.
The Primary process is not in the Constitution, there is no federal law dictating the process of a primary and a party primary is a private event.
Rick Perry has No Case!
The Primary process is not in the Constitution, there is no federal law dictating the process of a primary and a party primary is a private event.
Rick Perry has No Case!
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.