Skip to comments.Gingrich Considers Joining Perry in Challenging VA Election Rule
Posted on 12/30/2011 12:38:19 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Newt Gingrich said his campaign will likely join Rick Perry in challenging Virginias complicated elections rules, which allowed only two of the seven leading GOP candidates to get on the ballot for the Republican primary in that state.
The former House speaker and the other candidates except Mitt Romney and Ron Paul failed to collect the required 10,000 signatures.
Gov. Perry filed a lawsuit, I think, where the judge has invited the other candidates to join the lawsuit, and I think we are going to, although thats a lawyer conversation, Gingrich told Fox News today. Im not in charge of that sort of thing. Im focused on Iowa. But clearly we would like to have the right to choose between all of the candidates. And we think having only two of the candidates on the ballot limits the people of Virginia from having a real impact on the presidential selection process.
Gingrich also acknowledged that the negative ads of his political opponents have taken a toll on his presidential campaign, but he insists that he plans to stay positive.
I keep emphasizing that Im going to stay positive, that I think we have big challenges and that we need to create jobs and we need to get the economy moving, Gingrich told Fox News this afternoon. Im getting a lot of positive feedback from people who walk up to me and say, You know, Im really glad that youre not like the politicians who are running all of this negative stuff. So well see what happens caucus night.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I hope he does, I think it’s a stronger case with multiple candidates protesting Romney’s underhanded tactics.
What happens if someone signs 2 or more petitions ???
Do they ever check for that ???
They both should and they’ll likely win.
I sure hope so. The country will be well served if both are on the ballot.
It sounds promising!
I’m a fan of Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain. I am not a fan of Romney, Gingrich, Perry, or Ron Paul.
That being said, I don’t really have any sympathy for the folks who didn’t get on the Virginia ballot. If Romney and Paul could do it, then I’m thinking the other candidates could have done it too.
Virginia’s Republican Party has the right to run their election process as they see fit. If Romney and Paul could comply with it’s dictates, then the other candidates could have as well.
All this whining after the cut-off is annoying. If your team isn’t capable of complying with state party requirements, what does that say about your team, or you?
We talk all the time about voter fraud here, and we want to see things cleaned up. Then when a state’s political party does and requires folks to be registered at the address on file, some of us get upset about it.
Why? Frankly, I’m glad Virginia is enforcing strict rules.
Coincidently, the strongest concentration of the Republican "establishment" happens to live in Virginia.
Even if they do not win,
THERE WILL BE “DICOVERY,” which will be victory enough. We’ll have scandal headlines surrounding the Romney campaign for days-to-weeks.
Perry and Newt can expose this fraud for the world to see.
I doubt that Newt who is a strong constitutionalist, who actually believes that Judicial Activism must be stopped and is opposed to the Federal Courts interfering in a state’s election process will Not join in the Perry lawsuit.
Only idiots and people unfamiliar with Federal and State Law think this case will prevail. If they thought this process was unfair, they needed to file their suit when the rules were made and not after they blew it. Chances of their suit prevailing are ZERO.
We could take your word for it, or perhaps believe Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli - who believes totally the opposite of you. But what does he know? He's just the state's top law enforcement official and the leading AG in the fight against Obama Care.
Your post is sort of a double negative reverse, so I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not to make a point. Either way, this is not what is meant by "judicial activism." Judicial activism is the court writing laws that no congress or legislature will pass. As the great Virginia AG said, this is a "sad" rule and is "embarrassing" and "not a good thing." It is a rule by bureaucrat. Should be tossed.
The Republican voters in VA should be furious over this. I am suprised they are not screaming at the VA republican party to put everyone on the ballot.
“As the great Virginia AG said, this is a “sad” rule and is “embarrassing” and “not a good thing.” It is a rule by bureaucrat. Should be tossed.”
If that is the case, the legislature and the Virginia Republican Party should change the rules,
He issued a statement the other predicting they would do that.
Re: given your expressed support for either Gingrich or Santorum, your tagline is hypocritical, so I do a different version.
Had Neil Cavuto show on and was busy doing other things, but listening with one ear and I'm almost sure I heard some attorney say that he was going to file on Newt's behalf, as the Republican Committee had refused to release any information pertaining to their methodology in deciding to dissallow some signatories including the names of those they had refused to allow.
You may have a point, and if Newt Gingrich joins Perry’s silly lawsuit against States’ Rights in Virginia, and the VA GOP, I will have to further back away from Newt.
And instead, I’m going likely get behind Santorum, as he respects States’ Rights as well as a private organization’s right to exclude certain people and he will not be suing Virginia or the Virginia GOP.
In addition, Santorum is the strongest Pro Life Candidate in the race.
What do states’ rights have to do with filing a civil lawsuit in the state of Virginia? The lawsuit could be based on Virginia law. Virginia law already dictates many of the rules the “private organization” needs to follow. I’m pretty sure the law in general treats political parties a lot differently than they do other organizations.
You mean like the Virginia Republican party did? They changed the rules in October, long after the signature collection process for this primary had started.
This wasn’t a vote, it was a petition. I have never heard any conservative complain about “too many” people being on a ballot. We support freedom and free choice, not elites making our decisions for us. Sticking up for what the Virginia Republican party is doing is about as unconservative a position as I can think of.
I imagine a lawsuit would have been thrown out if they filed it earlier. Generally being able to show damages helps you prevail in a lawsuit.
“What do states rights have to do with filing a civil lawsuit in the state of Virginia?”
The suit has been filed in a federal court and we all know the history of federal courts interfering in state election laws.
Do you believe that a Federal Judge should be able to dictate to Texas that they cannot require people to show a picture ID to vote?
If not, why do you believe that a Federal Judge can dictate an election process in Virginia?
“The lawsuit could be based on Virginia law. Virginia law already dictates many of the rules the private organization needs to follow. Im pretty sure the law in general treats political parties a lot differently than they do other organizations.”
Do you believe that a state’s Republican Party has the right to only permit registered Republicans to vote in the Republican Primary?
If you are registered at 1717 ImADingbat Lane, in Prarieville, Virginia, and you sign a petition and list your address as 113 WhistlingDixie Boulevard, in Outback, Virginia, how is someone to know you’re the right Lester P. Voter?
Well, they can’t. It’s my understanding that this is what the Virginia Republican Party clamped down on.
If you can explain to me that the tactics used were different than this, then perhaps I’ll agree with you.
Until you or someone else does so, I’m going to back the Republican party of Virginia.
If Romney and Paul could get their names on the ballot, why couldn’t the others? Answer, they could.
Validating names and addresses is sound policy.
I disagree. You can’t file suit until you have standing...meaning that it has hurt you in some way. These candidates have now been hurt, so they now have standing to file suit.
That’s one reason no one has ever been able to get past “standing” when it came to Obama’s qualifications for the presidency.
They keep saying “IF it’s true, then I’ve been injured.” Hard to show you’ve been injured by an “IF”.
“Typical, when you can’t win by playing by the rules, change the rules, typical liberal thing to do, way to go!!! “
Huh? You might want to take some time to review the “changes” that the RINO Establishment made to the VA law’s implementation in the weeks just prior to the deadline for submission of the petitions. This whole thing stinks, irrespective of your personal preference for a candidate. The idea that it its “good” because one of your guys made it onto the ballot is exactly what the RINO Establishment is doing, so I guess you must be a Romney fan, the guy who hasn’t been able to crack 30% in any poll either this election cycle or the last. It figures.
You do realize that NONE of the names and addresses on any of petitions filed by Romney and Paul were validated, don't you?
You do realize that this is the first election where they bothered to validate any of the petitions and that the new policy was only instigated in the last few weeks, don't you?
See post 30 then maybe you won’t think I am crazy for thinking THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT does not want a conservative nominee and they are choosing Romney for us.
>>>If that is the case, the legislature and the Virginia Republican Party should change the rules,
They DID change the rules. In the middle of the game. The candidates who ‘made’ the ballot were judged by one rule, and other candidates are being judged by a wholly different rule. That is an unequal protection of law. Not to mention unfair on its face.
If that is found to be true, then I don’t see how the other candidates could be denied being placed on the ballot.
We shall see how this plays out.
To expect/believe that laws, regulations, rules that apply to politics or even government or even sports without misuse is either naive or not being familiar with human behavior.
Point taken, but it’s a federal election for federal office, so the feds certainly are entitled to some kind of jurisdiction here. I think most of us wanted Eric Holder to prosecute the Black Panther who interfered at the polls in Philadelphia. If there is unlawful interference with the VA ballot going on here then the feds have authority to intervene.
What rules were changed?
And could you please specify exactly which part of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause compels a private organization such as the VA GOP to provide equal protection?
It’s true that anyone who submitted over 15,000 signatures did not get their signatures validated, which meant only Mittney Mouse was exempted from this scrutiny. That’s not even something the law says, it was a party rule. So the party is essentially putting up its own roadblocks to keep certain candidates out that the law doesn’t tell them to.
The big problem I see is that they changed this rule in October, months after they originally said the signatures should start being collected. That violates equal protection, because some candidates may have formed their game plan based on the old rules, while others may not have started putting resources into a plan yet. Every child knows it’s unfair to start playing a game and then having someone change the rules in the middle, especially in a way that could favor one of the players over another. Simply put, if some of the campaigns had known about this rule when the whole thing started, they might have started collecting signatures earlier or saved more money to be able to hit that 15,000 mark.
Are all private organizations exempt from following laws?
Political parties are acting under the color of law. Laws of the state govern how political primaries are conducted. And these political parties should hold themselves to the full standards of the constitution, and run their primaries fairly. Clearly, Virginia is not doing that.
The Feds are going after Texas and South Carolina for their new Voter ID laws and you believe that the Feds should be able to intercede in Texas, SC and now Virginia election law?
As for the Black Panther thing in Philly, the local polce and DA should have acted and not the Feds.
“Political parties are acting under the color of law. Laws of the state govern how political primaries are conducted. And these political parties should hold themselves to the full standards of the constitution, and run their primaries fairly. Clearly, Virginia is not doing that.”
This has nothing to do with the “color of the law” as political parties are not government officials.
And we know that political parties do not “hold themselves to the full standards of the constitution,” as many state parties have closed primaries and restrict who can and cannot vote in their primary for a federal election.
So it’s OK for Virginia to change the rules in the middle of the game in your world... how nice.
Ken Cuccinelli’s office is in court defending the LAWS Perry is challenging.
Perry isn’t challenging any “rules”.
Paul did not get 15,000 signatures so his were checked.
The RPV said they spent seven hours validating his petitions.
What rule was changed?
In the end, I do want this to have been a fair procedure. If it is proven that things are like what you and one other person have related here, then it needs to be set straight.
I’m not in favor of some of the campaigns being gamed here.
The problem with that argument is that the law nonetheless requires 10,000 signatures from valid voters.
It’s the Party’s job to verify the petitions and certify to the state that the candidates got them.
If the VaGOP didn’t validate the signatures in 2008 (and in effect lied) it’s demeaning to say “Hey, they used to let us cheat so we demand they let us cheat again!”
The Oct. notification was late, but I don’t think Perry and Gingrich were planning on evading the law anyway.
Thanks for the comments MrSmith. I agree with your take on it.