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

Skip to comments.

Gingrich Considers Joining Perry in Challenging VA Election Rule
News Max ^ | December 30, 2011 | Paul Scicchitano

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 Virginia’s 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 that’s a lawyer conversation,” Gingrich told Fox News today. “I’m not in charge of that sort of thing. I’m 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 I’m 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. “I’m getting a lot of positive feedback from people who walk up to me and say, ‘You know, I’m really glad that you’re not like the politicians who are running all of this negative stuff.’ So we’ll see what happens caucus night.”

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: gingrich2012; gopprimary; iowacaucus; va2012; vaballot
Newt cries when asked about Mom -- He relates she had bipolar disorder, thus his interest in Alzheimer's disease and brain science [photos].
1 posted on 12/30/2011 12:38:23 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I hope he does, I think it’s a stronger case with multiple candidates protesting Romney’s underhanded tactics.


2 posted on 12/30/2011 12:41:53 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Newt Gingrich 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What happens if someone signs 2 or more petitions ???

Do they ever check for that ???


3 posted on 12/30/2011 12:42:28 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

They both should and they’ll likely win.


4 posted on 12/30/2011 12:42:58 PM PST by Rick_Michael ( 'REAL' Conservatives who witch hunt their own, are no better than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I sure hope so. The country will be well served if both are on the ballot.


5 posted on 12/30/2011 12:44:43 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
From what I read, Newt's recent filing has even more teeth than does Perry's. If they combine forces, it will also help Perry out and vice-versa. Newt filed on the grounds that there was nothing in the law that said that addresses were a determining factor, and that the Virginia election board, cannot show evidence, or proof of what and why they ruled the way they did.

It sounds promising!

6 posted on 12/30/2011 12:50:58 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


7 posted on 12/30/2011 12:51:35 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
I hope he does, I think it’s a stronger case with multiple candidates protesting Romney’s underhanded tactics.

Coincidently, the strongest concentration of the Republican "establishment" happens to live in Virginia.

8 posted on 12/30/2011 12:52:27 PM PST by presidio9 (www.catholicscomehome.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


9 posted on 12/30/2011 12:52:59 PM PST by TitansAFC (Mitt Romney gets less bang for the buck than John-Freaking-Huntsman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

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.


10 posted on 12/30/2011 12:53:42 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


11 posted on 12/30/2011 12:53:50 PM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy
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.

12 posted on 12/30/2011 1:17:16 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.

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.

13 posted on 12/30/2011 1:20:06 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

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.


14 posted on 12/30/2011 1:26:58 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“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,


15 posted on 12/30/2011 1:31:09 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

He issued a statement the other predicting they would do that.


16 posted on 12/30/2011 1:34:51 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; Cincinatus' Wife
If Rick Perry Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum can't secure his place on the VA primary ballot, how can he be trusted to secure America?"

Re: given your expressed support for either Gingrich or Santorum, your tagline is hypocritical, so I do a different version.

17 posted on 12/30/2011 1:48:26 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Newt to file suit...I think...

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.

18 posted on 12/30/2011 2:05:13 PM PST by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Typical, when you can't win by playing by the rules, change the rules, typical liberal thing to do, way to go!!!
19 posted on 12/30/2011 2:05:18 PM PST by qman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

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.


20 posted on 12/30/2011 2:08:22 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


21 posted on 12/30/2011 2:16:21 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Bull’s eye.


22 posted on 12/30/2011 2:16:41 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: qman

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.


23 posted on 12/30/2011 2:17:32 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


24 posted on 12/30/2011 2:21:32 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

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.


25 posted on 12/30/2011 2:23:54 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

“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. I’m 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?


26 posted on 12/30/2011 2:28:53 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

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.


27 posted on 12/30/2011 2:30:53 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife

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”.


28 posted on 12/30/2011 2:35:38 PM PST by xzins (Pray for Our Troops Remaining in Afghanistan, now that Iran Can Focus on Injuring Only Them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: qman

“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.


29 posted on 12/30/2011 3:24:46 PM PST by vette6387 (Enough Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; xzins; C. Edmund Wright
Validating names and addresses is sound policy.

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?

30 posted on 12/30/2011 4:07:22 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Stop Romney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma

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.


31 posted on 12/30/2011 4:13:43 PM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

>>>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.


32 posted on 12/30/2011 4:19:33 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (No Mit Sherlock. No Mit, not now, not ever. | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

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.


33 posted on 12/30/2011 4:22:53 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

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.


34 posted on 12/30/2011 4:25:46 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


35 posted on 12/30/2011 4:45:51 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
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.

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?

36 posted on 12/30/2011 4:50:11 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


37 posted on 12/30/2011 4:51:29 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Are all private organizations exempt from following laws?


38 posted on 12/30/2011 4:52:41 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


39 posted on 12/30/2011 4:57:24 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (No Mit Sherlock. No Mit, not now, not ever. | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

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.


40 posted on 12/30/2011 4:59:16 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

“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.


41 posted on 12/30/2011 5:11:54 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

So it’s OK for Virginia to change the rules in the middle of the game in your world... how nice.


42 posted on 12/30/2011 5:13:46 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (No Mit Sherlock. No Mit, not now, not ever. | FR Class of 1998 |)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Ken Cuccinelli’s office is in court defending the LAWS Perry is challenging.

Perry isn’t challenging any “rules”.


43 posted on 12/30/2011 5:14:41 PM PST by mrsmith (Start electing a 'Tea Party' House Speaker in 2012 now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Paul did not get 15,000 signatures so his were checked.

The RPV said they spent seven hours validating his petitions.


44 posted on 12/30/2011 5:17:59 PM PST by mrsmith (Start electing a 'Tea Party' House Speaker in 2012 now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

What rule was changed?


45 posted on 12/30/2011 5:23:56 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

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.


46 posted on 12/30/2011 5:52:01 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; JediJones

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.


47 posted on 12/30/2011 6:15:16 PM PST by mrsmith (Start electing a 'Tea Party' House Speaker in 2012 now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Thanks for the comments MrSmith. I agree with your take on it.


48 posted on 12/31/2011 12:06:38 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Santorum..., are you giving it some thought? I knew you would.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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