Perry sues Virginia elections board to gain ballot access

posted at 9:00 pm on December 27, 2011 by Allahpundit

Taegan Goddard provides the obligatory zinger about a noted fan of states rights and the Tenth Amendment asking a federal judge to overrule Virginia’s preferences on ballot access. The statement from Team Perry:

“Gov. Perry greatly respects the citizens and history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and believes Virginia Republicans should have greater access to vote for one of the several candidates for President of the United States,” said Perry campaign communications director Ray Sullivan.

“Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election. We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support.”

Here’s the complaint, which is mercifully short. One interesting bit comes in paragraph 18, which says Perry submitted “over 6,000 petition signatures from qualified Virginia voters.” According to the Virginia GOP, he submitted more than 11,900 signatures total, which I guess means … only slightly more than half were from qualified voters? Good lord. The other important part, which you should take two minutes to read, is Count 1 spanning paragraphs 24 through 28. He’s arguing that Virginia’s requirement that petition circulators all be residents of the state who are either registered to vote or eligible to be registered imposes a too-heavy burden on his right to engage in political speech and therefore violates the First Amendment. Is he right? Well, here’s the leading Supreme Court precedent that he cites, which is also mercifully short. Skip down to section III and take two more minutes to read that. The question for the Court in that case was ever so slightly different: Colorado law allowed only currently registered voters to be petition circulators, not people who were eligible but who hadn’t registered yet. It was slightly more restrictive than Virginia’s system, in other words — and the Court found that it did in fact violate the First Amendment. Key quote:

Colorado seeks to ensure that circulators will be amenable to the Secretary of State’s subpoena power, which in these matters does not extend beyond the State’s borders… The interest in reaching law violators, however, is served by the requirement, upheld below, that each circulator submit an affidavit setting out, among several particulars, the “address at which he or she resides, including the street name and number, the city or town, [and] the county.”… This address attestation, we note, has an immediacy, and corresponding reliability, that a voter’s registration may lack. The attestation is made at the time a petition section is submitted; a voter’s registration may lack that currency.

ACLF did not challenge Colorado’s right to require that all circulators be residents, a requirement that, the Tenth Circuit said, “more precisely achieved” the State’s subpoena service objective… Nor was any eligible-to-vote qualification in contest in this lawsuit. Colorado maintains that it is more difficult to determine who is a state resident than it is to determine who is a registered voter… The force of that argument is diminished, however, by the affidavit attesting to residence that each circulator must submit with each petition section.

In sum, assuming that a residence requirement would be upheld as a needful integrity-policing measure — a question we, like the Tenth Circuit … have no occasion to decide because the parties have not placed the matter of residence at issue — the added registration requirement is not warranted.

In other words, the Supremes specifically refused to say how demanding the state could be in setting qualifications for petition circulators. The only rule they laid down was that you can’t limit the group to registered voters; at the very least, both registered voters and people eligible to register must be permitted, which is what Virginia does. The next step beyond that is to ask whether the state can constitutionally limit circulators to just those two groups or whether they have to let any U.S. resident be a circulator so long as they’re willing to provide an address at which the secretary of state can reach them. That’s what Perry’s arguing here; obviously, he would have loved to be able to ship volunteers from Texas into Virginia and have them circulate petitions instead of wasting time recruiting local supporters to do it for him. So I ask again: Is he right? A law professor interviewed by NBC says the lawsuit “now faces long odds, both legally and politically” (partly because they should have challenged Virginia’s requirements earlier), but some federal appellate courts have sided with Perry on this. Here’s one case, from the Tenth Circuit, finding state residency requirements for petition circulators unconstitutional; two other federal appellate courts have ruled similarly. The question is whether the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, will rule the same way. How lucky do you feel?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

2008 was a hard count of the number of signatures using eyeballs looking at sheets. It was not a verification (cross checking if name matches address, name is a registered voter, etc). The latter requires a computer and AFAIK has never been done until now.

Gideon7 on December 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM

2008 was a hard count of the number of signatures using eyeballs looking at sheets. It was not a verification (cross checking if name matches address, name is a registered voter, etc). The latter requires a computer and AFAIK has never been done until now.

Gideon7 on December 28, 2011 at 12:00 AM

And if a computer was doing the checking, I’ll bet that’s where your 5000 plus exclusions came from. Computers are stupid. They may not know that Bettie June Harlow and HARLOW, ELIZABETH J are probably the same person, if the addresses match. And hyphenators! Gods, who knows what the DMV has for John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt! SCHMIDT, J J? JINGLEHEIMER, J J? JON JJ SCHMIDT?

Sekhmet on December 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM

S

teve Eggleston on December 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM

I’m familiar with this story, except I didn’t know he chose not to challenge it. Why not, if he had a good case? And why shouldn’t Perry, if he has a case?

I no longer live in Wisconsin, but most of my family is there, and I follow the news closely. Walker is a big hero of mine. It has to be tough to go through these constant recalls, not to mention all the other stupid union antics.

NbyNW on December 28, 2011 at 12:09 AM

There are parts of any legal filing where you get your fight on, and there are others where you avoid any controversial statements. Because if you submit as fact something that is later ruled not to be factual, your whole petition can get tossed. An unknown number of the 11,900 signatures were objectively illegitimate. That number is doubtless much less than 5900 that the VA GOP threw out, but it is greater than 0. 6000 is not controversial. 11,900 is.

Sekhmet on December 27, 2011 at 11:54 PM

The fact that the Perry campaign is also challenging the 10K/400 floor tells me that they accept they fell short of that.

If they weren’t accepting of that invalidation, they could have said, “On December 22, 2011, Plantiff submitted to the Board 11,911 petition signatures for review by the Party,” and not jeopardized the lawsuit whatsoever.

Steve Eggleston on December 28, 2011 at 12:09 AM

We will be doing a hard count for number of signatures based on correctness of form (see attached documents for details).

In other words, they were counting the signatures, not running them through the DMV database. Thanks, Whatcat
Sekhmet on December 27, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Not sure you can assume that. And since it’s a voter database, it would only require confirming an existing valid voter registration, not whether a person was a driver or not.

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:10 AM

I hope you’ll take the time to review the attached documents, so that we can get through this as rapidly and smoothly as possible. It is the goal of the Party to qualify your candidates for the ballot, but we do have an obligation to make sure that the legal requirements have been met.
whatcat on December 27, 2011 at 11:51 PM

This is just a copy of the rules from 2007. It’s not a record of how closely the rules were actually followed.
NbyNW on December 27, 2011 at 11:59 PM

I omitted this for brevity’s sake, sound a little “chatty”:
“We’ve got about 40 folks coming in to help with the count, so it should proceed fairly quickly. You all are more than welcome to have one or two folks present as observers.

I’m guessing you’re not privy to how things proceeded then or now. And I expect observers from all camps were also welcome this time around, it’s a common practice in things such as this. Yet there were no complaints.

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Amazing anyone takes Perry seriously. SNL would never have to worry about material if he were elected.

air_up_there on December 28, 2011 at 12:19 AM

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Nope, it specifically said they were counting, as in 1 signature, 2 signatures, 3 signatures, 4… And not checking addresses at all, if an adequate number of signatures were submitted. In 2008 on up to November 2011, that number was 10,000, and the 5,000 signature cushion was optional. It became mandatory in November 2011, leaving Gingrich and Perry little time to get more signatures.

Moreover, the extremely high amount of exclusions in the absence of ACORN collecting the signatures suggests either a burdensomely high standard for verifying the signatures, or a very dumb computer program that is too stupid to work with nicknames and hyphenations. If Dickie Lee Jones wants Gingrich on the ballot, why should his signature be thrown out because the DMV has him as JONES, RICHARD L?

Sekhmet on December 28, 2011 at 12:21 AM

My shower beckons. Later, y’all.

Sekhmet on December 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM

No doubt he will spend more of his donors’ contributions on this than he would have spent hiring a firm to gather signatures.

Ronnie on December 28, 2011 at 12:30 AM

I’m familiar with this story, except I didn’t know he chose not to challenge it. Why not, if he had a good case? And why shouldn’t Perry, if he has a case?

I no longer live in Wisconsin, but most of my family is there, and I follow the news closely. Walker is a big hero of mine. It has to be tough to go through these constant recalls, not to mention all the other stupid union antics.

NbyNW on December 28, 2011 at 12:09 AM

At some point, usually when there’s not enough time or money, you say that it’s not worth fighting. In Nygren’s case, it would have taken an appeal to the state Supreme Court, after stops in a Dane County Circuit Court and the Dane County-based 4th District Court of Appeals, to get that favorable ruling. Then, it would take Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson not slow-balling said ruling.

Given that is the precise path taken by the lawsuit against Act 10 (the proximate cause of Recall Madness, though if concealed carry, the FY2012-FY2013 budget, or voter ID had come up first, it would have been that instead), and it took a violent confrontation to get that Supreme Court ruling out, it’s not surprising Nygren didn’t try to get the wheels of justice to turn in the approximately 3 weeks he had.

I’m not a lawyer, but I doubt Perry has a case that supports the remedy he seeks, namely, access to the primary ballot. Overturning Virginia’s ban on non-resident petition circulators, as most but not all the courts that have heard cases involving potential non-resident petition circulators have done, does not lend itself to putting Perry on the ballot. While overturning the 10K/400 floor would lend itself to putting Perry on the ballot, the fact that it’s been in place for all statewide Virgnia primaries for the last several election cycles suggests that won’t be overturned.

Steve Eggleston on December 28, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I’m guessing you’re not privy to how things proceeded then or now. And I expect observers from all camps were also welcome this time around, it’s a common practice in things such as this. Yet there were no complaints.

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

No, I’m not/wasn’t privy to it. Are/were you? Do you know there were no complaints this time?

All I’m saying is that what you’ve posted does not prove one way or the other that the process was performed the same in past campaigns. If you can find a statement by someone that actually participated in the signature counts in this campaign and a past one, verifying that the same process was followed, I might be more impressed.

NbyNW on December 28, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Nope, it specifically said they were counting, as in 1 signature, 2 signatures, 3 signatures, 4

Not sure what you’re talking about there. Have you looked at the pdfs linked to on the Redstate page re: the verification procedures? After they’d been verified, having met all the qualifications as laid on the instructions in the pdfs, there’s not much left to do but count them.

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:38 AM

One more strike against Perry’s claim that the 10K/400 floor is too stringent – he did not concern himself with the requirement for more than half the time from his federal declaration of candidacy (which was after the start of the Virginia petition process) and the Virginia deadline.

Steve Eggleston on December 28, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Obama (Capitalism has “never worked”) should be contrasted with Capitalist Romney.
Government Workers Newt and Perry can go live on their government pensions, and crow about how many government jobs they created.

Mormontheman on December 28, 2011 at 12:46 AM

I’m guessing you’re not privy to how things proceeded then or now. And I expect observers from all camps were also welcome this time around, it’s a common practice in things such as this. Yet there were no complaints.
whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:16 AM

No, I’m not/wasn’t privy to it. Are/were you? Do you know there were no complaints this time?
All I’m saying is that what you’ve posted does not prove one way or the other that the process was performed the same in past campaigns. If you can find a statement by someone that actually participated in the signature counts in this campaign and a past one, verifying that the same process was followed, I might be more impressed.
NbyNW on December 28, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Exactly. The only ones who would have any info or complaints would be the invited observers from the various camps. However no complaints have been raised by anyone in that regard. The only ground Perry is suing on is that getting on the primary was too hard for him, i.e. “it’s not fair”. There’s no argument about the petitions, their tallying, dates, Romney or any of the conspiracy theories offered up here:
Here’s the entire pleading.
Perry VA Ballot Access

whatcat on December 28, 2011 at 12:48 AM

The only rule they laid down was that you can’t limit the group to registered voters; at the very least, both registered voters and people eligible to register must be permitted, which is what Virginia does.

Sorry, but no. Virginia requires registered voters. Those eligible to be registered do not count.

From the RPV site:

Under the Code of Virginia, any candidate who wants to have their name placed on the March 6, 2012 Republican Presidential Ballot or the June 12, 2012 U.S. Senate Primary must collect the signatures of 10,000 registered voters statewide, with at least 400 signatures of registered voters from each of Virginia’s 11 Congressional Districts

Link

The statute that handles the petition is § 24.2-545. Presidential primary.
Specifically:

B. Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate for whom the petitions are filed.

You must then look at Virginia’s definition for qualified voter: § 24.2-101. Definitions

Specifically:

“Qualified voter” means a person who is entitled to vote pursuant to the Constitution of Virginia and who is (i) 18 years of age on or before the day of the election or qualified pursuant to § 24.2-403 or subsection D of § 24.2-544, (ii) a resident of the Commonwealth and of the precinct in which he offers to vote, and (iii) registered to vote.

It’s very clear state law requires the petitions be signed only by registered voters. Eligible to register is not an option.

Not sure where you’re getting information of that sort AP but I do believe it’s wrong. Or I’m missing something from the statutes that I’ve posted.

So, the rule you cite is being broken by Virginia.

ButterflyDragon on December 28, 2011 at 12:57 AM

He had five months to get his work done. He didn’t do it. Keep him off.

kurtd on December 28, 2011 at 1:13 AM

As someone who can’t stand Perry and has lost a lot of sympathy for Newt, changing the rules after the game has started is super lame. If Virginia had a problem or found a flaw in the system, they should have saved the modification till the next election.

Dongemaharu on December 28, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Amazing anyone takes Perry seriously. SNL would never have to worry about material if he were elected.

air_up_there on December 28, 2011 at 12:19 AM

You can worry about the SNL mocking him – they do that by the way to any GOP President.

I will be enjoying the Federal Govt. being downsized and made inconsequential. Not to mention a lot of `leeches` being placed out of work.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 1:20 AM

ButterflyDragon on December 28, 2011 at 12:57 AM

The question is not on the voter registration or residency of a signer of a nomination petition, it is on whether the circulator must be either a registered voter or eligible to be. § 24.2-521 allows the circulator of the petition, but not the signer, to merely be eligible to vote in Virginia.

The open question is whether the SCOTUS prohibition against registered-voter requirements for circulators, from Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, extends to resident requirements for circulators. Most, but not all, courts have streched Buckley to that point, but none of the courts that have ruled on that (either way) have jurisdiction over Virginia.

Steve Eggleston on December 28, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but aren’t the primaries of political parties considered private elections? They aren’t for government positions after all, they’re a method for a party to decide who represents them in an upcoming election. As such, couldn’t they run it any way they darn please?

I dunno, just seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Besides that, doesn’t this not change anything? If I’m reading this correctly the Perry Campaign is objecting to the fact that signature collectors must be local. Even if he wins though, the deadline for submitting signatures will be past and the ruling wouldn’t change the eligibility of those that did sign.

So, at best it wouldn’t make any difference until 2016, right? Riiiight??

WolvenOne on December 28, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Yay, Rick!

Love the pic with this thread – the clip from “The Dukes of Hazzard” of dumb deputy Enos – looks just like Rick Perry!

Sue them sumb’s, Ricko! If Obama can sue states, so can you. Tell ‘em to take the 10th Amendment and shove it! Find you an activist judge and go to it! A gay activist judge would be even better – they love sticking it to the bitter-clinger, God-nuts and Bible thumpers in former rebel states like Virginny!

‘Course, you only had 6,000 signatures and needed 10,000, but, hey, that’s called “Texas Close Enough” – just ask LBJ! It was all onerous and stuff. Primarying is hard!

So, lawyer-up, Ricky. It’s the new American way! Show them easterners just how tough you are, just like you showed that coyote.

Tell ‘em about you lawsuit against Obama to make the feds enforce immigration laws! Oh wait…scratch that!

Suit won’t get anywhere in court system, but fun to watch.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!

Giddy-up! Jethro Perry/Deputy Enos 2012!

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Them election rules in Virginia are just “heartless!”

Texas solved the issues of residency and qualified voters long ago – if the notary who witnesses you signature is registered in Mexico, just drop you registration form in the mailbox in Mexico City and be done with it.

Virginia needs to get modern! Heartless, Heartless, Heartless.

Perry, once elected, is going to do away with their departments of……Stare…..Stare….Stare…..

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 3:01 AM

canopor

A Canadian from that great northern land of insane political correctness, useless socialized medicine, homosexual rights rigidity and overuse of words such as “aboot” for “about” and “eh” giving advice to Americans on conducting fair elections?

That’s a real hoot! LOL!

Hey, how’s that Royal Governor of yours doing? Will there be room on your dollar for a picture of Charles III with his huge ears when your Queen gets planted with her ancestors?

Really weird, eh?

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:01 AM

it is literally farcical how comic the Perry campaign has been from the very beginning..

the guy claims to be Mr. States Rights, and then sues a state to have the Federal Government intervene so he can get on a ballot he screwed up on?!!

that is too classic.

Rick Perry- if he goofs up, just wait until his next goof up!

AirForceCane on December 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM

canopor

A Canadian from that great northern land of insane political correctness, useless socialized medicine, homosexual rights rigidity and overuse of words such as “aboot” for “about” and “eh” giving advice to Americans on conducting fair elections?

That’s a real hoot! LOL!

You know what’s even funnier?

A guy who supports a candidate like Romney who is for socialized medicine, homosexual rights, gun control, and carbon caps, criticizing canopor for offering advice.

Hey, how’s that Royal Governor of yours doing? Will there be room on your dollar for a picture of Charles III with his huge ears when your Queen gets planted with her ancestors?

Really weird, eh?

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:01 AM

Sneering at a Canadian whose country elected a conservative prime minister while the United States elected a socialist President doesn’t sound terribly clever.

sharrukin on December 28, 2011 at 4:14 AM

AirForceCane

“Governor Goof-Up” Pretty good.

If ol’ Ricky could find a way to become one of what our esteemed Attorney General calls “my people,” then maybe Holder would join with Governor Goof-Up in his lawsuit against Virginia and against his constant hollerin’ about that there Tenth Amendment to the You-Ess, by Gawd, Constitution.

Holder likes suing states, too.

Dire Straits

You used the word “guttersnipe” in a post. Such name-calling. Better have another drink. Excellent post. I agree. It’s all good. Whatever.

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:18 AM

sharrukin

“Conservative” in the Land of Aboot means slightly to the left of Obama in the U.S.

I support Romney? Links to proof of that, Sir, please. (Hint: There are none in existence in this Universe, so you made it up and…uh..ahem…fibbed.)

I was a Palinbot, then disappointed. Was a Herminator fan, then disappointed.

Am now just enjoying the Clown Circus a/k/a the Republican primaries.

Maybe we need a Royal Governor to straighten things out, eh? How aboot that?

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:22 AM

“Conservative” in the Land of Aboot means slightly to the left of Obama in the U.S.

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:22 AM

The facts contradict your ignorant statements.

Harper says no Canadian money for European bailout

As Obama attempts to postpone the impeding crumbling of the American economy — and his own administration — the president could propose a bailout to the countries of the European Union that could cost taxpayers upwards of trillions

Harper will destroy long gun data despite Quebec’s pending court challenge

Aiming for National Gun Registration? Obama’s Op-ed Falls Flat.

And aren’t the Canadians trying to get a pipeline built that is being blocked by Obama?

In Canada…
In the past four years, the Harper government has been gradually reducing the corporate income tax rate from 22 per cent to 16.5 per cent as of Jan. 1. In 2012, it will fall to 15 per cent.

In the United States…
The statutory federal income tax rate for big American companies is 35%. But a study by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, two Washington, DC-based think-tanks, has assessed the tax records of 280 companies from the Fortune 500 list with reliable pre-tax profit reports. Among these companies the average effective tax rate between 2008-10 was only 18.5%.

The United States is becoming more and more socialist while Canada, the Europeans and the former communists states are abandoning socialism. Even Russia has a flat tax.

sharrukin on December 28, 2011 at 4:42 AM

sharrukin

Anything you cite or post in reference to my statements re Canada is totally lacking in credibility until you either a.)provide a link to any source anywhere in this Universe that proves I support Romney, or, b.) you admit you simply made that up and…to put it kindly…committed a falsehood.

I notice in your last post you made no reference to that. Shouldn’t make allegations that you cannot prove. There is a word for that that begins with “L.” Not nice to do, eh?

I don’t mind any honest challenges to who I support for the nomination – I really find false challenges of who I support for the nomination to be…pathetic. That’s aboot it, I reckon.

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:57 AM

It’s worth a shot.
Even a Hail Mary pass falls right ya occasionally.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 28, 2011 at 6:31 AM

In Ohio 2008, they took park benches as addresses.

Mr. Sun on December 28, 2011 at 6:39 AM

For some candidates, states’ rights is a rallying cry.

For Rick Perry, it is a punchline.

JohnGalt23 on December 28, 2011 at 6:43 AM

Look at the polls people……..we need ONE Conservative to run.

And it’s not Perry.

Go back to Austin Rick.

PappyD61 on December 28, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Look at the polls people……..we need ONE Conservative to run.

And it’s not Perry.

Go back to Austin Rick.

PappyD61 on December 28, 2011 at 6:57 AM

If a small-govt-minded conservative governor governing the most prosperous state cannot meet your insane standards, then who can?

Perry is a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, and a national defence conservative – but it is not enough for you?

What do you want him to do? Eat babies for breakfast?

You deserve a second term of Obama in order to learn to be appreciative of a good candidate when you see one.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Perry’s hypocrisy is amusing.

Governor Perry is one of only two Governors, in the last 60 years, who vetoed a bill to improve ballot access. On May 20, 2003, he had vetoed HB 1274, which deleted a Texas requirement that petition circulators must read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach. The bill had passed both houses of the legislature unanimously. The statement, which is still in the Texas law, thanks to Perry’s veto, said, “I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the (whichever) Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited.”

Forcing a circulator to read this lengthy statement slows down the progress of any circulator, and shows that, at least in 2003, Governor Perry had no interest in fair ballot access. But, maybe the recent Virginia experience will affect his attitude about ballot access barriers. Thanks to Cody Quirk for the news.

Source

joana on December 28, 2011 at 7:09 AM

For some candidates, states’ rights is a rallying cry.

For Rick Perry, it is a punchline.

JohnGalt23 on December 28, 2011 at 6:43 AM

Perry has been fighting or state rights long before you were born. If you can stop drinking the ‘Ron Paul’ Aid long enough, you will see it.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:11 AM

joana on December 28, 2011 at 7:09 AM

When you can demonstrate that only two out of the nine candidates running have qualified for Texas ballot, then you can throw the ‘hypocrisy’ line.

Attempts by Romney and the VA GOP Establishment to manipulate the primary election in VA has backfired and they are now scrambling – whining like spoiled brats.

‘Er… Perry is a hypocrite…’ /sarc

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:16 AM

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:57 AM

LOL… quit whining.

Sharrukin destroyed your argument re Canada by using facts. You obviously have no answer to his excellent comment and had to reel off this pathetic response, which I can’t make head or tail of.

Welcome to Hot Air… try harder next time.

:)

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:22 AM

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 4:01 AM

Canopor has been an extremely well informed and well behaved member of this community for quite some time. Feel free to actually rebut whatever he says. It is really rude to dismiss him out of hand just because you were luck enough to obtain citizenship by birth, hook or crook.

Dawnsblood on December 28, 2011 at 7:26 AM

I have to give it to the Right Man- when Perry was ahead in the polls this guy was omnipresent telling everyone they were wrong if they didn’t support him..

now that Perry is a national joke, he is still omnipresent telling everyone they are stupid if they don’t support him!

how much is the Perry campaign paying you to troll around on the internet and come up with ludicrous defenses of the indefensible?

whatever they are paying you, they should have spent on getting on the Virginia ballot! you are tiresome :)

AirForceCane on December 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM

whatever they are paying you, they should have spent on getting on the Virginia ballot! you are tiresome :)

AirForceCane on December 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM

I will relent when the media/GOP Establishment:

- Quits telling me that Romney is inevitable
- Quits trying to narrow the race to a choice between Romney or Paul
- Quits trying to declare ‘Game Over’ before even the first votes have been cast.

Perry remains the only candidate, in my opinion, that can beat Romney and Obama. He is not a national joke – Romney will kill for his record.

Supporters of other candidates are NOT stupid for not seeing this, they are wrong though.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:36 AM

joana on December 28, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Yes, becuase that is so onerous, lol! That’s just like VA who requires the candidates to jump through fiery hoops and sign their names in blood. LOL.

Aslans Girl on December 28, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Perry is HAWT and governs Texas the way I’d like to see America governed (vs. ‘Massachusetts MITT’)!

Go Perry Go!

NOBAMA!
NOMITT!

Pragmatic on December 28, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Ha, the Mitt-haters would have gone crazy if Mitt’s campaign was sloppy and incompetent enough to not follow the rules of the VA primary and then SUE to get on the ballot anyway. But if it’s one of the bumbling NOMITT hobbits? A-Ok to be an incompetent!

Priscilla on December 28, 2011 at 8:00 AM

If Rick Perry actually had 11,900 then he has a 50 percent failure rate.

gerrym51 on December 28, 2011 at 8:21 AM

I will be enjoying the Federal Govt. being downsized and made inconsequential. Not to mention a lot of `leeches` being placed out of work.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 1:20 AM

That’s not going to happen. Between the public-employee unions and the effect on unemployment when large buckets of government workers are fired, the pushback from the bureaucracy will be too strong. I think Perry’s throwing out red meat here to differentiate himself.

Reagan didn’t get rid of the Dept. of Education, though he promised to abolish it.

cane_loader on December 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Ha, the Mitt-haters would have gone crazy if Mitt’s campaign was sloppy and incompetent enough to not follow the rules of the VA primary and then SUE to get on the ballot anyway. But if it’s one of the bumbling NOMITT hobbits? A-Ok to be an incompetent!

Priscilla on December 28, 2011 at 8:00 AM

the threshold of minimum signatures was raised from 10,000 to 15,000 at the END of the process. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

And the Attorney General of Virginia must be your nemesis considering his words on this matter:

I would throw out for consideration that we should lower our requirements to 100 legitimate signatures per congressional district.

Let’s face it, absent a serious write-in challenge from some other candidate, Virginia won’t be nearly as ‘fought over’ as it should be in the midst of such a wide open nomination contest. Our own laws have reduced our relevance. Sad.

Daemonocracy on December 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM

I know this is counter-intuitive but I think the 15,000 signatures and we will not look at them was there to HELP the minor candidates who had problems getting VALID signatures.

It seems none of them took the HINT

that way the STATE would have been satisfied and the VRP could say
Hey they got 15,000 signatures

gerrym51 on December 28, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Someone needs to get the head of the VA GOP to make a statement on whether and when the signature checking was supposed reimplemented or not, not comments from an underling.

Until we can ascertain this, this is all just hot air gas….

cane_loader on December 28, 2011 at 9:04 AM

1. The GOP nominee list of options is rotten.
2. If the infighting amongst the HotAir commenters is any reflection on the GOP party itself, we shouldn’t be surprised that the U.S. loses in 2012.

shick on December 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Perry will win this lawsuit .The question is how long it will take?Probably not before the Virginia primary in march of 2012.The precedent that has already been rule on by past courts saying that states may require a fee equal for all candidates but may not require special rules like signed petitions especially like Virginia so many from each county or district.Case law as i understand it from the court dissension basically says.While a candidate could pay the same filling fee like all of the other candidates to be on a states ballot the undo expense of getting the petition done may restrict or eliminate candidates who other wise would be a quantified candidate.

logman1 on December 28, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Oh My, this isn’t just going to go away and be swept under the Republican carpet. I hope there are lots of depositions taken.

Dr Evil on December 28, 2011 at 9:48 AM

it is literally farcical how comic the Perry campaign has been from the very beginning..

the guy claims to be Mr. States Rights, and then sues a state to have the Federal Government intervene so he can get on a ballot he screwed up on?!!

that is too classic.

AirForceCane on December 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM

+1

It would seem Perry’s only idea of States Rights is Texas independence. You’d think a state having rules about how you get on the ballot and restricting the petitioners to its own residents and not bussed in out-of-staters is about as States Rights as it gets.

haner on December 28, 2011 at 9:55 AM

I understand the Perry campaign is running a want ad it states:

“Republican candidate seeks activist judge to overturn state law”

tbrickert on December 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM

the threshold of minimum signatures was raised from 10,000 to 15,000 at the END of the process. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Daemonocracy on December 28, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Ed Morrissey just wrote:

Update III: A few people have pointed to this undated announcement from Pat Mullins as a kind of “smoking gun” to prove that the rules changed late in the game. However, all this memo does is explain exactly how Virginia law requires the RPV to certify petitions, and doesn’t change anything at all. State law allows them to assume that a submission of more than 15,000 signatures amounts to enough signatures to assume the 10,000, but otherwise the signatures must be checked against state law, in subsection 24.2-506, which states (emphasis mine):

joana on December 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM

What’s really important here is that the constitution guarantees Perry’s right to hire f*cking incompetent staff.

Dave Rywall on December 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Not wanting to rain on the current parade, but…Ahem, back on subject.

Here’s one case, from the Tenth Circuit, finding state residency requirements for petition circulators unconstitutional; two other federal appellate courts have ruled similarly. The question is whether the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, will rule the same way. How lucky do you feel?

I guess Perry feels pretty lucky.

We’ll see……..

avagreen on December 28, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Perry has been fighting or state rights long before you were born. If you can stop drinking the ‘Ron Paul’ Aid long enough, you will see it.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:11 AM

Uh huh. Only thing I see is a sore loser, whining about how he couldn’t compete on a level playing field, in a forum that should be anathema to both states’ rights advocates and anti-judicial-activists.

JohnGalt23 on December 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:11 AM

Uh huh. Only thing I see is a sore loser, whining about how he couldn’t compete on a level playing field, in a forum that should be anathema to both states’ rights advocates and anti-judicial-activists.

JohnGalt23 on December 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Whining? Suing a state to reinforce a decision that’s been reached three times before by the Tenth Circuit is “whining”?

I’m sure all the ALL disenfranchised voters that couldn’t VOTE because they hadn’t changed their addresses on the 2008 voting records and got their votes disallowed a few days ago as a result don’t think it’s “whining”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/286645/virginias-gop-primary-ballot-romney-paul-and-thats-it

You might would like to address O’Reilly about “whining” is about.
Bill O’Reilly: Why Is Rep. Ron Paul ‘Whining’ About Media Coverage And Dodging Me?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-why-is-rep-ron-paul-whining-about-media-coverage-and-dodging-me/

avagreen on December 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ron-paul-camp-attacks-drudge-report-media-bias
Ron Paul camp whines about Drudge coverage

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111215195633AAtFpdo
Is Ron Paul too whiny? He whines about the media nonstop but if it wasn’t for the media’s conservative bias?

avagreen on December 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Ooopsy! Guess this Bill Pascoe of Citizens for the Republic is “whining” as well.

Perry’s campaign is not the only group seeking to change the state’s rules: Bill Pascoe of a conservative organization called Citizens for the Republic is considering a challenge to the ballot certification process based on the fact that only candidates who submitted less than 15,000 signatures had their petitions cross-referenced with voting roles, which Pascoe said leaves the system open to fraud.

“We’re prepared to take this to the Pope,” he told CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57348972-503544/perry-campaign-sues-to-get-on-virginia-ballot/

avagreen on December 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Sigh, Rick Perry should stop wasting money and should hurry up and endorse Romney so that we can all unite and focus on defeating Obama.

bluegill on December 28, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Perry has been fighting or state rights long before you were born. If you can stop drinking the ‘Ron Paul’ Aid long enough, you will see it.

TheRightMan on December 28, 2011 at 7:11 AM
Uh huh. Only thing I see is a sore loser, whining about how he couldn’t compete on a level playing field, in a forum that should be anathema to both states’ rights advocates and anti-judicial-activists.

JohnGalt23 on December 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Bottom line: Ron Paul’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns had their acts together and got in the required signatures. They are run by competent people, apparently. Perry? Not so much. Sorry, Perry, it’s time for you to pack it in.

bluegill on December 28, 2011 at 6:44 PM

I thought you people were for states’ rights and against frivolous lawsuits?

benny shakar on December 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM

benny shakar on December 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM

You think Governor Perry is one of us?

Talk to your therapist.

Projection.

IlikedAUH2O on December 28, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4