Virginia AG working to allow Gingrich and Perry on the ballot, after all

posted at 5:30 pm on December 31, 2011 by Tina Korbe

When both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich failed to meet the requirements to appear on the presidential ballot in Virginia, the camps of both candidates claimed a certain degree of victimization. Perry has even filed a lawsuit and an individual activist not associated with Gingrich’s campaign has filed a lawsuit on the former Speaker’s behalf, as well.

Now, it looks like the two candidates are poised to receive help from Virginia’s prominent attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli suggests the ballot controversy is at least as much the fault of the Virginia system as of any of the candidates who missed the mark. He plans to file emergency legislation to allow more candidates to make it on the ballot. Fox News reports:

“Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a “legal and constitutional embarrassment.”

Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it.”

Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to support the emergency legislation, as well, according to the Fox News article.

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary — and, no matter what happens with this new legislation, it doesn’t reflect well on either Gingrich or Perry that they didn’t attend more closely to detail. Meanwhile, it does make sense to me that Cuccinelli, McDonnell and other prominent Virginians would want to remedy the problem, even if it wasn’t their fault, as the presence of Gingrich and Perry on the ballot will make for a more meaningful primary for Virginia.


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 4 5 6

WHAT?!!! Affirmative Action in the GOP is now conservative platform!!! WOW!!!

Capitalist75 on January 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM

WHAT?!!! Affirmative Action in the GOP is now conservative platform!!! WOW!!!

Capitalist75 on January 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I hope you show as much concern over the fact that someone with 14,999 signatures is being treated by a different standard than one with 15,000.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 2:07 AM

WHAT?!!! Affirmative Action in the GOP is now conservative platform!!! WOW!!!

Capitalist75 on January 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM

What’s conservative is not letting our lords and masters decide who we can and cannot vote for. If you like the state bureaucracy dictating your choices, well thats not what most people call conservatism. Maybe its what passes for libertarianism these days?

sharrukin on January 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM

WHAT?!!! Affirmative Action in the GOP is now conservative platform!!! WOW!!!

Capitalist75 on January 1, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I know what you mean. Hapless Perry and floundering Gingrich are benefiting from affirmative action for the competence-challenged. Virginia’s AG is stepping in and giving a helping hand to the two campaigns that couldn’t make the cut on their own. How pathetic that the legislature is having to consider “emergency” legislation to bail out two loser campaigns, both of which apparently submitted thosuands of fraudulent signatures. What a joke!

bluegill on January 1, 2012 at 2:43 AM

Allow Write-Ins! Problem Solved.

CoolChange80 on January 1, 2012 at 3:35 AM

This is cheating. Conservatives don’t cheat.

scotash on January 1, 2012 at 5:41 AM

Ya know, I hate to quibble… but Tina, your headline is a bit misleading. The VA AG isn’t trying to help just Perry and Gingrich get on the VA ballot:

Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a “legal and constitutional embarrassment.”

It’s pretty clear this would benefit any of the candidates that did not initially make the VA ballot. It seems pretty clear from the Fox News article that the motivation wasn’t to just put Perry and Gingrich on the ballot. A reading of just the quotes you put in this post tends to show your headline to be a bit, well, disingenuous. Sure, it was catchy and all… but not exactly accurate.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on January 1, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Then I don’t ever wanna see the words “affirmative action” together in another one of your posts on the matter.

I care not what you want to see. Who the hell do you think you are? Dear Leader Barack Obama?

Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!
Affirmative action!

Clearly it does matter to you when it’s your ox being gored.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM

You are mentally blind.

VorDaj on January 1, 2012 at 7:16 AM

I find it unfair to call Gingrich and Perry unfit to lead, based on this imputed “incompetence,” until more facts are known.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Well, you see the thing is it’s not just their “incompetence” but the fact that they do not take much, if any, responsibility for their failure and just whine and bellyache and blame others and want “affirmative action” to get them on the ballot. Just as with Watergate where the coverup was worse than the crime, here their blaming others and their claims of victimhood and their demands for “affirmative action” are worse than thier “incompetence”.

VorDaj on January 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Well, you see the thing is it’s not just their “incompetence” but the fact that they do not take much, if any, responsibility for their failure and just whine and bellyache and blame others and want “affirmative action” to get them on the ballot. Just as with Watergate where the coverup was worse than the crime, here their blaming others and their claims of victimhood and their demands for “affirmative action” are worse than thier “incompetence”.

VorDaj on January 1, 2012 at 7:30 AM

So…. are you a Romney supporter or a Paul supporter? Just curious. Your, ah… analysis… seems a bit over the top.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on January 1, 2012 at 8:11 AM

As of this morning on Fox & Friends, apparently all the Republican candidates are included in the suit. And somehow Democrats also, but I need clarification on that.

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 8:21 AM

1. States get to determine when elections will take place, not political parties. The GOP’s rules are for its party; they cannot dictate to a state when a state can hold its elections. The GOP’s rules are meaningless in this regard.

Dante on January 1, 2012 at 1:23 AM

So if VA reverses itself and does something radical in allowing more than 2 candidates on the ballot, why are you sitting on the ash heap and moaning about it? That’s the state’s business, not yours.

ddrintn on January 1, 2012 at 8:36 AM

This is cheating. Conservatives don’t cheat.

scotash on January 1, 2012 at 5:41 AM

Which brings us back to those primary dates again…

ddrintn on January 1, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I understand the rules as they are, but something is amiss.
The primary season and election process is already too long and drawn out, how will any newcomer, or late-comer, meet the test?
Gingrich, by the way, has no excuse. That’s why he might eventually become the default candidate.
ABO and ABM. (anyone but Barry Hussein Ø and Mittens)

Rick Perry made his decision run for POTUS much later than the perennial squish Mittens and the quadrennial curmudgeon Ron Paul.
How is this “fair” to those who look at the field and wonder:
“Is this the best we can do? I’m jumping in!”
I say open up the field. If PaulBots can play, why exclude someone who has accomplished so many great goals to be our next POTUS?
Just Curious

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Tina, both you and Ed were flat wrong about VA being a competency test of sorts for non-cranks/ non perpetual candidates. That competent candidates couldn’t get on the ballot really a function of not only fussy obstructionist (protectionist) rules, but inconsistent application and ham-fisted VA GOP machinations.

SarahW on January 1, 2012 at 9:29 AM

eh, we need to lighten up and let the people of Virginia choose. The purpose of the primary, after all, was to let the people, not the party, weed out the candidates.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

That competent candidates who hadn’t been running for president for 5 years couldn’t get on the ballot really a function of not only fussy obstructionist (protectionist) rules, but inconsistent application and ham-fisted VA GOP machinations.

SarahW on January 1, 2012 at 9:29 AM

FIFY

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Romney has got to be breathing a huge sigh of relief over this. His victory was almost assured anyway, and the last thing he needed was a gigantic asterisk on his win.

RINO in Name Only on January 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

RINO in Name Only on January 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

(I mean the victory in the nationwide primary – not sure who was favored in Virginia.)

RINO in Name Only on January 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Romney has got to be breathing a huge sigh of relief over this. His victory was almost assured anyway, and the last thing he needed was a gigantic asterisk on his win.

RINO in Name Only on January 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Romney would have lost. I’d bet $100 on that. You can’t just shove a candidate down the throat of 50% of the electorate. Decadent as we have become, Americans still don’t take kindly being dictated to.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 9:42 AM

(I mean the victory in the nationwide primary – not sure who was favored in Virginia.)

RINO in Name Only on January 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Oh, bait and switch. I see how you are ;-)

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM

GOOD NEWS for Perry’s team. GO PERRY,
Perry has now recovered and is proving to be the excellent retail campaigner he was reputed to be. It’s time to put the “stupid” and “can’t debate” labels aside and realize he’s the best alternative to Romney of those we have to choose from, and after all, that’s what this is really all about.

nancysabet on January 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I think it’s telling that the Mitt supporters are so quick to jump on here and call the rest of us ‘dumb’. It looks very suspicious that only candidates who ran in 2008 were able to get on the ballot for 2012. This looks much worse for Romney than his supporters are willing to acknowledge. First, there is Romney/Obama care where the same advisors that worked for Romney to develop his mandate went over and worked for Obama on his mandate so there is already this sense of intellectual inbreeding between the Romney and Obama camps. Second, intentional or not, we see Romeny benefitting from the majority of the field getting shut out of the ballot — Obama’s favorite trick for winning elections back in Chicago. Finally, we get a tidal wave of Romney supporters flooding every thread, using the liberal’s favorite debating technique: calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them ‘stupid’.

bitsy on January 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Second, intentional or not, we see Romeny benefitting from the majority of the field getting shut out of the ballot — Obama’s favorite trick for winning elections back in Chicago. Finally, we get a tidal wave of Romney supporters flooding every thread, using the liberal’s favorite debating technique: calling anyone who doesn’t agree with them ‘stupid’.

bitsy on January 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Yep. I’m beginning to think “scratch a Mittbot, find a lib”.

ddrintn on January 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Romney would have lost will lose. I’d bet $100 on that. You can’t just shove a candidate down the throat of 50% of the electorate. Decadent as we have become, Americans still don’t take kindly being dictated to.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012

FIFY
BTW … I’ll see your 5 Benjamins and raise you 2².
The sheeple have been dictated to long enough.
“Ooo ooo what’s that smell?”
It aint “the smell of victory in the morning.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBksHaTQCbU

Some men are men, some poseurs are elected President.
It will be a continuation of The New Normal if Mittens takes the prize. He wouldn’t know napalm from Nepal.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 1, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Ah, after a complete read of the article, I see where the Dems come into play. Look! It’s that compromise thingy we hear so much of!!!

Cindy Munford on January 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

What’s conservative is not letting our lords and masters decide who we can and cannot vote for. If you like the state bureaucracy dictating your choices, well thats not what most people call conservatism. Maybe its what passes for libertarianism these days?

sharrukin on January 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Then you agree with the reason Paul endorsed Barr, Nader, McKinney, etc.

Dante on January 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Yep. I’m beginning to think “scratch a Mittbot, find a lib”.

ddrintn on January 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

They might be effective in dividing conservative support, but they really aren’t making the case for their candidate. I think the Romney plan for the conservative base is a lot like his plan for the family dog: strap us to the roof of the car and drive until we sh’t ourselves.

bitsy on January 1, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Happy New Year to all!!!!! And may we have a new President in 2013.

DDay on January 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Then you agree with the reason Paul endorsed Barr, Nader, McKinney, etc.

Dante on January 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Your assertion wouldn’t quite ring as hollow if Nader and McKinney were actually libertarian instead of liberal.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Raise your hand it if you think Cuccinelli is just a good guy wanting to do the right thing. Seeing few hands….
The fact that Cuccinelli is taking steps to allow the rest of the pack to be on the ballot is a huge victory for the New Media make no mistake about it.
Were it not for the Hot Airs, FreeRepublics, PJMedias and many others constantly exposing the errors of their ways rinos in power everywhere would still be running roughshod over us and our candidates.
We have become the great equalizer in conservative circles.Both sides of the political equation worry more about what Rush Limbaugh says than they ever do about what teleprompter boy will read.!And it shows!
Lighting small and ever larger fires under their seats remains effective we should never forget.

rodguy911 on January 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

rodguy911 on January 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Err… no.

I guess the public schools have stopped teaching basic civics.

Ballot access is in place for a reason, that some candidates fail to meet the legislated requirements, is a failure of them and their campaigns, not some “conspiracy”.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Ballot access is in place for a reason, that some candidates fail to meet the legislated requirements, is a failure of them and their campaigns, not some “conspiracy”.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy to be bad law.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy to be bad law.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

It was properly legislated by the properly elected representatives of Virginia, and properly signed into law by the properly elected Governor of the state.

You might not like the law, but there is nothing inherently “bad” about it.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

You might not like the law, but there is nothing inherently “bad” about it.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Something can be bad law, and not be “wrong” per se. I personally think that any law that makes in nearly impossible for a person to get on the ballot if they begin running less than a year before the actual voting day (in this case primary) ridiculous. Perry did not declare until August, and had 4 months to collect 10,000 signatures in a state that he is NOT from, and that requires not only valid signatures but that the COLLECTORS be able to vote here as well. That is ridiculous – why does it matter who stands in front of the grocery store with the clipboard? Why can’t they send in teams from the states where there support base is? Did you also know that VA does not allow its statewide candidates for Senate to being collecting signatures until today and that they are due mid-march? The rules are designed to allow the big money high profile candidates to make it on the ballot and exclude everyone else, that is bad law, and it needs to be fixed. Whether it is fixed in time to settle the presidential ballot issue is irrelevant to me. Sure, I would like to have someone else to vote for, since I like neither Paul nor Romney – but hey, I could always sit out the primary in protest too. If the VA legislature decides to change the law and make it retroactive for the presidential primary – that is between the CITIZENS OF VA and their legislators, NOT the entire country. So, all the Paul-bots and Mittens fans can put that in your pipe and smoke it. Cuccinelli is suggesting we exercise our STATE RIGHT to change our ballot qualifications. Pretty sure that is a Constitutional idea … just saying.

Govgirl on January 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

It was properly legislated by the properly elected representatives of Virginia, and properly signed into law by the properly elected Governor of the state.

You might not like the law, but there is nothing inherently “bad” about it.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM

If there is nothing inherently bad about it, how is there anything inherently bad about it outside of the fact that it exists?

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Govgirl on January 1, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Ex post facto laws are inherently unconstitutional (Article 1 Section 10). Changing the law starting now, is fine, changing the law after the race is run, not cool.

More, 15,000 signatures in five months is a pretty reasonable standard for a national office. All the candidates were notified well in advance what the rules were. That it wasn’t Perry’s home state is a pretty silly point to make, by definition running for president means running in 49 states other than your own.

You also seem to not understand that Virginia is the home state of Newt, and that Perry had plenty of money to have spent on a competent state campaign manager with a budget that would assure compliance.

More – the time to lodge these complaints was before the primary started, not after. The law, like all laws, was public knowledge the moment it was signed. The state GOP knew the law and advised each campaign well in advance.

Rick and Newt failed, and should suffer the consequences of that failure.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM

If there is nothing inherently bad about it, how is there anything inherently bad about it outside of the fact that it exists?

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I don’t understand the question.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM

The stipulation against ex post facto laws appears in Article 1, Section 9 – commonly tagged Limits on CONGRESS. Therefore it is CONGRESS that is prohibited from making an ex post facto law, not a state. Also, two questions just out of curiosity 1 – are you a Virginian, because if you are not, then you have no stake or say in this matter, 2 – who is your guy, Paul or Romney, because only supporters of those two have issues with letting the other guys be on the ballot. Also, 5 months is not a significant amount of time to collect signatures when VA also requires that all of those collecting them also be eligible to vote in the state. This means that you cannot send in a team to collect them for you, you must have people here, and getting a political organization up and running, organized and able to enlist volunteers to collect signatures in just 4 months is not an easy task.

Govgirl on January 1, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM

My apologies, section 10 does prohibit this of the state as well, however – ex post facto law, generally applies to criminal law, which this is not. There is no greater champion of the Constitution than Ken Cuccinelli, and if he thinks this will not be a violation of the Constitution, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Govgirl on January 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Govgirl on January 1, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch; Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I am from Texas, not Virginia, however as a conservative I have an interest in rule of law and the Constitution, regardless of state.

My “guy” is Newt Gingrich, who would almost certainly win if he were on the ballot.

As far as sending “teams”, that is complete nonsense, no candidate will send a home state team to gather signatures to each of 49 states. You hire people to do that, I’m sure Virginia has plenty of ballot signature companies who would have been overjoyed for the work, as well as volunteers.

Winning the presidency of the United States is a lot harder than gathering a few signatures to get on a primary ballot, if they cannot follow the simple directions and cobble up the basic organization to get that done, they have a lot more problems than a few lost delegates.

Rebar on January 1, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Republican Conspiriacy!!!

You people do not get it….Romney is going to win the nomination guaranteed if the “not Romney” vote is split up. The two party race means Paul might beat Romney (merely as a protest vote). This would be so monumnentally embarassing to Romney it might affect the general election.

Other candidates in Virginia helps the establishment politician!!

ZippyZ on January 1, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You know, there will be other states who have “problems” getting their Election Laws and Procedures “right”. And there are only TWO REASONS why these things happen—the ball is dropped by the Secretary of State, or by individual County Election Departments! I’ve worked Elections FOR YEARS and know the process. Although each state has their own “election laws”, the majority of states follow very similar rules. When those rules ARE NOT FOLLOWED by each state S.O.S. and each county Election Dept.—THEN YOU HAVE “ABUSES”. Watch for it!

DixT on January 2, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6