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 2 3 6

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

Why?

Bruno Strozek on December 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Cue Romneybot whining in

3
.
.
2
.
.
1
.
.

PapaBear on December 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Sounds like a bunch of a Democrats. Joey didn’t make the cut to get into medical school, let’s lower the bar after the outcome.

haner on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

If you can’t win, cheat.

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Why?

Because Romney is so hated that Paul might get the Va nod.

PapaBear on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Obviously, Cuccinelli, who’s carrying the anti-Obamacrapcare ball for the entire country, is not a big fan of Obamney being the only heavy on the Va ballot.

Western_Civ on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

First…time poster
I’ve have no problem having the situation go remedied for Newt or Perry. I have little confidence in men who are unable to get things done on time. I would vote for either if I had the choice however.

OTTO on December 31, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Yes
Newt 2012

angrymike on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich should all be allowed on the ballot! VA GOP must give voters as many choices as possible!

Pork-Chop on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Let the voters of Virginia decide if administration of getting on the ballot is more important than other factors.

Hopefully, the RPV works to have a close primary in the future. Otherwise, democrats will keep voting for the crazy uncle Paul in primaries only.

WhatNot on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

If you can’t win, cheat.

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Yeah, look at the FL primary. Changed on what, September 30 was it?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

There is no law, only the whim of whomever can best make his case.

Skandia Recluse on December 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM

If the Republican party suggests getting 15-20 thousand signatures and NONE get even the midway point of 17,500, isn’t that a failure of ALL the candidates? If its so easy to get signatures, why didn’t Romney get 20+ thousand to make sure?

Only 2 of the 7 candidates “supposedly” qualified. That is a failure in the system. I don’t care what anybody says. Having 3 not even try says they knew it would be too difficult. That says its TOO STRINGENT.

I hope the Republican party of Virginia suffers for allowing this to occur. I was extremely high on Bob McDonnell and often put his name in for VP in the Hot Gas polls. No more. I don’t like this guy Bolling. I don’t like McDonnell’s connection to Bolling. I don’t like how Bob McDonnell’s statement on this was ….”those are the rules”.

I hope EVERYONE who shows up votes for Paul since those are the rules. Or better yet I hope nobody votes in the primary period. Screw Virginia.

The only good that has come from this Virginia fiasco is that I have learned not to trust Bob McDonnell.

KMav on December 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Good. This is fair.

It also prevents the mess they’d have if they went ahead and counted the Romney signatures and found the same failure rate they found with Perry’s and Gingrich’s.

Actually, a pretty deft solution. If they’re good enough for matching federal funds, then they should be good enough for the ballot.

Too bad the laws were written so haphazardly to begin with, as it left a situation where Romney’s were the only signatures not verified, which leaves the door open for all kind of conspiracy theories.

As it was, Gingrich and Perry were being blocked from the ballot with thousands of verified signatures, and Rommey was being allowed on with zero verified signatures.

Good job by the VA Atty. Gen. to stop the bleeding.

Useless distraction over – now we can move on :-)

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM

To all the ppl here
Happy New Year

angrymike on December 31, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Big tent , many clowns.

the_nile on December 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM

In most states, you can qualify to get on the ballot by EITHER collecting thousands of signatures OR showing that you’ve received sufficient donations to qualify for matching funds. So, frankly, it’s probably smart for Virginia to adopt that basic rule rather than require everyone to run around and get 15,000 signatures.

None of that takes away from the fact that Gingrich and Perry each screwed up and didn’t meet the ballot requirements, then sued and/or complained after the fact that the process wasn’t “fair.” It’s embarrassing to those candidates and to the GOP as a whole that it takes “emergency legislation” to get candidates on the ballot because they couldn’t follow the directions and get enough signatures to ensure they had 10,000 valid ones.

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Corruption

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM

The voters should get to make the decision as to who they want to support, not the Virginia GOP.

The voter shouldn’t have to be signing any loyalty oaths either. Some of those GOP folks are nuts.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich should all be allowed on the ballot! VA GOP must give voters as many choices as possible!

Pork-Chop on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

“Meanwhile, four GOP candidates, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry’s lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing…”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/31/virginia-attorney-general-intervenes-in-gop-primary-ballot-dispute/#ixzz1i9YhxWJA

Bring It!

Gig Em’
Perry 2012

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Cue Romneybot whining in

3
.
.
2
.
.
1
.
.

PapaBear on December 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I really hope there’s not a lot of whining. The way it was, Romney was getting put on the ballot with Gore-Florida-type rules, and it wasn’t going to be good for him. It would have hurt Romney in the long run, whether his most rabid Hot-Air supporters think so or not.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

If the Republican party suggests getting 15-20 thousand signatures and NONE get even the midway point of 17,500, isn’t that a failure of ALL the candidates? If its so easy to get signatures, why didn’t Romney get 20+ thousand to make sure?

Only 2 of the 7 candidates “supposedly” qualified. That is a failure in the system. I don’t care what anybody says. Having 3 not even try says they knew it would be too difficult. That says its TOO STRINGENT.

KMav on December 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM

My only question is, have the signatures always been gone over with a fine-toothed comb?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Good. This is fair.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Giving preferential treatment to certain candidates by lowering a bar that other candidates had to exceed is the opposite of fair.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Utter hypocrisy and corruption in action.

mythicknight on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Common sense triumphs over petty politics.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

haner on December 31, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Bob Toricelli should be on the ballot too.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

If you think this is bad or you do not agree with this, just look out what bho, team, and holder has in store of the elections? I am really tired of us who are r’s having to cave to the d’s on everything. We can’t say one word against bho and the bhopress and bho’s team slam us. We have a nano second to apologize for said word. If the r’s were a litter of puppies and the r runt didn’t get to nurse they runt dies. You only get to live if you take charge to get a teat and live! For crying out loud r’s fight fire with fire! We will never get anyplace caving to d’s, NEVER!
L

letget on December 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

“Meanwhile, four GOP candidates, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry’s lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing…”

Whether Santorum, Bachmann and Hunstman should be allowed on after not even trying? Hmmm… have to think about that one.

I guess if VA goes with the federal matching funds rule, then they would have to be allowed in, too.

Sure saves them money that Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Perry spent in gathering signatures….

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

So Perry and Gingrich are affirmative action candidates now?

rndmusrnm on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

The voters should get to make the decision as to who they want to support, not the Virginia GOP.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM

They and their elected representatives are the ones who set the bar where they did before the contest began. To move the bar now after the fact in an effort to alter the outcome is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if they change the law it should only apply in the future.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Bob Toricelli should be on the ballot too.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

If he qualifies for matching funds, why not? Let the voters decide.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:46 PM

None of that takes away from the fact that Gingrich and Perry each screwed up and didn’t meet the ballot requirements…
Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM

It’s BS tossing out over 5000 signatures & so is the loyalty oath.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:46 PM

This sounds like a decision the “Wise Latina” would make:

“Can’t get on the ballot even though others did? Test is racist…”

rndmusrnm on December 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

To move the bar now after the fact in an effort to alter the outcome is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if they change the law it should only apply in the future.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

I don’t recall Mittbots screeching about the integrity of the rulebook when we were talking about primaries being held as early as Thanksgiving.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

PapaBear on December 31, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Most excellent timing on your post, dead on. Kudos.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Giving preferential treatment to certain candidates by lowering a bar that other candidates had to exceed is the opposite of fair.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

You must have missed my detailed postings on how the laws, as written, were in conflict, and how Romney didn’t have a single verified signature, yet was allowed on the ballot. You may not like changing the rules, but the rules were fatally flawed.

Rule 1 (1,000 valid signatures) was being negated by Rule 2 (15,000 bulk, possibly invalid signatures). You can’t negate one law with another unless it’s specifically written into the law, and Virginia had not done so.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Go Cucinelli!!!! There have been and are problems with the Republican Elites in this state for quite a while. They just can’t seem to give up the power of the Elite choosing our candidates both presidential, state, and local elections. They do not want the people choosing. Ken Cucinelli is the only politician, besides Sarah that I know that truely believes in the Constitution and his actions prove it every time. He’s a fighter for the Consititution.

BetseyRoss on December 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM

To move the bar now after the fact in an effort to alter the outcome is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if they change the law it should only apply in the future.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Fundamentally unfair and unjust is 50% of VA GOP voters being denied the right to choose the VA candidate.

I hear whining.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

“Meanwhile, four GOP candidates, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry’s lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing…”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/31/virginia-attorney-general-intervenes-in-gop-primary-ballot-dispute/#ixzz1i9YhxWJA

Bring It!

Gig Em’
Perry 2012

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Example of Perry’s leadership skills?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:46 PM

In case you’ve forgotten (and I’m at fault here because I should have said Frank Lautenberg):

Late in an increasingly competitive race against Republican Doug Forrester, Torricelli suddenly withdrew after disclosure of undeniably illegal contributions to his campaign by David Chang, a businessman connected to North Korea. Torricelli had previously denied this and a number of other charges, and in his withdrawal speech stated that despite his leaving public office in a different way than he planned, he was proud of his service. Shortly thereafter, the New Jersey Supreme Court tossed out the longstanding State election law and unanimously ruled that the Democratic Party could legally replace Torricelli’s name on the ballot with that of former U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, ironically a longtime Torricelli nemesis, with whom he had often publicly feuded. New Jersey Republicans had contested the Torricelli-Lautenberg swap on the grounds that the deadline for ballot changes had long passed. It seemed apparent to many that Torricelli had only made his decision after local polls showed, for the first time, that the scandal had damaged Torricelli’s re-election chances beyond repair.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Everybody played by the same rules. So VA changes the rules now? Doesn’t make sense.

ConservativeLA on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

They and their elected representatives are the ones who set the bar where they did before the contest began. To move the bar now after the fact in an effort to alter the outcome is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if they change the law it should only apply in the future.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM

They did change the rules after the contest began and thats why we have this problem.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Ah-haa haa haa…. go ahead and whine, all you whiners.
You want your guy in any way you can, by hook or by crook, voter intent be damned.

0bama won his first race by getting all his opponents disqualified… Great precedent.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM

They have to do it. It would be insane to exclude legitimate candidates, and only leave a choice of addled old fart or IBM machine. It should be a no brainer that if you have a legitimate campaign you should be on the ballot.

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Everybody played by the same rules. So VA changes the rules now? Doesn’t make sense.

ConservativeLA on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

So they should be forced to move the primary back to the original date?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Corruption

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 PM

That’s a serious charge to make. Prove it.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Doesn’t matter. Whoever qualifies for matching funds, let them on the ballot. Then let the voters decide.

Mittbots are so insecure.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

If all of the candidates get on the ballot, I dont have a problem.

Jimmy In Jersey on December 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Expect lawsuits.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

My only question is, have the signatures always been gone over with a fine-toothed comb?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Well, no. They recently (say, Octoberish) changed the rule in response to a lawsuit filed by a Virginia Republican. The deal now is that if you had at least 15,000 signatures, they didn’t check the signatures, but if you had less than 15,000, they did. So Romney and Paul turned in slightly more than 15,000 signatures and their signatures were therefore not checked. Gingrich and Perry turned in like 11,000 apiece, and had enough of their signatures tossed out to where they couldn’t meet the 10,000 threshold. The other candidates (Bachmann, Santorum, & Huntsman) didn’t attempt to qualify for the ballot.

Regardless, this is negligence by Gingrich and Perry. Yes, the rules are a little sketchy. But you don’t put your ballot access at risk–period. You do what it takes to “safely” qualify, i.e., you get 15,001 valid signatures. That’s just Political Management 101.

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Everybody played by the same rules. So VA changes the rules now? Doesn’t make sense.

ConservativeLA on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 PM

So they should be forced to move the primary back to the original date?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Exactly.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

I hear whining.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

People are whining because some of you guys are trying to cheat by changing the rules and giving your candidates preferential treatment under the law/rules that the other candidates didn’t get. You are trying to say that one set of rules apply to Romney and Paul and an easier set of rules apply to the preferred candidate.

Changing the rules of the game now is not democratic, it’s undemocratic. It was the voters of the state and their elected representatives that made the rules and set the bar where they did and they can’t change it now without appearing corrupt, because that’s what it will be.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary —

Yes. It proves who is good at running for president. Not leading a country, not winning anything, just running for the office. Yay! The people of VA get to pick between two people who are good at running for office!

I figure, after you’ve done it a couple of times and spent years and years preparing it’s probably pretty easy. At least Obama supporters in 2008 could point out that that their candidate had won on a regular basis as a qualification. Now we’re being expected to pick a Republican candidate solely on the fact that he’s good at campaigning. Not winning, just campaigning.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Example of Perry’s leadership skills?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 31, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Sure why not?

Perry is heading straight to SC after Iowa to blitz tour the state.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gingrich should all be allowed on the ballot! VA GOP must give voters as many choices as possible!

Pork-Chop on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

For one, Santorum and Bachmann might not last that long. Secondly, they didn’t even attempt to get on the ballot. That is different from submmitting signatures and having them rejected due to a rulle change that was never applied in previous years.

TheRightMan on December 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Ken Cucinelli is trying to turn VA into a Stalinist dictatorship by allowing Gingrich on the ballot. Who knew Ken was a Communist in the pocket of the Trilateral Commission?

Romney 2012

Punchenko on December 31, 2011 at 5:56 PM

But you don’t put your ballot access at risk–period. You do what it takes to “safely” qualify, i.e., you get 15,001 valid signatures. That’s just Political Management 101.

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 5:54 PM

How do you know all those 15,001 are valid unless they’ve all been equally scrutinized?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

You missed the sarcasm, even when it was spelled out for you. The GOP rightly called foul but lost their argument in that case. The law said that Toricelli, who had won the primary, was the candidate that should have been on the ballot. But his scandals caught up to him, his polling caved and the law was pushed aside to allow Lautenberg to run. In the case we are seeing the GOP push the law aside so that their ballot has the names that The Establishment says should be on it. The irony is like an onion, one layer on top of another here.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Paul didn’t have the 15000 signatures and he was certified.
The rulez were already busted.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

They already moved the bar. It was 10,000 signatures and they changed it to 15,000 in November to help Romney.

Should Perry and Gingrich gotten the 15,000? Yep.

But they, also, shouldn’t have waited to the last minute to change the bar.

theo22 on December 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Mittbots are so insecure.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Given Romney’s record it’s understandable…

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:00 PM

My only question is, have the signatures always been gone over with a fine-toothed comb?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

No. They said if you have a certain threshold they are not even checked. I really don’t understand why Mittbots and Paultards are so averse to Va using the legislative process to try and stop a train wreck.

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 6:00 PM

theo22 on December 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I’d say public sentiment is on the side of the rest of the field kept off the ballot.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Laws are for little people.

The VA GOP

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Let’s get those failing campaigns some remedial help!! Shall we not?

While being able to run a campaign does not necessarily mean one can run a vastly more complex entity like the country (witness Barry), someone who cannot even to do simpler things will definitely fail when handed the big task.

galtani on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Mittbots are so insecure.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:53 PM

He is about 1-15 in these things and the time he won he proved to be too far left for Ma.

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Perry and Newt are the kinds of guys who run a hurdle race and knock over the most hurdles but then sue afterward because they don’t think they should have had to jump over as many hurdles as the other guy. They’re poor sportsmen.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

I really don’t understand why Mittbots and Paultards are so averse to Va using the legislative process to try and stop a train wreck.

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 6:00 PM

In theory, you could submit 6000 legit signatures, gin up 9000 fraudulent signatures, and no one would bat an eye. But if you submit 9999 legit signatures and two fraudulent ones? SO SORRY.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

My neighbor Steve would like on the ballot as well, though he did nothing to meet the requirements. I’ll be in contact with the AG’s office soon.

almosthandsome on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Mind as well let anyone in. We aren’t a nation of laws any longer. We don’t follow the Constitution, why should we follow those silly little primary ballot rules. Speaking of a nation of laws, I’ve never understood the whole Democrat and Republican thing anyway. If the Constitution is the law, you are either breaking or following the law. It’s as simple as that.

air_up_there on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I really don’t understand why Mittbots and Paultards are so averse to Va using the legislative process to try and stop a train wreck.

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Neither Romney or Paul are equipped to handle scrutiny…reminds me of Obama.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I hope my fellow Rommunists protest this decision by AG Fascistnelli and DEMAND that Mitt and only Mitt shows up on the VA ballot. Oh, and be sure to tell ‘em how much we like the “loyalty oath” to Mitt, too!

Romney 2012

Punchenko on December 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Paul didn’t have the 15000 signatures and he was certified.
The rulez were already busted.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Paul certified to be on the ballot fair and square. If you have any proof otherwise take it to the proper authorities.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM

My only question is, have the signatures always been gone over with a fine-toothed comb?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

It’s not like Ron Paul supporters would ever cheat on a straw poll online poll signature campaign. Would they?

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Big tent , many clowns.
the_nile on December 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM

…and an incompetent ringmaster.

Fletch54 on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Mind as well let anyone in. We aren’t a nation of laws any longer. We don’t follow the Constitution, why should we follow those silly little primary ballot rules. Speaking of a nation of laws, I’ve never understood the whole Democrat and Republican thing anyway. If the Constitution is the law, you are either breaking or following the law. It’s as simple as that.

air_up_there on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

The constitution at the federal level gives states wide lattitude in deciding how to conduct state-level elections, which is precisely what primaries are. Now if you’re carping about how this plays viz-a-vis Virginia’s STATE consitution, that is a matter for Virginia’s residents to decide.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Neither Romney or Paul are equipped to handle scrutiny.

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Seems to me that those two were the only ones who could withstand VA’s scrutiny.

mattshu on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Mind as well let anyone in. We aren’t a nation of laws any longer. We don’t follow the Constitution, why should we follow those silly little primary ballot rules. Speaking of a nation of laws, I’ve never understood the whole Democrat and Republican thing anyway. If the Constitution is the law, you are either breaking or following the law. It’s as simple as that.

air_up_there on December 31, 2011 at 6:03 PM

You forgot to wrap yourself in the flag, mention the bloody shores of Iwo Jima and sing Yankee Doodle.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

If the Virgina GOP give Newt and Perry preferential treatment then Romney and Paul had been keep a close eye out for other forms of election corruption too.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Seems like a Rae deal for Paul and Romney. They spent a lot of money getting those signatures and now the other candidates don’t need to spend that money.

cabbie25 on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

How do you know all those 15,001 are valid unless they’ve all been equally scrutinized?

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

You don’t. But if you get 15,000 signatures, your signatures don’t get checked and you’re “assumed” to have at least 10,000 valid ones. It’s a dumb rule and it should be changed. But if that’s the rule, you comply with it, get 15,000 signatures, and don’t risk your ballot access. The Gingrich and Perry campaigns underestimated the time it would take to get the right number of signatures and fell short of the mark.

FYI: I collected signatures for Romney in another state and can tell you the campaign verified the signatures. (We had to e-mail our signatures on a daily basis so the campaign could vet them).

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Exactly. What if they threw out all the signatures for Paul written in Crayon?

Southernblogger on December 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

been = best

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM

You missed the sarcasm, even when it was spelled out for you.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

The sarcasm is pointless.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

I really hope there’s not a lot of whining. The way it was, Romney was getting put on the ballot with Gore-Florida-type rules, and it wasn’t going to be good for him. It would have hurt Romney in the long run, whether his most rabid Hot-Air supporters think so or not.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Agreed. I always thought the smart move on his campaign’s part would have been to push to have his signatures verified as well, just to remove any appearance of a tainted primary. This move by VA actually helps him as well… much less chance of him losing to Paul in VA as a result of a protest vote. Should that have occurred, it would have been a mortal blow to his ‘electability’ argument.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on December 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM

The constitution at the federal level gives states wide lattitude in deciding how to conduct state-level elections, which is precisely what primaries are. Now if you’re carping about how this plays viz-a-vis Virginia’s STATE consitution, that is a matter for Virginia’s residents to decide.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Yup. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly so many “True Conservatives” here are willing to tell a state how to run it’s business.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

What…no Mr Ed or Lalapundit for this third round? Did they have to recuse themselves from this voter participation process? Lol, count the petitions!

sunshinek67 on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:05 PM

“December 22 was the deadline for Republican presidential candidates to submit petitions to be on the Virginia presidential primary ballot. Four candidates submitted petitions. However, two of them submitted fewer than 12,000 signatures. Mitt Romney submitted 16,026; Ron Paul submitted 14,361; Rick Perry submitted 11,911; and Newt Gingrich submitted 11,050. The requirement is 10,000, with at least 400 from each U.S. House district in the state.”

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/12/22/ron-paul-and-mitt-romney-may-be-only-candidates-on-virginia-preside

“The state GOP decided that candidates who submit at least 15,000 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions with at least 600 signatures from each of the 11 districts will be deemed to have met the qualifications.”
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/22/bachmann-huntsman-santorum-not-on-va-primary-ballo-ar-1

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

People are whining because some of you guys are trying to cheat by changing the rules and giving your candidates preferential treatment under the law/rules that the other candidates didn’t get. You are trying to say that one set of rules apply to Romney and Paul and an easier set of rules apply to the preferred candidate.

An easier set of rules is not having a single one of your signatures verified and getting on the ballot, while your opponents’ get checked with a fine-tooth comb.

Jeez.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

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.

Why, of course! Virginia makes a requirement that in effect says: Unless you have run for president a few times over several years don’t even think you could make it through our maze! Go ahead, give it a try.

cartooner on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

You don’t. But if you get 15,000 signatures, your signatures don’t get checked and you’re “assumed” to have at least 10,000 valid ones. It’s a dumb rule and it should be changed. But if that’s the rule, you comply with it, get 15,000 signatures, and don’t risk your ballot access. The Gingrich and Perry campaigns underestimated the time it would take to get the right number of signatures and fell short of the mark.

FYI: I collected signatures for Romney in another state and can tell you the campaign verified the signatures. (We had to e-mail our signatures on a daily basis so the campaign could vet them).

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Apparently you missed it, Mittbot, so I’ll repeat it again and type real slow.

What’s to prevent a campaign from submitting 5000 legit signatures with 10,000 fraudulent ones? For that matter, what’s to prevent a campaign from submitting 1(!) legit signature with 14,999 fraudulent ones? What they should do, and what I hope Cucinelli manages to accomplish, is to vet each-and-every last signature submitted, and allow those campaigns with at least 10,000 legit signatures onto the ballot, as should have been done in the freakin first place!

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

mattshu on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Precisely. In the case of Mitt, he had over 15k and a random sampling showed an 80% verification rate. That means that VA could reasonably announce that he had at least 12k valid signatures.

In the case of Noot, he had close to bare minimum needed. Of those, at least 1200 were reportedly all the product of one fraudulent collector.

General Noot went to war with no backup or contingency plan and no forces in reserve. He just assumed that the battle would all go as planned. One of his Lt’s defected and he lost. I know, let’s promote Noot to CinC!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

You forgot to wrap yourself in the flag, mention the bloody shores of Iwo Jima and sing Yankee Doodle.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Well, this is a bit like Pearl Harbor….

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Not having a single Romney signature checked, while others are? If that’s not “preferential treatment,” then I don’t know what is.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Great! Good for Cuccinelli. The opportunity to vote for a primary candidate is what is important. If Virginia has a system that eliminates some of the top candidates because the candidate didn’t jump through a hoop specific to Virginia, and that results in a denial of the voters right to vote for the candidate of their choice, how is that helpful to voters or to the relevancy of the Virginia primary? Voters can decide if the candidate’s lack of fulfilling the Virginia requirement is a deal breaker by not voting for the candidate.

Charm on December 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

They are not going to get on the ballot. This from Sabato:

Only chance for Newt & Perry (and Santorum, Huntsman, Bachmann) to get on VA ballot is successful court suit. Odds for that? Also slim.

andy85719 on December 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM

First, that’s no evidence of anything and second, I’m not the proper authorities.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

The constitution at the federal level gives states wide lattitude in deciding how to conduct state-level elections, which is precisely what primaries are. Now if you’re carping about how this plays viz-a-vis Virginia’s STATE consitution, that is a matter for Virginia’s residents to decide.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Yup. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly so many “True Conservatives” here are willing to tell a state how to run it’s business.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM

But the state IS the one acting in this case. I don’t think anyone’s calling for federal intervention.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Outlander on December 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM

When you exceed 15k, the state only verifies a sample of the signatures. Romney had over an 80% verification rate, giving the state confidence that he had over 12k good signatures.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Well, this is a bit like Pearl Harbor….

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Touché

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6