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 4 5 6

Well at least one Virginian disagrees with you that “the law” has anything to say about candidates’ ballot access. You and Nomad should probably has that out before you start looking any more foolish than you already do.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 7:56 PM

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. Such petitions shall be filed with the State Board by the primary filing deadline. The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board and shall be sealed in one or more containers to which is attached a written statement giving the name of the presidential candidate and the number of signatures on the petitions contained in the containers. Such person or group shall also attach a list of the names of persons who would be elected delegates and alternate delegates to the political party’s national convention if the person wins the primary and the party has determined that its delegates will be selected pursuant to the primary. The slate of delegates and alternates shall comply with the rules of the national and state party.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-545

It. Is. Law.

If there is someone looking foolish, it is not I.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Romney’s the competent smart guy that confuses semi automatic weapons with machine guns used by terrorists.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:02 PM

At least in this instance, it’s NOT the stinking LAW that Perry and Gingrich fell afoul of. It was a rule insituted by the VA GOP.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 7:59 PM

No. It was a law. The law mandates 10K qualified signatures.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I am citing ex post facto because the law existed for all, and apply a new law retroactively is inherently unjust. Two parties worked hard to comply with the law. By enacting this emergency legislation retroactively, it effectively wasted their time, money and effort to aid the lazy and disorganized.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:00 PM

So riddle me this, my scrupulously law-abiding fellow commenter: If not all of Romney’s signatures were checked, how can we be absolutely sure that he had 10,000 legitimate ones? And by “absolutely sure,” I mean at an evidentiary level that would hold up in a court of law?

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

No. It was a law. The law mandates 10K qualified signatures.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Then your beef is with Happy Nomad, not me.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Rebar.

If you had spent more time persauding people to vote for you and less time worrying about procedural stuff like ballot laws, maybe you would have won. Or at least not lose by 30 points. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM

“..who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate for whom the petitions are filed.”

They’re not attesting that they support the candidate who is filing the petition that they signed. So, having every candidate gather signatures doesn’t make sense. There should be some other way to qualify for ballot access such as the matching funds criteria.

VBMax on December 31, 2011 at 8:05 PM

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

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

What in the world is your point?

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 8:05 PM

It. Is. Law.

If there is someone looking foolish, it is not I.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:01 PM

The rules were changed.

They didn’t check the signatures in 2000, nor in 2008. They later changed the rules in October-November to check the signatures which they hadn’t done before. There are also questions about when, or even if all the campaigns were notified of these rule changes. That rule change obviously benefited the long running campaigns which means Romney.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Perry and Newtie Poo are going to be on the ballot

Whining about it won’t change that fact.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:07 PM

My only beef is that the parties should not be able to decide who gets greater scrutiny and who gets a pass.

No favoritism allowed and the parties shouldn’t have a say in that beyond the basic everyone who makes the grade passes or everyone who gets to that level gets the entire list of signatures scrutinized until they meet the minimums. If you want scrutiny and there are lots of signatures, tough: you get an honest counting. If you hold to the good faith effort, then someone might make the ballot for a freaking PRIMARY who might not be on it if the signatures had strict scrutiny.

Your choice: lots of work to scrutinize all or a few weasels get in and the PRIMARY VOTERS can determine if they are weasels or not.

ajacksonian on December 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Potential candidates fail to achieve ballot access all the time.

It’s their failure to meet the requirements, not the laws. Every state has them, for all levels of government, from a local city councilmen to the president – they all need to meet ballot access laws.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 7:57 PM

True. But the reason why two former VA AGs, Dem and Rep chairmens, and the current AG and governor is acting in this case is because it is extraordinary. 11th hr rule changes, inadequate notification of the candidates and a long standing belief that VA’s ballot laws are unduly onerous without purpose is what is driving these men to change VA’s ballot access laws for this election.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Rebar.

If you had spent more time persauding people to vote for you and less time worrying about procedural stuff like ballot laws, maybe you would have won. Or at least not lose by 30 points. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM

What’s with the cheap personal attacks?

At least I had the initiative to throw my hat in the ring and try to make a difference.

And I lost by a lot more than 30 points too. So what? I learned a great deal, so I can speak from experience. In stark contrast to where you’re speaking from.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Have Perry and Gingrich failed to make the ballot in other states?

I don’t think so.

Case closed. It’s Virginia, not the candidates.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

My only beef is that the parties should not be able to decide who gets greater scrutiny and who gets a pass.

No favoritism allowed and the parties shouldn’t have a say in that beyond the basic everyone who makes the grade passes or everyone who gets to that level gets the entire list of signatures scrutinized until they meet the minimums. If you want scrutiny and there are lots of signatures, tough: you get an honest counting. If you hold to the good faith effort, then someone might make the ballot for a freaking PRIMARY who might not be on it if the signatures had strict scrutiny.

Your choice: lots of work to scrutinize all or a few weasels get in and the PRIMARY VOTERS can determine if they are weasels or not.

ajacksonian on December 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Amen! If the law in VA states only that candidates need 10,000 qualified signatures, then guess what? Romney hasn’t qualified either because we don’t know how many legit signatures he has! Only one candidate so far has qualified according to state law, and that happens to be Ron Paul(GAG!).

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

What’s with the cheap personal attacks?

At least I had the initiative to throw my hat in the ring and try to make a difference.

And I lost by a lot more than 30 points too. So what? I learned a great deal, so I can speak from experience. In stark contrast to where you’re speaking from.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

What difference would you have made? You seem concerned with petty stuff.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

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

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 5:37 PM

What in the world is your point?

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 8:05 PM

That rules changes that benefit Romney are OK, but those that don’t are The End Of Civilization As We Know It. Come on, the Mittbots are upset because they know how damn weak Romney is and that he needs every break he can get. Pathetic.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary — and, no matter what happens with this new affirmative action legislation, it doesn’t reflect well on either affirmative action recipient Gingrich or affirmative action recipient Perry that they didn’t attend more closely to detail.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:12 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

The state has purview over its internal verification procedures.

The fact remains. No matter what happens, Romney followed the guidelines provided by the state. He exercised the diligence expected of a professional campaign. All candidates were told to get 10K valid signatures and that they should get 15K to cover discrepancies in May 2011. In October, they were told if they met that 15K threshold, they would be subject to a facial validation, if they submitted under 15K, a more rigorous validation and they have empirical and historical evidence to support their decision.

Newt and Perry just slacked. And they whining and conspiracy theories dont change that.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM

What’s magical about the 10,000 name number? Why not 8000? 5000? 15000? 20,000?

It’s some number they pulled out of their rear end.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary — and, no matter what happens with this new a-ffirmative action legislation, it doesn’t reflect well on either a-ffirmative action recipient Gingrich or a-ffirmative action recipient Perry that they didn’t attend more closely to detail.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Rebar, do you have an issue if Virginia wants to change their own laws in order to give voters more choices? Could these kinds of rules be harming the political process by favoring establishment candidates? At first glance, it almost seems to me this could be a huge first step in reversing corruption in Washington DC.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

They didn’t check the signatures in 2000, nor in 2008. They later changed the rules in October-November to check the signatures which they hadn’t done before. There are also questions about when, or even if all the campaigns were notified of these rule changes. That rule change obviously benefited the long running campaigns which means Romney.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Ignorance of the law has never been a defense before, why should it be now? A competent campaign would have a guy on the ground in the state to make damn sure everything was squared away. That’s part of the hurdle to achieve ballot access, especially on the national level.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

If you care about the ability to follow Virginia ballot law above all else, Romney is clearly your guy.

If you are concerned about overturning Obamacare, you’ll have some better options on the ballot.

It’s a win-win!

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Newt and Perry just slacked. And they whining and conspiracy theories dont change that.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Could Gingrich and Perry even manage a Taco Bell?

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

What’s with the cheap personal attacks?

At least I had the initiative to throw my hat in the ring and try to make a difference.

And I lost by a lot more than 30 points too. So what? I learned a great deal, so I can speak from experience. In stark contrast to where you’re speaking from.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:09 PM

It’s not productive to engage in conversation with people who will just insult your character. Just ignore them.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

The state has purview over its internal verification procedures.

Newt and Perry just slacked. And they whining and conspiracy theories dont change that.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Right. But if they are not able or willing to verify that Romney does indeed have 10,000 legit signatures, then there is certainly grounds for a lawsuit and arguably grounds for the Attorney General to step in and make sure that the laws are being followed. Understand that I have no love at all for Perry and Gingrich. It is the process that bothers me, and what bothers me about it is that it is possible to get on the ballot without 10,000 legit signatures. I don’t buy the “too bad, so sad” bullshit regardless of whose ox is being gored.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

But it does put conservative Newt and conservative Perry on the ballot. And Virginia deserves to have a conservative to vote for. Right now there is none.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:10 PM

After all of the Obama donations from guys like Doodad Pro, there should be no level which is ‘deemed’ to be ‘beyond question’.

Either all get scrutiny or if you got the signatures you get on the ballot… it is a PRIMARY and the voters should be able to figure out who is an also-ran, who is a contender and who is just a space wasting weasel. And force the parties to say up front which they want… no trying to get out of hard work unless they want to get out of all of it. Anything else is prone to error, favoritism and discrimination.

And if RP has actually done all the hard work, taken the scrutiny and gotten in the Primary, then good for him. Complain as you will, but hard work to uphold a strict standard should be applauded. Mind you it might be a very sparse turnout if only RP is on the ballot….

ajacksonian on December 31, 2011 at 8:17 PM

I didn’t insult his character. I just guessed he lost big in his election and suggested maybe he should have focused more on persauding people to vote for him rather than election laws.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Rebar, do you have an issue if Virginia wants to change their own laws in order to give voters more choices?

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

I heartily recommend that Virginia change their law to be more straightforward and accessible.

For future campaigns.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Ignorance of the law has never been a defense before, why should it be now?

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Its not ignorance, its knowledge of how the law was being practiced and then to help out the GOP golden boy they altered the way in which the law was applied for 2012.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

If Gingrich or Perry had been in charge of D-day, instead of Eisenhower, they would have forgot most of the troops or, in Gingrich’s case, sent them to the Greek isles.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Voters can punish Perry and Gingrich in the primary if Virginia ballot law compliance is what matters most to them.

What’s the big deal?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Could Gingrich and Perry even manage a Taco Bell?

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Perry, with his executive experience and affinity for hispanic culture, probably could.

Newt has no executive experience and would probably eat the inventory, so I would guess not.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:19 PM

But it does put conservative Newt and conservative Perry on the ballot. And Virginia deserves to have a conservative to vote for. Right now there is none.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Perry may be somewhat conservative, but Gingrich is no more conservative than his greatest President of the 20th century, FDR.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Isn’t being the Speaker of the House “executive experience” at least in some sense?

“executive experience” sends some Republican votes into a quasi-fit of ectatasy.

What the hell did Romney actually do with his experience though other than sign off on liberal agenda.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Its not ignorance, its knowledge of how the law was being practiced and then to help out the GOP golden boy they altered the way in which the law was applied for 2012.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Simply false. The verification standards applied to everyone equally, and were disclosed to everyone with ample time to appropriate compliance.

And the law is the law. A presidential candidate should not be relying on party bulletins and past examples. The law says 10K qualified signatures. We’re voting for a guy who will have the power to start world wars, not boy scout leader. Read the freaking law and comply.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM

On Intrade Gingrich is at 5.7% and Perry is at 1.8%.

Golly, I wonder why. How could this be? Anyone have any insight as to this astonishing development?

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:25 PM

If a majority of voters oppose the law, should it be the law?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:25 PM

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Newt is not a pie in the sky conservative like yourself perhaps, but he’s plenty conservative. We’re tired of squishy moderate establishment candidates that always find a way to steal the primary and then lose.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Should some control freaks in Virginia be able to overrule the wishes of the majority of Republican voters in an election cycle?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Simply false. The verification standards applied to everyone equally, and were disclosed to everyone with ample time to appropriate compliance.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Oh do they? I guess “progressive” tax rates must apply to everyone equally too, since all you have to do to pay less of your income in taxes is to make less.

/eyeroll

If it’s really “equal protection under the law” you’re looking for, all signatures should be counted. Every last one of them regardless of how many a candidate submits. To do any less looks to me like rank laziness on the part of whoever has the job of doing the counting.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Its not ignorance, its knowledge of how the law was being practiced and then to help out the GOP golden boy they altered the way in which the law was applied for 2012.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:18 PM

That would be pretty tough to prove, especially since Ron Paul also made the ballot.

Personally, I think the entire GOP primary system simply doesn’t work, and needs to be scrapped and replaced with a system that makes sense. But ex post facto changes and handing out mulligans simply is not how conservatives should be handling this.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:28 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM

We cannot be absolutely sure. That is you point and it is a good one. What VA has decided is it is not worth the expense to the taxpayer to check them all when the number collected is 50% more than what are required. A failure rate of greater than 33% would be required for such candidate to not meet the minimum. A streamlined sampling can provide good assurance that a candidate’s success rate is not so low as to be near 30%.

All of the candidates were aware of this threshold, but some decided to collect fewer and hope that they met the threshold after scrutiny. The fault is theirs for leaving themselves no margin for error, for wasting the taxpayers’ money by forcing such name by name checking and for leaving the voters of VA with fewer choices on their ballots.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Rebar suggests overruling the will of the people instead.

That’s the conservative solution. (becauase it favors ROmney)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Simply false. The verification standards applied to everyone equally, and were disclosed to everyone with ample time to appropriate compliance.

And the law is the law. A presidential candidate should not be relying on party bulletins and past examples. The law says 10K qualified signatures. We’re voting for a guy who will have the power to start world wars, not boy scout leader. Read the freaking law and comply.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM

This is racist. A-ffirmative action candidates like Gingrich (1/128th African American) and Perry (1/256th African American) must have 50% added to thier scores.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:29 PM

That rules changes that benefit Romney are OK, but those that don’t are The End Of Civilization As We Know It. Come on, the Mittbots are upset because they know how damn weak Romney is and that he needs every break he can get. Pathetic.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I still don’t see what your point is. Are you seriously comparing a state moving its primary date to a state changing the requirements to get on a ballot after some establishment candidates failed to meet the criteria, and thus creating two sets of rules?

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 8:30 PM

I suspect if Newt and Perry are so incompetent, they didn’t make the ballots in the other 57 states as well. It won’t just be Virginia, right?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Jessie Jackson comes out in support of Gingrich and Perry and says that he must also be placed on the Virginia Republican ballot.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM

All of the candidates were aware of this threshold, but some decided to collect fewer and hope that they met the threshold after scrutiny. The fault is theirs for leaving themselves no margin for error, for wasting the taxpayers’ money by forcing such name by name checking and for leaving the voters of VA with fewer choices on their ballots.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:28 PM

It’s not the candidates I have a problem with, MJ. It’s the process. If one candidate’s signatures are sampled, they all should be. If one candidate’s signatures are counted individually, they all should be. This is a matter of opinion on my part, and one on which you are certainly free to disagree, but there you go.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Jessie Jackson comes out in support of Gingrich and Perry and says that he must also be placed on the Virginia Republican ballot.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM

I’m cool with that, he may be the first candidate to ever receive 0 votes in a primary. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Rebar suggests overruling the will of the people instead.

That’s the conservative solution. (becauase it favors ROmney)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:29 PM

The will of the people, was expressed when they elected the legislators who passed the bill, and the Governor who signed the bill into law.

That’s how a constitutional republic works, since you seem a little unclear on the concept.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:33 PM

AND…to say that “a failure rate of 33% would be required for failure” assumes good faith on the part of the candidate. Letting candidates know the threshold at which scrutiny will be significantly less is an open invitation to game the system for those with less than honorable intentions.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Newt and Jessie to sit on couch and discuss why A-ffirmative Action is still so important in America.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:34 PM

The will of the people, was expressed when they elected the legislators who passed the bill, and the Governor who signed the bill into law.

That’s how a constitutional republic works, since you seem a little unclear on the concept.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:33 PM

I guarantee you that at least 80% of Republican voters agree with me and disagree with you on who should be on the ballot in Virginia.

You be a little uptight rigid control freak, but you don’t have popular support behind you.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Again, when the 15k mark is exceeded, it is still not automatic. A streamlined verification process is employed to detect large scale fraud which could put the 10k number in jeopardy.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM

but you don’t have popular support behind you.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Law is not a popularity contest. If the good people of Virginia want a new law, there are well established processes for doing just that. Ex post facto changes of the law are simply not part of the process.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Again, when the 15k mark is exceeded, it is still not automatic. A streamlined verification process is employed to detect large scale fraud which could put the 10k number in jeopardy.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Streamlined verification process = something short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that 10k signatures are legit.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

That would be pretty tough to prove, especially since Ron Paul also made the ballot.

Ron Paul had lists from his previous run. What we do know is that almost everyone made the ballot in 2000 and in 2008, and yet I am supposed to believe that only 2 in 7 made it this year due to incompetence?

Did Ron Paul make 15,000? He was certified immediately and I have heard he had less than 15K.

Personally, I think the entire GOP primary system simply doesn’t work, and needs to be scrapped and replaced with a system that makes sense. But ex post facto changes and handing out mulligans simply is not how conservatives should be handling this.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I would agree with this, but ex post facto changes include the way that rules/laws are applied and that changed in mid-stream here.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

What other states have the boobs Newt and Perry failed to make the ballot in?

Is that not relevant?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I’m cool with that, he may be the first candidate to ever receive 0 votes in a primary. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:33 PM

If Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, he might well get more votes than Gingrich and Perry. And of course, it would be only right if Democrats could vote in the Republican primary as it’s not their fault that they forgot to register as Republicans.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

That would be pretty tough to prove, especially since Ron Paul also made the ballot.

Ron Paul had lists from his previous run. What we do know is that almost everyone made the ballot in 2000 and in 2008, and yet I am supposed to believe that only 2 in 7 made it this year due to incompetence?

Did Ron Paul make 15,000? He was certified immediately and I have heard he had less than 15,000.

Personally, I think the entire GOP primary system simply doesn’t work, and needs to be scrapped and replaced with a system that makes sense. But ex post facto changes and handing out mulligans simply is not how conservatives should be handling this.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:28 PM

I would agree with this, but ex post facto changes include the way that rules/laws are applied and that changed in mid-stream here.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Law is not a popularity contest. If the good people of Virginia want a new law, there are well established processes for doing just that. Ex post facto changes of the law are simply not part of the process.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Ok, I’m convinced you are a Romney fan, or just weird. :)

Happy new year.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:39 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 PM

That’s not an unreasonable position if the expense of checking every name is no object. As I see it, a streamlined check for those well in excess of the minimum to prevent the large scale fraud rate you hypothesized is sufficient when the minimum requirement is reasonable and more efficient. Given the controversy, I wish every name for all candidates were checked just so we can put paid to the complaints about fairness.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

If Democrats are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, he might well get more votes than Gingrich and Perry. And of course, it would be only right if Democrats could vote in the Republican primary as it’s not their fault that they forgot to register as Republicans.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

You are distorting things. Leave the comedy to the professionals.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Remember how when lots of women started to join the Army, the Army had to lower the number of push-ups someone had to do, as well as how good a push-up had to be in order to count? Well, Gingrich and Perry want this thing with signatures in Virginia to be the same way.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:42 PM

If Romney is the man, and Gingrich and Perry are a couple of females, he should still win if this is about feats of strength, just going with your silly analogy. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:43 PM

There was going to be a little Operation Chaos movement in Virginia where the not-Romney’s would have voted for Ron Paul to send a message to the Virginia ballot nazis. That’s why they are changing their tune.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Given the controversy, I wish every name for all candidates were checked just so we can put paid to the complaints about fairness.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Well thank you, MJ. And I do mean that. To be considered “reasonable,” even if wrong, is something I take as a compliment.

There certainly is cost in checking every signature. I wouldn’t object to sampling every candidate’s signature list on principle, but you can bet if that it was done that way, there would be further legal challenges that would probably end up in more expense than if the signatures were individually checked to begin with.

My concern is that this whole business looks to me like someone saying, “Wink wink-nudge nudge. We’ll put this law into place to look legitimate, but we’ll leave some room for doubt as to whether you’re actually following it to the letter.” That sort of thing doesn’t engender a whole lot of confidence in the system — but then again, if Newt and Perry were on the ballot in VA somehow, I still wouldn’t have a whole lot of confidence in the system anyhow.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

or just weird. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:39 PM

You might want to take a look at the US Constitution, article 1, section 10.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Streamlined verification process = something short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that 10k signatures are legit.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I think that the system is sufficient to exceed a reasonable doubt standard. You are demanding complete certainty. As I said, given the controversy and in hindsight perhaps certainty would have been worth the expense. When the law was written it was hard to foresee that serious candidates would treat the process so cavalierly and create such problems for themselves.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

You are distorting things. Leave the comedy to the professionals.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Gingrich and Perry, and those who support them in this, are the ones who want to distort things and maybe they should just be regarded as just comedians. They certainly are not credible Presidential candidates, not for the Republican nomination anyway.

BTW, you can not be a real Doctor as your mind is not that of a logical person.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Apparently, Cuccinelli thinks he can do something about it.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state’s presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot

I hope it works.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:46 PM

You might want to take a look at the US Constitution, article 1, section 10.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

You may want to take a look at the man in the mirror and ponder over why you got thumped in your election. It could be you are not that likeable and nobody agrees with your politics.

Happy New Year, though.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:47 PM

BTW, you can not be a real Doctor as your mind is not that of a logical person.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Dr. Tesla wasn’t a “doctor”.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Happy New Year, even you control freaks seeking to deny voters a choice in Virginia.

Loosen up in 2012. It’s good for you. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM

BTW, you can not be a real Doctor as your mind is not that of a logical person.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:46 PM

And your mind is that of rebar, I’ll give you that.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:50 PM

What other states have the boobs Newt and Perry failed to make the ballot in?

Is that not relevant?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Newt, I know.

He failed to submit alternate delegates in NH. It made the news and was an embarrassment for the campaign.

He failed to get on the MO primary ballot. In MO, they have a primary, but the delegates are ultimately awarded at a later caucus. Newt pretended he didnt care because its really a caucus, but the press is so bad, its obvious he was covering. Ann serious candidate wants to exposure and the appearance of legitimacy of being in the primary.

In OH, no one knew if he failed or not, until the last hour of the last day. Everyone was on edge. It seems like the SOS cut a few corners, but there is no mistaken he made it by the skin of his teeth.

But blame Virginia, conspiracy theories are fun and simple.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Dr. Tesla wasn’t a “doctor”.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:48 PM

That’s a relief.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I think that the system is sufficient to exceed a reasonable doubt standard. You are demanding complete certainty. As I said, given the controversy and in hindsight perhaps certainty would have been worth the expense. When the law was written it was hard to foresee that serious candidates would treat the process so cavalierly and create such problems for themselves.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

That depends on your definition of “reasonability,” which will be debated in the halls of law schools in perpetuity, I’m sure. I take the position that if it is possible to check all the signatures, it is reasonable to expect the state to take measures to ensure that the laws are being followed as-written. And if those laws are indeed not practical to enforce, they should be changed. If Virgina is unwilling or unable to enforce their own laws as written now, there is most definitely standing for a lawsuit and arguably standing for the attorney general to step in.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:51 PM

VorDaj,

You keep talkinag about Jesse Jackson on the Republican primary ballot.

That’s world class comedy right there, brother.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM

I, MJBrutus, declare that I will support whoever wins the GOP nomination will receive my vote for President of the US in the 2012 general election and that I will exert my efforts towards his or her victory.

Who’s with me?

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Two bits, four bits, six bits, a peso
All for a-ffirmative action for little victims Ricky and Newty
Stand up and say so!

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I, MJBrutus, declare that whoever wins the GOP nomination will receive my vote for President of the US in the 2012 general election and that I will exert my efforts towards his or her victory.

Who’s with me?

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Sorry for the bad grammar.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

That’s world class comedy right there, brother.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM

All credit goes to Gingrich and Perry.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

You may want to take a look at the man in the mirror and ponder over why you got thumped in your election. It could be you are not that likeable and nobody agrees with your politics.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:47 PM

I lost because I was running as a conservative in a very liberal district. I knew I would lose, but I wanted to give people a choice, getting on the ballot was my victory. I thought you were all about choice, guess not.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

All credit goes to Gingrich and Perry.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

You seem kind of bitter that they are going to be on the ballot. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM

“Special” candidates apparently need “special laws.” We should have self-esteem consolation prizes for losing politicians too.

Firefly_76 on December 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I salute you for your efforts!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Could Gingrich and Perry even manage a Taco Bell?

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Because managing a Taco Bell is just like running the state of Texas successfully for a decade. Yeah, that’s it.

capitalist piglet on December 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I lost because I was running as a conservative in a very liberal district. I knew I would lose, but I wanted to give people a choice, getting on the ballot was my victory. I thought you were all about choice, guess not.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 PM

You seem more weird, political science geek, than conservative. I mean that with affection.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I reserve my right not to vote for any candidate in the general election. That’s called freedom.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:57 PM

I, MJBrutus, declare that I will support whoever wins the GOP nomination will receive my vote for President of the US in the 2012 general election and that I will exert my efforts towards his or her victory.

Who’s with me?

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I’m not making that promise until after I have cast my primary ballot. Until then, a festering contagious pox on all their houses.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:57 PM

That’s fine. Is anybody asking you to surrender your right or are you just make a preemptive assertion?

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Who has disenfranchised voters? If anybody it is Newt and Perry campaigns.

CurpliTium on December 31, 2011 at 7:57 PM

It’s the Virginia GOP that has disenfranchised voters (not even a chance to write-in?), but aside from that – WHO CARES? It’s the fact that they’re disenfranchised that needs to be remedied, regardless of who you personally want to blame.

capitalist piglet on December 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Virginians deserve a conservative choice. Newt is going to win the nomination either way. No more squishy moderates stealing the nomination and then losing in the general. Conservatism works every time it is tried. Go Newt. And Happy New Year! everyone.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Sounds like you are asking people to pledge loyalty to the REpublican party regardless of who the candidate is.

That’s sort of SOviet Union stuff there, brother.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

I salute you for your efforts!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Thanks, I appreciate it.

You seem more weird, political science geek, than conservative.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Conservatives believe in the rule of law, your lack of same seems to put you outside the conservative movement.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

It is a voluntary oath. One is FREE to commit to ending the disastrous reign of PBHO or not.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6