Posted on 12/25/2011 4:41:06 PM PST by smoothsailing
December 25th, 2011
There are currently many news stories and blog discussions about the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law. Some large blogs, such as Red State, have over 300 comments about the story. Some defend the current Virginia ballot access laws on the grounds that in past presidential elections, a fairly large number of Republican presidential primary candidates managed to qualify.
But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.
The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.
The Democratic Party of Virginia has been opposed to the strict law on primary ballot access, and has been in the habit of collecting signatures for all Democratic presidential candidates recognized by the party. In 2008, the state party collected 7,300 signatures for all its candidates, thus easing the burden on them and requiring them to collect only 4,000 to 5,000 on their own.
I don’t think Ken wants to engage Bill Bolling any more than he has to just yet. BB is still in the midst of his snit fit over Ken running for Gov. BB thought it was his for the asking. BB isn’t as good of a candidate, but he has the bulk of the gop establishment in VA behind him.
The Dems get the signatures for the candidates - thus there is no reason for Virginia to interpret it since no one is ever not allowed access under it.
Prior to this cycle, apparently, no one ever challenged signatures so again, no one was ever not allowed access under it.
This is only the third cycle of this law (since 04 had no primary) so it’s not like this is a very long standing issue. And no one can or will challenge a rule or law until they have standing. That happens when one is harmed.
But to the major point: no one has yet, in spite of about 50 requests on my part, come up with any reason for this rule to exist.
Likewise, no one has been able to explain why anyone claiming to be conservative would support a law that has no good reason for existing in the first place.
Until someone can answer at least one of those two answers, the charge of being a blind rule follower stands.
It is definitely long overdue for a credentials check.
I think it’s time for Bill Bolling to start thinking about what hard time in the Virginia penitentiary system is like.
“I think it’s time for Bill Bolling to start thinking about what hard time in the Virginia penitentiary system is like.”
Naah, I’m sure they covered their tracks. This is just standard VA gop shenanigans.
Sadly, won't happen until the good-old-boy Republican Establishment network in Virginia is disassembled. Bolling's in a snit fit because, you know, it's "his turn".
There are some federal laws that could be brought to bear on Bolling for his sort of corrupt behavior.
If he gives up now and surrenders he'll be out in a couple of years ~ but if he puts Virginians through this sort of nonsense of not having anybody to vote for in the primaries we'll besiege his trial judge with demands for the MAXIMUM PENALTIES.
Romney will need to be prepared to spend most of his wealth to get anything under 20 years!
Nobody really cares what information you think you are entitled to (to steal an answer from a movie). It’s christmas weekend, so you could make 2000 requests and you aren’t going to get the answer you seek.
If you truly want the actual answer, and not more idle speculation from the internet, send an e-mail to Mullins (chair of the RPV) and ask him why he thought the rule was necessary.
You’ll find that we argue over this a lot, but many love that we make candidates work to get on our ballot. It makes them set up campaigns here, it makes them dedicate resources, to connect with our grassroots organizations and our committees. Except apparently this year.
And this rule has applied to all state-wide races, not just the presidential races. So we’ve had 3 sets of state elections with this rule, not just the 3 sets of presidential primaries.
BTW, the dems only get signatures for their preferred candidates. If you aren’t the ‘chosen’, you have to get your own signatures. One year two democrats WANTED to challenge John Warner for the senate seat, and the democrats refused to give them ballot access for the primary, and the dems ended up with NO candidate — exactly what they wanted.
I have a feeling if the RPV did the same thing, we’d have a REAL issue with the results. I don’t ever want to compare what we do with what the democrats do.
Since in years past, no serious candidate has failed to get on the ballot, there would be no reason to challenge the signatures. But there is a pending lawsuit about signatures, so there is a reason why more scrutiny might be given this year to FOLLOWING THE RULES.
I’ve noticed lately a tendency for conservatives to want to disregard inconvenient rules, sort of an outcome-based philosophy that is more what I am used to from liberals. Conservatives tend to FIX the rules when they don’t work, not ignore them.
With due respect Charles, I’ll stand with my own common sense aversion to stupid bureaucratic rules that are meaningless - and of course, Virginia’s best conservative office holder (AG Ken Cuccinelli) agrees with me on this.
Cuccinelli calls the law “sad” and “embarrassing.” I call any so called conservative supporting it “sad” and “embarrassing” as well. Why don’t you go do some more paperwork or “maybe book a conference room” (to steal from a Bourne Movie). That’s what good bureaucrats do.
The rest of us have to try and save the Republic.
I’m not sure why you leap to the conclusion that I support the law. I simply oppose the mindless attacking of the RPV for implementing rules that match what the law requires, rather than ignoring the law. If the law is stupid, we should get rid of it.
We have a lot of people arguing about this law, and have in fact been arguing it for some time. I read Ken’s e-mail, and he finds the situation sad and embarrassing, but I don’t remember him pushing to change the law — so it could be he is coming around to that position based on the outcome (he unfortunately mentioned write-in campaigns which we don’t think are valid. Of course, he is the AG, so he could issue an official opinion and clarify what is and is not allowed).
I also will argue with your opinion that the rules are meaningless. They have a purpose, and that purpose is not a bad purpose. The rules may not be the best way to acheive that purpose — they seem too hard. I will note that Ken Cuccinelli didn’t call for ignoring the law or abandoning the idea of signatures — for example, he suggested changing the “per-district” requirement to 100 instead of 400. If you think that HAVING signatures is stupid, Ken isn’t on your side, he just wants to make the numbers easier to achieve, not eliminate the requirement.
Whenever something like this happens, some people get confused between arguing over how the law should be changed, and arguing over whether the law is being properly enforced. I’m arguing that rules are rules, and you don’t break the law or ignore it because you don’t like the outcome.
The argument over whether we should CHANGE that law is a different argument. Those who argue that laws that should be changed should be ignored I disagree with strongly, because I’m a conservative, not an anarchist.
Cuccinelli gave a lot more damning statements to WTOP and to Examiner.com than he put in his email. For him to advocate this be changed and be changed right away so as not to impede ballot access for THIS primary - and to do so while he is AG - is very significant dissent.
He said Virginia’s own laws are making Virginia irrelevant. Called it “sad” and “embarrassing.” This is not some kind of meek comment indicating that at perhaps sometime in the future we should “tweak” the law.
Cutting the requirements by 75% immediately and retro-actively - which is what he is calling for - is a strong damnation of the current law in his opinion.
Thanks for the info
Ken never makes “meek” comments. :-)
Anyway, while I disagree with most of what you argue regarding the law and the RPV, I think we both agree that it would be great if somehow Perry and Gingrich ended up on the ballot.
I’d like to see Santorum as well, and wish he had submitted his signatures. Since he didn’t make 10,000, he decided not to bother. But if he had, then some rule they made where anybody who submitted signatures would be deemed to have submitted enough might have worked.
As it is, I think the best they can do is to decide retroactively that they would accept any submission that claimed 10,000 signatures, without checking those signatures. That would cover Perry and Gingrich.
I am waiting for Ken to explain whether Virginia law would allow the RPV to do this — if Ken says they can, I’ll probably accept his judgement, as he is a very smart lawyer, and the AG, plus I really like the guy and he’s honest as can be.
Of course, Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell are both honorable men as well, contrary to the political opinions of some here over the past couple of days.
Well we’ll have to disagree around the edges, but we share an admiration for Ken C - and note that I have not been one to jump in on the Bolling and McDonnell conspiracy theories. I do think McDonnell has some squish tendencies though and is very much a sort of Northern Virginia Republican. Not my favorite type, but glad he crushed in the general election.
McDonnell and Cuccinelli have sharply disagreed on this ruling, and I of course tend to take Cuc’s side. He and I hate it for similar reasons.
McDonnell is actually from Hampton Roads, and has no real relationship to a “Northern Virginia Republican”.
On the other hand, Ken Cuccinelli was a state Senator from Fairfax County — and is exactly a Northern Virginia Republican.
I know what you “meant” by that. I’m just saying. (Ken was never in my district, but his district included parts of my county, so he would attend our meetings).
BTW, I’ve seen NOTHING yet from McDonnell on the RPV decision, so I don’t know that he “disagrees” with Ken. Maybe he’s said stuff and I missed it, but I am on his mailing list so if he actually made a press release I’d know about it.
BTW, a Virginia conservative group has banded together to challenge the RPV ballot. They are being joined by a former Virginia Democratic Committee chairperson, who has offered to help the republicans “do what is right”. OK, that’s annoying, but it will be helpful to have the democrats on our side because it lessens the chance that they would cause trouble if the RPV puts Perry and Gingrich on without verifying their signatures.
After all, I think what the RPV needs is legal cover. I do NOT think they are happy with what happened — they simply refused to fake the results to get the outcome they wanted. Which is why I am infuriated that so many here are claiming that they actually DID fake the results BECAUSE they wanted this outcome.
I think the RPV has said nothing because they hope they can fix this and don’t want to say anything to jeopardize fixing it. That is why I’m not upset that they aren’t talking. Virginia is not some liberal republican establishment — we have our share of country-club republicans, and we’ve been working on that problem, but we aren’t really that bad. We have solid conservatives in positions of power. I think for example ANY of our three statewide officials would be in the top 10 conservatives if they were elected to the Senate.
I figured you would misunderstand my “northern virginia” comment. I am not talking about where they are from — I am talking about how they think. McDonnell is a northern Va Republican and I don’t care if he is from Biloxi Mississippi. And Cuc is a great conservative tea party type thinker for the most part and I don’t care if he is from inner city downtown Richmond or DC.
It’s the mindset I’m talking about.
And actually, one McDonnell quote was “rules are rules” and another one is “the rules were known.”
That’s VERY Northern Va thinking. Hell, that’s DC thinking.
Here’s the timeline.
2008 Primary: The VA GOP (rpv.org) instructs all candidates to get 10000 sigs, with 15000 as a safety margin. This repeats the recommendations of the State Board of Elections. All candidates do submit 10000+ sigs. The VA GOP waives the requirement to verify the signatures and submits them without checking.
May 2011: The VA GOP instructs all candidates to get 10000+ sigs, with 15000 as a safety margin (same as 200.
July 2011: Candidates are allowed to begin collecting signatures.
October 2011: Some guy named Osborne, who is running in a state election, files a lawsuit protesting that the no-check rule is unfair.
November 2011: In reaction to the lawsuit, the VA GOP decides to change the no-check rule for presidential primaries. They increase it from 10000 sigs to 15000 sigs. They send an electronic notice (e-mail or fax) to all candidates advising of the rule change.
For whatever reason Newt’s campaign didn’t get the notice. The e-mail/fax was never received or misrouted, unclear.
December 2011: The Gingrich campaign announces they have over 10000 sigs (the requirement) and are pushing for 15000 to meet the recommended number (see May above). At this point they believe they have breathing room. Getting 15000 is not essential just a good cushion so they aren’t too worried.
December 21, 2011: The VA GOP publishes an undated letter announcing the rule change.
http://tinyurl.com/8yxgw69
The PDF contains a hidden Microsoft Word creation date of 12/21/2011. This is the first public announcement of the rule change AFAIK.
Newt’s campaign freaks out at the surprise rule change (claims ‘Pearl Harbor’). Now getting 15,000 sigs isn’t nice-to-have but absolutely essential. Newt flies to VA to scramble to get 15,000 sigs.
Newt’s campaign turns in 11,000 sigs, short of the new rule’s 15,000 no-check requirement.
December 23: Because Newt/Perry are below 15,000 sigs the VA GOP runs the sigs through a computer-based address checking system. This has never been done before, not in 2008 nor prior primaries, for any candidate. Enough sigs are rejected to toss Newt and Perry off the ballot. The VA GOP announces this on Twitter.
December 27: The VA GOP turns in the final slate to the State Board of Elections.
It is unclear at this point if the VA GOP even bothered to turn in Newt’s or Perry’s petitions.
He went on to lose the state ~ and the national election ~ and his son tells us he didn't really want to win.
You guys do recall this debate, right?
Oh, yes, and to let us know what an ungrateful wretch he was, Romney didn't say a thing about the obvious misuse of the rules by his boy Bolling who is now out on his political tin ear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.