Posted on 12/27/2011 3:48:28 PM PST by TBBT
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has filed suit in federal court against the Virginia Republican Party and the Virginia Board of Elections in order to gain a spot on the Commonwealth's primary ballot. Perry was excluded after the party found he had not submitted enough valid signatures by the deadline last Thursday. His campaign submitted 6,000 of the required 10,000, according to the suit. The lawsuit alleges that Perry's 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated by the requirement that those circulating the petitions also be eligible or registered voters of Virginia. Failure to get on the ballot is a major embarrassment for the struggling Perry campaign — but he is not alone. Another one-time GOP frontrunner, Newt Gingrich, also failed to qualify. "Gov. Perry greatly respects the citizens and history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and believes Virginia Republicans should have greater access to vote for one of the several candidates for President of the United States," Perry communications director Ray Sullivan said in a statement. "Virginia ballot access rules are among the most onerous and are particularly problematic in a multi-candidate election. We believe that the Virginia provisions unconstitutionally restrict the rights of candidates and voters by severely restricting access to the ballot, and we hope to have those provisions overturned or modified to provide greater ballot access to Virginia voters and the candidates seeking to earn their support."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
That would be good news. It probably depends on how strong the "Bush Machine" is in Florida. I think they will do their best to defeat Perry.
Although we toss the term "crook" around a bit loosely, here we have some CROOKS, and the accusation is not made lightly.
They've all gotta' go now ~ just like that puke who advertised his body in Craig's List.
We don't tolerate that in our candidates (in most of the country), so he needs to apologize AND repudiate it.
At the same time I want him and Newt on the ballot so I can vote AGAINST Perri and for Newt (if I want). No sense having a primary if a bunch of crooks and pervs in Richmond get to make all the picks.
This should definitely show proof positive that Perry is not part of the establishment.
I’ve been with you completely UNTIL that last post.
Perry was in office a few months when that law was voted on
(he took over when Bush won the Presidency, so the debated legislation started under Bush) and it was the TX Legislature and the people of Texas who wanted it. Perry supports the people’s decisions and represents Texans as their Governor doing what TEXANS want.
He would never have said, Well, you know the Tx Legislature was wrong and Texans were wrong to want that. Too much character in that Man to do that. Besides, because of that law Texas Universities are able to PROFIT off the tuitions from people you speak of.
And Newt’s no Angel here advocating Amnesty.
SO
Just remember, it is Rick Perry who is advocating on behalf of YOU against your own states “bunch of crooks and pervs” so that YOU can vote for whomever you please.
Including voting against him.
But it is RICK PERRY who is standing up for YOUR RIGHTS!
Bravo. Well said.
“His campaign submitted 6,000 of the required 10,000, according to the suit. The lawsuit alleges that Perry’s 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated by the requirement that those circulating the petitions also be eligible or registered voters of Virginia.”
His 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated because Virginia required those circulating the petitions had to registered voters in Virginia?
Sorry Rick, that argument is not going to fly in any courtroom in the country.
the courts already have........
the US Supreme Court has previously ruled that such a limitation was a violation of the 1st Amendment. (Colorado case).
go back and read the whole thread besides, he submitted almost 12,000 signatures.
Did each of the candidates gather signatures under the same rules and standards and were some candidates held to a higher standard in the petition process?
Would this be the Commonwealth of Virginia making a decision against Perry and Gingrich or was it the Republican Party of Virginia?
Where and how were Perry’s 14th Amendment rights violated.
“Perry was in office a few months when that law was voted on
(he took over when Bush won the Presidency, so the debated legislation started under Bush) and it was the TX Legislature and the people of Texas who wanted it.”
I lived in Texas in 2001 and I don’t recall a large number of Texans who demanded that the tax payers of Texas provide in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Of course, all of us who did not demand instate tuition for illegal aliens must have no heart.
“Besides, because of that law Texas Universities are able to PROFIT off the tuitions from people you speak of.”
Could you please explain to all of us how exactly a public university in the State of Texas actually “PROFITS” from an illegal alien paying In-State tuition?
And please explain how an illegal alien who earns a college degree in Texas can contribute to the state’s economy being that the illegal alien will never be able to legally work in the the United States?
Yes, that is correct. There is a Supreme Court precedent that supports Perry’s complaint on 1st Amendment grounds. I like the way he’s handling this, unlike Newt who had a hissy fit.
The law does not provide funds. Only reduced rate.
They have to pay their tuition. Do some get aid? Yes
But just like any other student.
Students Who Qualified For In-State Benefits Paid Approximately $32.7 Million In Tuition and Fees In FY 2010, A Net Gain Of $11.07 Million. According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board: “Institutions of higher education report students who completed an affidavit paid approximately $32.7 million in tuition and fees in Fiscal Year 2010.” [Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, October 2011]
Removing The Tuition Benefit Will Have An Estimated “Net Loss Of Almost $92 Million In Tuition In Fiscal Year 2016 Alone.” According to Texas immigration attorney Susan Nelson: “A law was proposed in the 2011 legislative session that would have required undocumented students to pay non-resident tuition. The Higher Education Coordinating Board estimated that almost 20,000 students would be affected by the change, and calculated that the state’s institutions of higher learning would suffer a net loss of almost $92 million in tuition in fiscal year 2016 alone.” [Texas Immigration Lawyer Blog, 9/25/11]
WSJ: Undocumented Immigrants In Texas “Are More Likely To Bear A Larger Share Of The Tax Burden Than Their Counterparts In Most Other States.” According to the Wall Street Journal:
Immigration status aside, state residents are thought to be deserving of a subsidy because they pay sales taxes, property taxes and other fees to support state institutions that nonstate residents don’t pay. Especially in a state like Texas that has no income tax, illegal aliens are more likely to bear a larger share of the tax burden than their counterparts in most other states. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/11]
You are ignoring a very salient fact and that is that public universities are not part of the free market system in that their tuition prices are set by the government and the cost of tuition does not cover the entire cost of a college education. Instead, tuition covers a small portion of the cost of a college education and the rest of the cost is covered by state taxes, endowments and in Texas the PUF.
In addition, the major universities in the state of Texas, specifically UT Austin which already has 52,000 students has to have greater and greater admissions standards and thus limit access to US citizens if Illegal Aliens and taking up the limited slots in enrollment.
“Immigration status aside...”
Are you kidding? How can you set immigration status aside when it is my tax dollars being used to subsidize college educations for students who will never be able to legally work in the United States.
The only hope that these illegal aliens have to ever legally work in the United States is if a future President Rick Perry grants all illegal aliens AMNESTY!
Do you even know what the Texas In State Tuition rules are? To qualify for the Tuition, they also have to be pursuing US Citizenship.
I am sick to death of people who don't live in TX, or are just flat out liars spouting off about "what" the Texas In State Tuition is..
Something Governor Perry (as opposed to the Texas Legislature who are the folks who enacted the In State Tuition in a veto proof majority) is/has really pushed for in the State is an affordable college education costing $10,000. He has looked at innovative ways to make a college degree accesible for Texans of all income levels.
“I am sick to death of people who don’t live in TX, or are just flat out liars spouting off about “what” the Texas In State Tuition is..”
The last I checked, I live in the State of Texas, but if you like, I can go out to my back deck and look at the Texas Capitol building and the Main (Tower) Building at the University of Texas.
“Do you even know what the Texas In State Tuition rules are? To qualify for the Tuition, they also have to be pursuing US Citizenship.”
At this very moment in time, there is no way for an illegal alien to pursue US citizenship.
Therefore, you are either very misinformed regarding the issue of illegal immigration and the In State Tuition for Illegal Aliens program in Texas or you are intentionally spreading disinformation.
No, actually, I'm just tired and typed citizenship, instead of permanent resident status.
This is an interesting approach.
First, note that he sues the Virginia Board of Elections. This is important, because they are the ones that put together the forms and requirements to implement the law. The RPV only acts under the direction of the VBE.
Second, the challenge isn’t to the idea of collecting signatures, or the rule that the people signing be registered voters. Instead, he is challenging the requirement that the signatures be COLLECTED by eligible voters.
As he points out, this would violate his “freedom of association” rights, because it means a candidate cannot choose the people he WANTS to collect his signatures.
More interestingly, and I hadn’t thought of this one — a candidate cannot actually collect his OWN SIGNATURES in virginia, because the candidates cannot vote in Virginia. So if Perry wanted to personally insure he had signatures, and was willing to go door-to-door, he couldn’t actually get signatures under the law as written.
I suppose there is an underlying argument here, which is that there is no compelling reason to require the people gathering the signatures to be able to vote. They are simply collecting signatures — it’s the people who SIGN that are important.
Virginia will probably argue that they need to use eligible voters because then they have some control over them; but those collecting signatures have to sign and notarize each page, swearing an oath. So there’s legal control over the signature collection, without requiring the signature gatherers to be eligible to vote.
I think I remember there was some sort of court case which ended up with federal courts ruling that minors could donate to candidates, even though candidates are only supposed to get money from people “eligible to vote”. I don’t know any of the specifics though, and I could be mis-remembering that whole thing.
Lastly, I guess you could also argue that the rule unfairly benefits candidates who are from Virginia, since they could collect their own signatures. Of course, that didn’t help Gingrich, and in reality what Perry wanted to be able to do was bring in his own team that he trusted to collect signatures.
I’m not happy with the suit. Perry had Kilgore running his campaign, and Kilgore should have had access to eligible volunteers to collect signatures. But I would be happy if we could get more people on our ballot, so whatever it takes. I appreciate that Perry didn’t launch any wild accusations, or compare his lack of ballot access to Pearl Harbor.
And I assume that if Perry wins, Gingrich wins as well. Of course, they could have sued together. But if they had that kind of coordination, they could have helped each other get signatures and wouldn’t be in this position.
Check out the definitions section, particularly “qualified voter,” “registered voter,” “registration records” and “residence.”
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+24.2-101
and
§ 24.2-513. Provisions as to general elections applicable.
All the provisions and requirements of the laws of this Commonwealth in relation to the holding of elections shall apply to all primaries insofar as they are consistent with this article.
(Code 1950, § 24-356; 1952, c. 4; 1964, c. 545; 1970, c. 462, § 24.1-178; 1993, c. 641.)
It’s not the “code of virginia” that stated that. The code of virginia requires 10,000 signatures, with 400 from each district.
The RPV is responsible for verifying the signatures, and their implementation for te verification process was that if a candidate submitted 15,000 signatures, with 600 from each district, the RPV would assume the candidate had 10,000 valid signatures. It was a time-saving measure based on the belief that 50% was a big enough cushion.
15,000 was the minimum recommendation from the VBE, which is probably where the RPV got the number.
But there are no election rules regarding “15,000 signatures”. It was just how RPV decided to verify. They could have just as easily said they’d check the first 1000 signatures for each candidate, and use the fail rate to determine what the expected total was — if a candidate was on track, they’d accept the petitions, if not, they’d have to keep counting to see if there were enough signatures.
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.