Posted on 12/26/2011 8:40:42 AM PST by TBBT
“...that campaign manager was wrong about that.”
Tells you all you really need to know, doesn’t it ?
Sorry that these things are unforgiving. Once you’ve hit the point of after-the-fact your butt is on the downward pole.
They’ve got two shots to rectify this:
1) If Romney did indeed submit his signatures before they changed the rule, surely that isn’t allowed by the state.
2) Examine the process by which signatories were eliminated and see if it follows state code.
I’m betting appeals will go nowhere or will be too late. Again, this is why a good organized campaign gets double the signatures, because this kind of dirty pool happens all the time. It’s a much cheaper and more secure way than after-the-fact, because it will take a legislative session to fix it.
What on earth do you suppose VA has to gain in this idiotic hide-the-sausage CF? I can see nothing gained or nothing learned.
It does NOT follow state code and the last thing we want is to invoke equal protection and ‘voter intent’ as giving the RATS any argument when they attempt voter fraud in March and November.
When does VA’s Secretary of State intend to address this monster they built? When will RPV ask that they do?
You are obviously not keeping up with this developing story and the facts involved.
The number to hit to avoid review was 10,000....Gingrich and Perry both had over 11,000.
Romney turned in his 16,000 and the next day, the VaGOP changed the rules to 15,000 to avoid review. This happened very recently.
The point is that, even if the VA GOP did put out a "new" rule that over 15,000 signatures would lead to automatic placement on the ballot, Gingrich never came anywhere close to that. So he was never denied the opportunity for automatic placement. And, again, article after article is out there with the info that all the candidates were advised to get 15-20,000 signatures, just to be safe. And, again, Gingrich never came anywhere near that.
Gingrich certainly knew the rules and was not duped about the review process. The day before the deadline, he admitted that his campaign was "scrambling." Then he tweeted that his campaign "Passed req 10K signatures in VA, 600 from each district. On the way to 15K. Join us in Arlington Wed & Richmond Thurs."
Newt knew very well that he needed to try to get to 15,000. It just didn't happen.
They probably won’t, sadly, because the drive to do it will be gone after the primary.
I’d have to think Gingrich and Perry can gain traction if 1) is true. If you can legally make a new rule after one guy has already completed the game, then your system isn’t broken it’s downright corrupt and illegal.
post 185
We non-Virginians are looking at State election code to determine whether Newt and Rick qualify, which they do.
The elections group can issue advisories, bulletins, how-tos, FAQs and weather forecasts, but they cannot implore a NATIONAL candidate to go above and beyond the state’s requirement PER THEIR OWN nCODE without possibly bringing RICO inquiries.
Yes, Racketeering and Corruption.
Well they can discard signatures as long as they are consistent in doing so for each candidate and the method isn’t bogus. So encouraging a margin of error isn’t necessarily bad. There may be something there to grab hold of, but the gold I believe is going after the apparently new switcharoo rules after the fact.
That’s where I’d look. Don’t understand it myself, in Iowa this is all in the state code and the legislatures have to make any changes. I think any other way and you’d be open to lawsuits.
BTW, in full disclosure a week before I vote at caucus, my first choice is Perry and second Gingrich.
“The number to hit to avoid review was 10,000....Gingrich and Perry both had over 11,000.”
10K is not the number to avoid review. The Code of Virginia requires 10K signatures of registered voters, with 400 of those from each Congressional District. Perry cut it close with 11,910 and Gingrich with 11,050. That really doesn’t provide the margin required to offset anticipated disqualified non-verifiable signatures. I.e., you could sign a petition as R.B. Miller, Jr. if that were the name under which you were registered to vote in VA. How helpful is that? You’d need also to provide an address where R.B.M., Jr. is registered to vote in VA. How else are they supposed to verify that R.B.M., Jr is, in fact, a registered voter in VA or any of its 11 Congressional Districts?
The State Committee Chairmen have the statutory responsibility to certify that their party’s candidates meet those statutory requirement. RPV determined that 15K signatures with 600 from each Congressional District (half again the required numbers) would provide the necessary buffer to eliminate the need to go thru all the signatures. The campaigns knew that. Perry’s and Gingrich’s campaigns tried to achieve it but came up short. But now we’re supposed to believe, with no evidence whatsoever, that it was all some vast conspiracy to aid and abet Romney.
The idea that the party verification process was changed unilaterally, arbitrarily, and capriciously the day before the petition review remains to be seen. That is nothing more than an internet rumor, taken as Gospel. If the ‘rule’ was changed the day before the count, how is it that Gingrich and Perry knew when undertaking their signature collecting that they wanted 15K?
If we’re looking at ‘facts,’ one that I haven’t seen discussed here is the fact that the entire state of VA and 5 other southern states have been under the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice since 1964 for ALL their voting laws. Various jurisdictions within the state(s) have been released from that oversight in recent years, the most recent being in October, 2011. Any change to the state’s voting statutes remains subject to DOJ/CRD approval. And, one might assume, given that lengthy federal oversight, VA’s voting laws are quite Constitutional. Personally, I’d prefer to wait until Holder is out as AG before making any changes to VA’s voting laws. After all, neither Gingrich nor Perry are ‘his people.’
This seems to be RedState's entire point: don't diss the candidates because they didn't know the rules changed in response to a pending lawsuit.
Okay, so don't diss the candidates.
But that doesn't change the fact that the candidates didn't comply with the rules, does it? As I posted to you earlier, even the day before the deadline, Gingrich himself was still focused on getting 15,000 signatures -- why, if he thought 10,000 -- which he said he had -- made him eligible for no review acceptance?
It's not even clear that he ended up with over 10,000 valid signatures anyway. Some reports say he was 2,000 short, others say whole petitions were disqualified for not meeting the rules.
My only point here is it's pretty extreme to call this process corrupt or "Soviet-style politics." Are you arguing that the GOP hid any ALLEGED (note your source says "allegedly changed the rules") rule change it made in November? Are you disputing that the campaigns could have been in closer contact with the party on the process? What does it say about the campaign's understanding of the rules when Gingrich himself said that, after getting 10,000 signatures (which, according to the theory in this article, Gingrich thought would qualify him without review), he was set on getting 15,000? Why, if he thought simply getting 10,000 signatures qualified him?
“10K is not the number to avoid review.”
It was 10K...until they changed it late in the game. There were no reviews going on.
The change is the whole point...the only point.
...from there it can only get uglier as more information comes in.
“Gingrich himself was still focused on getting 15,000”
The number to hit prior to the recent change was 10K. Nobody with 10K has ever had their signatures reviewed.
The change was made very late and we will get more information on when exactly it was changed soon.
This is like saying in the top of the 8th inning that you have to now win by 2 runs to actually win the game.
If these are not Soviet style tactics, you change the rules prior to the 1st inning. Not in the 8th or ninth.
I think Myth was getting a little nervous about Newt’s surge and called in a favor to his buds in the Virginia GOP. Doesn’t anyone find it just a little bit curious that this happened a) on a dead-drop Friday night news release just prior to Christmas; and b) after Myth had already achieved the magical *new* confirmation-free standard of 15,000 signatures?
Not sure what information you are getting or from where, but it is wrong. The LAW requires 10K signatures, and has for more than 10 years both for the presidential and U.S. Senate primaries. The buffer to avoid review is 15K.
If you read the article, Newt himself, in the only direct quote I have seen since Saturday morning, admits his campaign failed. He hopes to have the law changed in time to get on the primary ballot. That is more than a challenge, given time constraints. But if HE isn’t casting blame on anyone and everyone else, his supporters might consider doing the same.
VA will be a hard fought contest in November. No good can come of alienating folks over the primary because the Gingrich and Perry campaigns didn’t do what they needed to do to get on the primary ballot.
“Not sure what information you are getting or from where, but it is wrong. The LAW requires 10K signatures, and has for more than 10 years both for the presidential and U.S. Senate primaries.
Ummm, that is exactly what I’ve been saying.
“”The buffer to avoid review is 15K.”
Umm yeah, are you dense? This has only recently changed and the point of discussion. There was never a 15K review buffer until just recently...lol
Me: 10K is not the number to avoid review.”
You: It was 10K...until they changed it late in the game
So how is it that’s “The LAW requires 10K signatures, and has for more than 10 years both for the presidential and U.S. Senate primaries” is what you were saying all along ? It was and remains statutorily 10K.
Or, are you confusing what the law requires with what the RPV determined was adequate to bypass the review? Your assertions about changing the rules on verification at the *last minute* are nothing but internet rumor.
I don’t see how making the Gingrich campaign and his supporters look like Soreloserman is the least bit helpful. Newt would do well to muzzle his campaign director and ask his supporters to back off. Hopefully, he will very much need VA in November.
NOTE: this is now being discussed on conservative talk radio in DC, and the reaction is not making Newt sound good. Conservatives aren’t typically into changing the law after the fact when that law doesn’t work in our favor.
We’ll see what develops, information-wise.
Even if the facts you have are accurate, I don’t see how adding 5,000 signatures more than a month before the deadline is that big of deal for a presidential/national campaign.
This was very doable.
And I think it stinks to high heaven to accuse Virginia Republicans who were simply trying to respond to a lawsuit and a perceived problem with the ballot access being too squirrelly of being Soviet-style corruptocrats. Especially since no one would have had a poor word about the process had Gingrinch made it.
Even Gingrich would have been out there saying, too bad others didn’t make it, but the rules are the rules, blah blah blah.
This is one of those times where it would have been much better for him to say, “We worked hard, we didn’t make it, we’re disappointed, but we can win Virginia as a write-in candidate in the general election.”
Again, if this alleged change was unknown to the Gingrich campaign, why did Newt tweet that, after having obtained 10,000 signatures, he was pushing on to get the 15,000?
If he/his campaign thought 10,000 qualified *without review,* then getting the additional signatures *just in case* upon review some signatures were not valid does not make any sense.
IOW, Gingrich tweeted that he had over 10,000 signatures. If he thought the rule was -- as you're saying -- that that was enough to get him on the ballot without review, why the desperate push to keep going for more signatures? His campaign was even trying to pay people to go out and get 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.