The law has been in place, unaltered, since 1999. Whatever happened to the "rule of law" crowd.
Posted on 12/26/2011 8:40:42 AM PST by TBBT
Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News has an EXTREMELY interesting post (link via here) on the mess that the Virginia Republican party has found itself in over… access to the ballot in Virginia. For those coming in late, background here and here: the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done. There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.
One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed. In November of this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
The Republican committee in VA needs to be replaced. We can’t tolerate this Chicago-style underhandedness.
When I heard this news, I knew that the ‘fix’ was in.
It seems that TPTB don’t even want to take a chance that
Myth might not win the primary.
The law has been in place, unaltered, since 1999. Whatever happened to the "rule of law" crowd.
>>> Passing the 10000/400 verified threshold is tough. Especially getting the 400+ sigs in the 90% Dem districts back when Newt was polling around 5-7% before Cain imploded. Searching for an eligible registered Newt voter in the NOVA DC-area before November would have been like searching for silver dimes on the sidewalk. >>>
You are correct, and shows how STUPID this rule is to begin with. That two of the top four missed it shows it also. The only reason for this rule is to keep the ballot from being junked up by fringe candidates.
Now whether even that is a legit concern is a separate debate - but that 5 of the 7 missed the mark demonstrates that the rule failed in its objective. In a fast changing primary season, a 90 day period can change everything meaning the deadline was arbitrary and counter productive.
Which goes to my main point, which is that this is a ridiculous and expensive waste of time on everybody’s part. We can’t sit here on the one hand and b-tch about the money in politics and then turn around and support a stupid bureaucratic process which takes tons of money for each candidate to do and tons more for the party to monitor.
The whole thing, like most government bureaucracies, is a friggin counter productive and expensive waste of time.
Yet some so called conservatives are supporting it.
Nobody’s whining here. It is called debate, and if it is over your head I invite you to leave.
And FTR, the “rule of law” crowd NEVER supports arbitrary and un necessary counter productive laws - because to do so is to empower the bureaucrat over the citizen and also to cheapen the legitimate laws.
This is an anti-liberty pro establishment pro incumbent pro connection law that flies in the face of every conceivable conservative principle of limited government.
But you love it. Your colors are exposed.
It is a law that a second grade school kid can understand. I think that may be where you’re having trouble.
>> It is a law that a second grade school kid can understand. I think that may be where you’re having trouble. >>
No body argued that - which you know - but everything you’ve said to date has been nuked.
And I’ll nuke this comment too. You have just stated that any law that can be understood is a good law. Roe V Wade can be understood. The power of the IRS can be understood. Laws against right to work provisions can be understood. EEOC laws can be understood. You just sunk any cred you had (which was little) by stating that any law that can be understood is therefore good.
I fully understand the law - which is really more of a party rule - and I understand how silly it is, how arbitrary it is, and how it absolutely does not accomplish what is purports to accomplish.
Any decent person would stand up against such a law or a rule. I guess that leaves you out.
The law is the law until it's changed. Wanna change it go ahead. Until then, ignorance is no excuse.
You keep changing your story and missing the point. I suspect it’s because if you actually tried to take on an intellectual debate, the weaknesses of your argument would be right there for even you to see (everyone else has already seen it).
I have nuked every point you have made. You have failed to respond to any of my points - you merely change the subject. That’s what folks do when way over their heads. That’s where you are.
Until you can actually process some point I have made and counter it, I am done (and very bored) with you.
“...The law has been in place, unaltered, since 1999...”
-
VA Code does not include a requirement to collect addresses for signatures:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-545
“Yes, Good point, This Virginia situation is a HUGE mess. There are MANY problems with what the RPV has done. “
Why would organizations for candidates collect just enough signatures, and not keep going until they were absolutely sure they had enough that would stand scrutiny?
This is a failure of political organization, in my opinion. While this is Virginia, after all, and everyone is surprised when something changes, isn’t there a rational adult in the Gingrich or Perry campaigns that could stand up and say “let’s collect 15,000 signatures and be sure of success”?
Romney did what every campaign should have done - collect to the level where you can be sure you have enough signatures. Why did Gingrich and Perry have junior-league campaign staff in Virginia? Did they not really want their candidate to have a secure spot on the primary ballot? What stopped them from doing the same thing that Romney staff did?
Is that not a fair question to be asking? I’m not voting for Romney - but you have to admit his campaign staff did what they should have under Virginia Statutes - they didn’t have to worry about any variables - they got it done. Why didn’t Gingrich or Perry staff get it done?
Sorry, but you haven’t done anything to my argument, i.e., a law is a law that needs to be followed until changed. No one has taken issue with it before in its entire history. I understand that you don’t like the outcome here. But that’s not outcome determinative. The law was applied equally here, and your guy (which one of the five I don’t know) came up short. Too bad for you, but it has no impact on whether the law has application here. Your nukes are but mosquitoes buzzing around my ear.
Nonsense. We have 11 Congressional Districts in Va. Currently the Dems hold three seats out of the 11. The idea that any of these districts are 90% Democrat is pure bunk. And all you need are registered voters regardess of party status including independents.
There is no voter registration by political party in Virginia. Any registered voter may vote in the presidential primary election. However, no voter shall vote for the candidate of more than one political party. There are over 5 million registered voters in VA.
“So, under the new rules, Newt and Perry just didn’t tell a big enough lie. “
Or maybe they were lazy.
Or maybe they really didn’t care about their candidate to do what was necessary.
Or maybe they just were in it for the free sandwiches & coffee
These are much more likely than a Romney conspiracy.
Nobody prevented Gingrich or Perry from collecting enough signatures to reach the unquestioned 15,000 threshold.
Failure to reach that threshold is a campaign staff screw-up of epic proportions.
See Post #71. Address info is specifically required.
Under VA law there are two tracks to get on the ballot.
The first track is party choice. The party can use whatever arbitrary rules they want. For example, the party could state anyone who got on the last ballot is automatically on the next ballot (grandfathered in).
The second track is to submit 10,000/400 verified signatures that jump all the hoops required by the state. The second track has been in place since 1999.
If you can pass either track #1 or track #2 you are on the ballot.
Under the track #1 the VA GOP decided that anybody who submits 10000/400 sigs is in, with no checking of the sigs. This was the VA GOP rules in 2008. Since all the 2008 candidates submitted 10000/400 sigs nobody was checked.
Because of the Osborse lawsuit in October, the VA GOP decided to change their track #1 rule, raising it to 15000/600.
Newt submitted only 11,000 and thus fell out of track #2. Newt was bounced because he also didn’t pass track #1.
The point is until now *nobody* has ever required to pass the much more stringient track #1 rule. Yes it has been on the books since 1999 but it has never been enforced until now for either party (AFAIK).
Swap #1 and #2 in the last two paragraphs above. (Preview is your friend.. preview is your friend..)
Must, on each page, provide an affidavit signed under oath by the person who circulated it that s/he personally witnessed the affixing of the signature of each voter on the page and that s/he is registered, or eligible to be registered, to vote in Virginia.
Note that a circulator cannot witness his own signature. Falsely signing this affidavit is a felony under Virginia law.
The petition NEVER can be left unattended.
And so far no one has caught me as I whiz down the highway at 85 mph every morning. Sorry, I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that Mitt and Paul orchestrated this all. If anything, they have the two best organizations and were able to adapt to the change. Hell, if Ron Paul can do it, any other idiot can, in fact one other idiot did!
>>> a law is a law that needs to be followed until changed. No one has taken issue with it before in its entire history. >>>
Sooooo many problems with what you say.
First, the “entire history” - puh leeze. This is the FIRST cycle where any signatures have been thrown out. Second, this is only the SECOND cycle where it applied (04 there was no primary). So that’s a stupid argument on your part, the “entire history.” Really.
Second, the notion that laws need to be followed regardless of how stupid they are until changed misses the point on so many levels. First, laws are almost always changed AFTER someone is agrieved by them and almost NEVER changed until then. So you show an incredible lack of history here. Second, this law is not being applied AS NEVER APPLIED before meaning it is on shaky legal grounds itself. And third, the law is arbitrary and counter productive. Conservative, of which you are clearly NOT one, never stand up for such laws.
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.