Posted on 01/01/2012 7:11:25 PM PST by EDINVA
Email from Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia.
January 1, 2012
Dear Friends and Fellow Virginians,
As many of you read yesterday in the news (link here for the story) I was considering supporting an effort to change the rules to allow the full range of presidential candidates on Virginia's ballot on March 6th.
I obviously feel very strongly that Virginia needs to change its ballot access requirements for our statewide elections. However, after working through different scenarios with Republican and Democratic leaders to attempt to make changes in time for the 2012 Presidential election, my concern grows that we cannot find a way to make such changes fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns that qualified even with Virginia's burdensome system. A further critical factor that I must consider is that changing the rules midstream is inconsistent with respecting and preserving the rule of law - something I am particularly sensitive to as Virginia's attorney general.
My intentions have never focused on which candidates would be benefited or harmed, rather I have focused on what is best for Virginia's citizens, as hundreds of thousands of Virginians who should have been able to make their choices among the full field of presidential primary contenders have had their number of choices reduced significantly.
My primary responsibility is to the people of Virginia, and how best to fulfill that responsibility in these particular circumstances has been a very difficult question for me. I believe consistency on the part of public officials is an important attribute. And I believe that Virginians are best served by an attorney general who consistently supports the rule of law. That leads to my conclusion that while I will vigorously support efforts to reduce the hurdles to ballot access in Virginia for all candidates, I will not support efforts to apply such changes to the 2012 Presidential election.
I do not change position on issues of public policy often or lightly. But when convinced that my position is wrong, I think it necessary to concede as much and adjust accordingly.
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli II Attorney General of Virginia
Really Ken?
Thats interesting as it appears the C.Y.A. letter was created by David Rexrode in MS Word 2010 (right click on pdf and select "Document Properties") on the day after Bill Bolling turned in 16,000 signatures for Romney, December 21st, 2011.
http://www.rpv.org/sites/default/files/2012%20Petition%20Certification%20Process_1.pdf
.
The other GOP candidates yesterday advised the SBE and RPV that they plan to join in Perry’s suit, so that’s the remaining possibility of getting names on the ballots. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and, in fact, by the good Grace of God, am not a lawyer at all, so other than recognizing that the complaint was well crafted, haven’t had my in-house counsel see if it’s on point with the cases cited. Cuccinelli will have to file the answer for SBE, and another attorney for Pat Mullins (who, so far as I recall wasn’t mentioned after the case caption).
It does read like a Complaint that was ‘in the can’ and ready to go if Perry were disqualified, not one drafted after the fact. VA has been under the very watchful eye of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division for eons now, so it’s hard to imagine they let a discriminatory ballot access law go through (but we can ask SC about how ‘discriminatory’ has changed meaning in recent times)
Bolling sure didn’t hold back punches vs. Cuccinelli. This is NOTHING compared to the bloodbath when they go up against each other for the GOP nomination for Governor. Bolling DID step aside so McDonnell could run for Gov in ‘09, so he probably thinks he’s ‘next in line,’ having given up ‘his turn’ in Republican tradition.
Everyone should fasten their seat belts.
I shall not sully my fine computer going to that site !
As mentioned, there remains the challenge in the federal court, so we have to see how that goes. If the law is, in fact, unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional, and the others get on the ballot. Generally, I am far from in favor of changing laws after the fact, R or D, my guy or even a Paul. So we shall see as the case plays itself out in glorious living color.
Everybody is a RINO except for me and Ronald Reagan, and I wasn’t all that sure about Ronnie either.
So much for the very foundation the Commonwealth of Virginia was founded on...cracks galore. Virginia’s primary process stinks. http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/12/romney-raises-cash-virignia/1987651
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/faq/va.asp
Why is Virginia called a commonwealth? What other states are commonwealths?
According to the Hornbook of Virginia History, 4th ed., page 88:
“A commonwealth is ‘a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people.’ The term as an official designation was first used in Virginia during the Interregnum (1649-1660), the period between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II during which parliament’s Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector established a republican government known as the Commonwealth of England. Virginia became a royal colony again in 1660, and the word commonwealth was dropped from the governor’s full title. When Virginia adopted its first constitution in 1776, the term commonwealth was reintroduced, most likely to emphasize that Virginia’s new government was based upon the sovereignty of the people united for the common good, or common weal. The designation commonwealth of Virginia has been used in official records ever since. Three states beside Virginia adopted the appellation commonwealth: Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.”
Mr. Cuccinelli should be a lot more concerned about what is fair to the voters and not the candidates.
The rules were there for all to see and follow. The Republican Party said that if a campaign got over a certain number of signatures, they wouldn't verify. Even Newt said that one of his paid workers committed fraud. Are we now to be the people who say that it isn't fair, so we have to change the rules AFTER the last minute? So the person you wanted on the ballot (and that I wanted on the ballot) didn't make it? They had the same chance, the same rules (yes, the rules were different that 8 years ago, but everyone knew what they were going to be at least a month in advance).
Grow up. It is one primary.
The law is exclusive. Virginia’s primary process is a joke and the rest of the country is looking at it with disdain. So much for the great commonweath. Would bet George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are rolling over in their graves. YES, voting is a priviledge and not a right but many Americans have fought for that priviledge. Too hell with Cucinelli and I did note after the debate he was not fond of Newt. Romney’s bed must be pretty damn big. http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/12/romney-raises-cash-virignia/1987651
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/faq/va.asp
Why is Virginia called a commonwealth? What other states are commonwealths?
According to the Hornbook of Virginia History, 4th ed., page 88:
“A commonwealth is ‘a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people.’ The term as an official designation was first used in Virginia during the Interregnum (1649-1660), the period between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II during which parliament’s Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector established a republican government known as the Commonwealth of England. Virginia became a royal colony again in 1660, and the word commonwealth was dropped from the governor’s full title. When Virginia adopted its first constitution in 1776, the term commonwealth was reintroduced, most likely to emphasize that Virginia’s new government was based upon the sovereignty of the people united for the common good, or common weal. The designation commonwealth of Virginia has been used in official records ever since. Three states beside Virginia adopted the appellation commonwealth: Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.”
So who are you going to vote for in the primary?
This is, after all, the primary, and a Super Tuesday primary at that. The GOP nomination hardly hangs in the balance.
Important as it may seem, really all the primary does is select VA’s delegates to the GOP national convention. It is NOT the general election. Those delegates will be committed to voting for the winner during the first round of voting only. So voting for Paul is probably the better option, at least in this state, as the non-Romney. Not sure *I* can do that, but strategically, it makes sense. For all we know, Paul will be on a 3rd party ticket by the time they hit Tampa and all those delegates would be free to vote as they please.
This should be a wake up call to all the candidates, one of whom WILL be on the ballot in VA in November, to get their ground games good and strong in every competitive state, in every Congressional District, and in every precinct. That’s how Obama won this state in ‘08... great ground work, and from very early on. None of this running around at the last minute like Gingrich and Perry did for the primary ballot. In the long run this fiasco may actually benefit the candidates.
This is the language one would think for a turncoat. Just another attempt,could be successful, to avoid admitting the Virginia code is distinct as to State elections and National primaries. Another example of never trust a lawyer to do what you think he is doing.
I agree that the joined Perry suit is where the action will most likely be.
What a mess.
I was born and raised in Virginia so I wish only the best for the citizens of the Commonwealth.
“Everybody is a RINO except for me and Ronald Reagan, and I wasn’t all that sure about Ronnie either.”
Got that right!!!
needed a chuckle, thanks.
Not sure who you are addressing, but it surely isn’t I.
Unfair to Romney and Paul? Who gives a blank? This is not about the candidates but about the voters. Since many Virginians are horrified to learn about the rules in place to give unfair advantages to establishment candidates, it would seem never to be too late to make it fair to the voters.
Not sure why Cuccinelli caved after an entire week of thinking and studying this and suddenly deciding it would be unfair to poor Romney and Paul. Really strange to me.
Why are the rules in Virginia set up to make it difficult for candidates without establishment backing to get on the ballot? Well its obvious that the powers that be want to keep that power. The parties want to be in control over whom their cndidates will be and not let that control be in the hands of the electorate.
Yes, many VA voters are only now learning about the state’s ballot access law. BUT, the candidates - or at least their campaign managers - knew the VA law since at least the time they announced. Most of those managers have known for several election cycles. They knew the fairly standard rules the RPV would follow for two months.
Remember, these campaign managers are professionals who work campaigns for a living. They know the ins and outs of politics and election laws, how campaigns are (or should be) run. They knew what they had to do and didn’t get the job done. They let down their candidates and the voters.
I’m not buying that either Perry or Newt isn’t an ‘establishment candidates’ for purposes of this discussion. Gingrich was once Speaker of the House, and 2rd in line of succession to the presidency, behind only the VPOTUS. Perry is and has been governor of one of the biggest states in the Union for 12 years. They are not novices. Perry certainly has never, since the day he announced, been without vast funds behind him. It might make sense for a Santorum or Bachmann not to expend their scant resources to get on the VA ballot, but Perry, and to a lesser extent Newt, are not in that category. There’s really no excuse.
The only thing that will get them on the ballot now is if the subsection of the law that’s being challenged in Perry’s suit that Newt and the others are joining is deemed unconstitutional. Interestingly, they are not challenging the 10K signatures/addresses, etc., but only that the law requires the signature collector to be a qualified voter in VA. Who knows how that will turn out?
Once again, its not about which campaign did or did not do the right thing in getting on the ballot. Its about voters being denied the right to pick the candidate.
The political parties wanted the rules to be like this so that they can be in control. Its all about control and thats how the Republicans have come up with such horrible candidates in the past.
The Republican Party of Virginia is ramming Mitt Romney down our throats pure and simple and in the end Virginia might not turn red after all.
But as long as the party gets to maintain conrol, that is more important than beating the democrats and I believe that wholehearedly.
Cuccinlli should have kept his mouth shut on this matter completely rather than go through the motions of pretending to care about the disenfranchised voters and then changing his story to now care about being fair to Romney and Paul.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about the party wanting to control who gets on the ballot. The party gains nothing by having a limited selection, and I am sure going into the verification process everyone involved assumed they would emerge with four candidates. Tho, I would also bet there was a good deal of concern when Perry and Gingrich presented under 12K raw signatures.
I agree Cuccinelli should have talked around his idea privately before going public with it, and then having to backtrack, but I don’t believe he was pretending. He was trying to come up with a viable solution, and the way to do that ultimately is through the legislature, not the party or the courts.
But the idea of changing the law AFTER the contest is against everything we conservatives claim to believe in. Actually, the ‘rule of law’ IS more important than allowing any and all candidates on the ballot, and the public’s right to vote for them. It’s up to the candidates, not the state or the party, to qualify to get on the ballot.
Think of this: after the 2000 election, all the moaning and groaning from the Dems that has not stopped to this day, with “selected, not elected,” “Bush STOLE the election,” etc. After the fact, their argument as and is: Gore won the popular vote. As if he didn’t enter the contest full well knowing it’s about electoral votes. It wasn’t till that election that many voters even had a CLUE that the president is elected by the Electoral College, and that they, the voters, are NOT voting for president but for a slate of electors to the Electoral College. Much less did they know that in each state the EVs go to whomever has the majority of votes in that state. But, oh, they wanted that whole Electoral College thing changed retroactively. For the benefit of the majority of voters nationwide. It just doesn’t work like that if we are to live under the Rule of Law.
Fair question. Since write-ins aren't allowed, the choices are (a) Romney, (b) Paul, or (c) don't vote.
I'll have to wait and see how the early primaries go. If Paul fades to single digits in the early primaries I'll vote for him, just to keep Romney from getting VA's delegates. If, however, Paul does well in the early primaries, I'll go with option (a) or (c).
I despise Paul, but would vote for him as a protest, only if he had zero chance of actually winning the nomination.
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.