Posted on 01/17/2012 3:31:51 PM PST by Quicksilver
A federal appeals court in Virginia today denied an emergency request by Republican presidential hopefuls Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich to be placed on the ballot for the Virginia primary.
After failing to get the required 10,000 signatures necessary to be placed on the ballot, the two candidates argued that Virginias strict ballot law was unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with a lower court and ruled today that the candidates had waited too long to file their suit.
The court ruled unanimously that Perry and the other candidates had every opportunity to challenge the various Virginia ballot requirements at a time when the challenge would not have created the disruption that this last-minute lawsuit has.
The court said that if it had ruled in favor of Perry, then it would encourage other candidates for president who knew the requirements and failed to satisfy them to seek at a tardy and belated hour to change the rules of the game.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So, "primary" is referred to in the 24th Amendment ~ (knocking that one out of the ball park) ~ and whether or not party primaries may be closed, or not, Virginia's Republican primary is not closed. We don't even have party registration here.
Try to keep your comments regarding Virginia within the realm of Virginia possibilities. Stuff that's possible in Massachusetts (I presume you live there) just doesn't go on here.
The Virginia case is about ballot access in a primary, which is not addressed in the Constitution.
However, I understand that we will continue to have agitators who will go to a Federal Court and beg an Activist Judge to dictate to a state how they should run elections.
We see it now with the Obama administration suing South Carolina for their Voter ID law and we see it now with Rick Perry suing Virginia.
You really need to pay attention here.
What the 24th seeks to do is eliminate the poll tax. That is it's purpose. At the same time it makes the term "primary" relevant to the Constitution as a whole ~
That's the Founders letting the cat out of the bag about OTHER ELECTIONS and processes actually existing that serve to elicit candidates for these great offices from the broad masses of the people.
I think you were arguing, implicitly, that the Constitution takes no official notice of primary elections at the state level ~ which, of course, is just BS.
I'm sure there's some slick lawyer out there who can make a successful argument to the court that what Virginia is up to is effectively a POLL TAX of some sort. Just a matter of time.
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.