Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit

CNN ^

[smoothsailing]

December 31, 2011

Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit

Kevin Liptak

(CNN) - Four candidates left off the Virginia Republican primary ballot joined Rick Perry Saturday in suing the state's board of elections over laws they say are "unconstitutional."

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum joined the lawsuit, originally filed Tuesday, challenging provisions that determine who can appear on the primary ballot.

All five candidates filing the lawsuit failed to qualify for the ballot.

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping and info.

[Future Useless Eater]

Then I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

You’ve made good points.
FUE

[Future Useless Eater]

For non-pres, it says: 10,000 50 signatures, including the signatures of at least 400 qualified voters from each... Okay, sounds like mickey mouses can apply, as long as there are 400 real non-mickey-mouse voters per district. I’d go out on a limb a bit on this, as it depends on what the meaning of “qualified” is - but I’m assuming somewhere else it defines it as a current registered R/U.

Not quite... in the law describing the requirements for petition collections for non-Presidential Primaries ( § 24.2-506 ), it spells out legal demands of the voter that assist in the 'qualify'ing of that signature (a resident address). But not everyone likes disclosing their home address on a petition.

In the procedure for Presidential Primaries, they do not have to. The legislature specifically left out that requirement that the voter must provide their address. Therefore it is optional like the SSN. But the SBE/RPV overstepped their authority by requiring and checking that item.

Oh, BTW, I crossed out some of what you said and corrected it, because IF they want to try to apply the non-pres procedure to the pres primary petitions, then the quantity needing to contain the "resident address" is 50 signatures. It is line item 9 in the law.

As far as dealing with the "mickey mouse" signatures, why not throw the book at the gatherer who verified that signer's ID and notarized that signature as being legitimate under the penalty of perjury? That would be a felony to let that pass even once. Don't we use prison time as a deterrent anymore?

I would guess the legislator's intent was that if the candidates collected X number in good faith, and the gatherer/witness risked their notary license and prison by swearing the signature was legitimate, that all these petitions collected would be presumed valid as-is and certified on the date they were turned in as long as there were not obvious errors, missing signatures, missing notary stamps, etc. Then all of that should be followed up at a later date by someone in the SOS office, scrutinizing a sample of every candidate's petitions, and prosecuting any notary/witness that perjured himself. <-- we probably stopped doing this, first in Illinois, and now nation-wide.

The difference being, if someone cheats to help get an additional person ON the ballot, that does not dis-enfranchise the voter. (and a cheater could be identified later and sent to prison.)
But if someone games the system like Obama is famous for, to cheat and knock competitors OFF the ballot, then voters ARE dis-enfranchised, and THAT is a much bigger problem.

Then as to the qualifications of the gatherer, if they WERE to improperly apply the non-presidential primary procedure, then the gatherer must be registered to vote for the office of president, or qualified to register to vote for the office of president (so even with THAT improper application of the wrong law, an out of state gatherer should be acceptable). And if you apply the proper procedure, § 24.2-545, then there is no requirement at all as to who can gather the signatures. Someone could legally hire ex-con's to collect Presidential Primary petitions, and I am sure that democ'RATS wanted it that way.

The RPV office should be purged over this because they started this whole mess by demonstrating obvious crony-favoritism: by scrutinizing one candidate they did not like (Osborne) and not scrutinizing his opponent(s) to the same degree.

[TheOldLady]

Happy New Year to you too, darlin’!

My highest aspiration is to be a Texan. Just an honorary one at the moment, but it seems that all the FReepers I like a lot live in Texas. Y’all are just the sweetest bunch of friendly folks.

[potlatch]

How sweet of you and I’ll make you a DOUBLE Honorary Texan!!
I honestly believe that Texans are the most friendly people, maybe it’s something in the water, lolol.

[TheOldLady]

Thank you. It is indeed an honor.

[gitmo]

The article doesn’t explain how the rules are supposed to be unconstitutional. I hate these candidates didn’t make it, but I don’t see their basis for a legal challenge.

[trumandogz]

“The article doesn’t explain how the rules are supposed to be unconstitutional. I hate these candidates didn’t make it, but I don’t see their basis for a legal challenge.”

Exactly. No one has been able to specify why or how the actions of Virginia were unconstitutional. And while the candidates have no basis for a legal challenge, there only hope is that the state party somehow gets the state to rescind previous legislative decisions.

In other words, there are some people who strongly advocate States’ Rights and find the Federal Court’s meddling in a state’s election process repugnant, who are now opposing Virginia’s right to define their election laws and wanting an activist federal judge to alter a legislative decision in Virginia.

[gitmo]

Courts have traditionally been reticent to meddle in party rules. They view them as generally outside the pervue of the law.

[smoothsailing]

This isn’t about “rules” and has nothing to do with the VAGOP. It’s about VA election law. See post #27.