Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit
CNN ^

Posted on 12/31/2011 2:00:50 PM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: iowa; ricksantorum; va2012; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 last
To: Future Useless Eater

Thanks for the ping and info.


101 posted on 01/01/2012 1:27:18 PM PST by potlatch (*snip*~ Having the right to be angry does not give one the right to be cruel. ~*snip*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer

Then I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

You’ve made good points.
FUE


102 posted on 01/01/2012 3:01:16 PM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: C210N
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.


103 posted on 01/01/2012 5:02:44 PM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

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.


104 posted on 01/01/2012 7:36:20 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

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.


105 posted on 01/01/2012 8:29:51 PM PST by potlatch (*snip*~ Having the right to be angry does not give one the right to be cruel. ~*snip*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: potlatch

Thank you. It is indeed an honor.


106 posted on 01/01/2012 10:43:11 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

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.


107 posted on 01/01/2012 10:50:23 PM PST by gitmo (Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle.-Ralph Peters NY Post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.”

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.


108 posted on 01/02/2012 1:36:11 AM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Courts have traditionally been reticent to meddle in party rules. They view them as generally outside the pervue of the law.
109 posted on 01/02/2012 6:29:07 AM PST by gitmo (Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle.-Ralph Peters NY Post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: gitmo

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


110 posted on 01/02/2012 8:17:37 AM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson