« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

So you want to stick it to the VA GOP and help conservative candidates in the process?

By: JSobieski (Diary)  |  December 26th, 2011 at 07:43 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There is a lot of discussion about the VA primary ballot fiasco.  In a lot of ways, this development is a Rorschach test of what is wrong with out country today.  Lots of stupid rules that are used by those in power in play gotcha games with the  governed.  Well, I am a big fan of forcing those in power to swallow that which they force the rest of us digest.

It is noteworthy that few online sources actually quote the entirety of Section 24.2-506 which strikingly fails to provide petition requirement for a Presidential candidate:

§ 24.2-506. Petition of qualified voters required; number of signatures required; certain towns excepted.

The name of any candidate for any office, other than a party nominee, shall  not be printed upon any official ballots provided for the election unless he  shall file along with his declaration of candidacy a petition therefor, on a
form prescribed by the State Board, signed by the number of qualified voters  specified below after January 1 of the year in which the election is held and  listing the residence address of each such voter. Each signature on the petition shall have been witnessed by a person who is himself a qualified voter, or  qualified to register to vote, for the office for which he is circulating the petition and whose affidavit to that effect appears on each page of the petition.

Each voter signing the petition may provide on the petition the last four  digits of his social security number, if any; however, noncompliance with this  requirement shall not be cause to invalidate the voter’s signature on the
petition.

The minimum number of signatures of qualified voters required for candidate petitions shall be as follows:

1. For a candidate for the United States Senate, Governor, Lieutenant  Governor, or Attorney General, 10,000 signatures, including the signatures of at  least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth; [Note the absence of "President" from this list]

2. For a candidate for the United States House of Representatives, 1,000 signatures;

3. For a candidate for the Senate of Virginia, 250 signatures;

4. For a candidate for the House of Delegates or for a constitutional office,  125 signatures;

5. For a candidate for membership on the governing body or elected school  board of any county or city, 125 signatures; or if from an election district not  at large containing 1,000 or fewer registered voters, 50 signatures;

6. For a candidate for membership on the governing body or elected school  board of any town which has more than 1,500 registered voters, 125 signatures;  or if from a ward or other district not at large, 25 signatures;

7. For membership on the governing body or elected school board of any town  which has 1,500 or fewer registered voters, no petition shall be required;

8. For a candidate for director of a soil and water conservation district  created pursuant to Article 3 (§ 10.1-506 et seq.) of Chapter 5 of Title 10.1, 25 signatures; and

9. For any other candidate, 50 signatures.

Rhe requirements for a Presidential candidate are not specifically identified in the statute, it seems like there is room to argue that the requirements for a Presidential candidate are provided in subsection 9 which pertains to “other” offices.  I hate sloppy statute drafting as much as a hate inside politics games playing.   A campaign could use this argument to take on both.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • JSobieski

    shame the VA legislature into changing their statute
    and poking the GOP establishment in the eye all at the same time.

    But I suspect that I will be in the minority on this as well.

    • lineholder

      Okay, so what if it isn’t exactly some sugar-coated total capitulation that completely and totally relieves said candidates from any real or perceived failure to act in a prudent manner and follow the letter of the law to begin with…

      This could work. And that’s a lot better than what we’ve got now.

      Many thanks, JSob

      • JSobieski

        nt

        • lineholder

          evaluate it through and through, determine what it would take, and actually follow through with it this time….

          Yeah, wow, the VA GOP would definitely choke in the process of swallowing this one. But to a certain extent, it is just for it to be that way, JSobieski, because they should have fully implemented the law when it was written rather than dealing with it in a half-[donkey's-backside] way. They do have a certain amount of culpability in this, whether they like it or not.

          • izoneguy

            Since they are not the “establishment” candidates.

          • lineholder

            This may be well worth the trouble it takes, all the way around.

    • David123

      Looks like you’ve found a win-win-win solution for the short term.

      The win-win-win is actually a win for Romney, Gingrich, and Perry if both Gingrich and Perry are put on the ballot based on having achieved at least 50 valid signatures. Gingrich and Perry win because they get to compete for delegates in Virginia. Romney also wins, because if he does get the nomination, it will be much easier for him to unify the party and win the general election if he is perceived as having won the nomination FAIRLY. If the voters in Virginia get to choose among Romney, Paul, Gingrich, and Perry and they choose Romney, fine.

      For the long term, I agree with your post(s) in another thread about having fewer simpler laws. I think there should be a simple uniform nationwide requirement to get on the ballot of each state as a presidential candidate.

    • acat

      Not hard to believe they got it this wrong – with all the money made off of books of “stupid laws you won’t believe” …

      This sharp, pointy stick also points right at the establishment…

      Skewer them!

      Mew

      • izoneguy

        Glaring oversight in Section 24.2-506 of the VA voting code.
        I guess REDSTATE will need to forward this info to the Perry & Gringrich
        campaigns.

        • JSobieski

          but I don’t see why the intentions necessarily matter.

          Number of ways this entire issue is incredibly and offensively stupid

          Laws enacted but not enforced
          Enforcement delegated to political parties to the point of making the laws meaningless
          Laws enacted with sloppy omissions—er ..uh… where is the President listed

          It is precisely these kinds of issues that make me angry

          Rest assured that the in-crowd plays by different rules than the regular folks

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      The Death of Common Sense? They make your point.

  • izoneguy


    ? 24.2-506. Petition of qualified voters required; number of signatures required; certain towns excepted.

    Each voter signing the petition may provide on the petition the last four digits of his social security number, if any; however, noncompliance with this requirement shall not be cause to invalidate the voter’s signature on the petition.

    So what “cause” is Virginia stating that Perry & Gringrich’s signatures were thrown out? It says: noncompliance with this requirement shall not be cause to invalidate the voter’s signature on the petition.

    OK, it looks like Virginia does not even have specific requirements for President under this code. So it looks like this is what applies:

    9. For any other candidate, 50 signatures.

    • JSobieski

      Not address non-compliance.

      Take it up with the non-compliance section of the office of compliance (a Mark Steyn joke)

      • lineholder

        We’ve got more interwoven offices of that sort than people might imagine

    • bzip

      I sure hope Team Perry, Team Newt gets a hold of these findings. Is this really true, it couldn’t be that easy could it…I am just amazed.

      No specific mention of president in this and on top of that, the SSN noncompliance.

      If anyone has contacts to Team Perry, Team Newt make sure they really do read this.

      I can’t believe this.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….and I’m sure it will be coming soon to a courtroom near you. VA just keeps on looking worse and worse with this.

  • satchman3

    24.2-545 seems to address the presidential primary requirements explicitly.

    Are you saying 24.2-506 is in conflict with 24.2-545?

    • JSobieski

      http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-545

      I need to look at this after I get back from the bar.

      ? 24.2-545. Presidential primary.

      A. The duly constituted authorities of the state political party shall have the right to determine the method by which the state party will select its delegates to the national convention to choose the party’s nominees for President and Vice President of the United States including a presidential primary or another method determined by the party. The state chairman shall notify the State Board of the party’s determination at least 90 days before the primary date. If the party has determined that it will hold a presidential primary, each registered voter of the Commonwealth shall be given an opportunity to participate in the presidential primary of the political party, as defined in ? 24.2-101, subject to requirements determined by the political party for participation in its presidential primary. The requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary. The requirements applicable to a party’s primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board.

      B. Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate for whom the petitions are filed. Such petitions shall be filed with the State Board by the primary filing deadline. The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board and shall be sealed in one or more containers to which is attached a written statement giving the name of the presidential candidate and the number of signatures on the petitions contained in the containers. Such person or group shall also attach a list of the names of persons who would be elected delegates and alternate delegates to the political party’s national convention if the person wins the primary and the party has determined that its delegates will be selected pursuant to the primary. The slate of delegates and alternates shall comply with the rules of the national and state party.

      The State Board shall transmit the material so filed to the state chairman of the party of the candidate immediately after the primary filing deadline. The sealed containers containing the petitions for a candidate may be opened only by the state chairman of the party of the candidate. The state chairman of the party shall, by the deadline set by the State Board, furnish to the State Board the names of all candidates who have satisfied the requirements of this section. Whenever only one candidate for a party’s nomination for President of the United States has met the requirements to have his name on the ballot, he will be declared the winner and no presidential primary for that party will be held.

      C. The names of all candidates in the presidential primary of each political party shall appear on the ballot in an order determined by lot by the State Board.

      D. The State Board shall certify the results of the presidential primary to the state chairman. If the party has determined that its delegates and alternates will be selected pursuant to the primary, the slate of delegates and alternates of the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary shall be deemed elected by the state party unless the party has determined another method for allocation of delegates and alternates. If the party has determined to use another method for selecting delegates and alternates, those delegates and alternates shall be bound to vote on the first ballot at the national convention for the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary unless that candidate releases those delegates and alternates from such vote.

      E. The election, or binding of votes, of delegates to a political party’s national convention for the nomination of that party’s candidates for President and Vice President of the United States through the presidential primary process shall be considered to be equivalent to a primary for the nomination of a party’s candidate.

      F. The cost of the presidential primary shall be paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of the appropriation act.

      • JSobieski

        Was this complied with?

        I believe the answer is yes.

        “Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, MAY file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth,”

        Note the word “may” instead of “shall”.

        This statute is a mess.

        • snowshooze

          And take it to the VA. Republicans.
          I am sure they have their own Attorneys on the payroll, and were I either Candidate right now, I would be wondering why I was paying them.
          Rather than a pack of conservative bloggers kicking things about on their own time… .

      • satchman3

        I can’t take credit for finding the statute

        • JSobieski

          The law actually provides for screwing over the insurgent candidate.

          The VA legislature really does need to answer for this.

          • lineholder

            Go back one page, to 24.2-544B. If I’m reading this correctly it says that any information pertaining to filings deadlines has to be provided for access to candidates prior to Aug. 1.

            My question is this: Although this specifically states filings deadlines, wouldn’t it also be applicable if some element of the process required for candidates had been altered? (Such as going from lax to stringent application of the law?)

            The VA GOP didn’t make alterations in the process until Oct 22 (when lawsuit by Independent candidate was filed in court). Do the dates matter here?

      • lizzie

        thought was a separate statute.

        I keep wondering if Gingrich and Perry used the wrong “containers” or maybe there was a problem with their attached “…list of the names of persons who would be elected delegates and alternate delegates to the political party?s national convention…”

        wrong kind of containers, or wrong material used for the “seal” – sound like a hanging chad offense :) Sorry, I used to work in the packaging industry, so I wonder what kind of container and what kind of seal was required.

        well, still think this was a story timed to bolster Romney’s “electability” and “competence” and take Gingrich and Perry down before Iowa.

        wonder if we shall ever know why Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum did not even try to file in Virginia. And whether THAT part of this story will impact Iowa and NH.

  • lizzie

    because almost all the media echo is about the ‘incompetence’ of Gingrich campaign, (and much lesser extent Perry).

    I just watched the FOX ‘news’ interview with Bevan of RealClearPolitics, posted at RCP. That is all they talked about.

    The Christian Science Monitor is the only news source that even tries to make the VA ballot hurdle the main point of their story.

    You watch – after NH, somehow Virginia will – oops- we made a mistake – but the timing of this is dirty politics mostly designed to make ‘electability’ a reason for Iowans to caucus for Romney, or Paul, who is now getting some real dirt echo thrown back at him – another RCP post that goes to his temperament and character.

    This week is all about dinging Gingrich and Paul in Iowa.

    Still, I think there is a different VA statute that covers the ballot access for presidential primaries than the one cited by JSobieski above. But, I am not so well organized. Just glad that RCP suddenly started using Disqus for comments because I have a different screen name in Disqus, and it was a great pleasure to comment on that FOX-Bevan video, using quite a bit of detail from RedState’s coverage of this – you never know how solid comments CAN change the media echo.

    or at least make Paulbots admit that Ron Paul was subject to the Doctor Draft of the Selective Service of 1948 and would never have served in the military otherwise :) That was in Intense Debate.

    If y’all really want to stop Romney and Paul, you have to change the media echo that most people get.

    btw, Larry Sabato now saying this ballot access mess has made the Virginia presidential primary irrelevant.
    .

    .

  • JSobieski

    (1) The requirements are not discretionary—the language is “shall” not “can”. So the GOP really shouldn’t be able to weaken/lower the standard in any way.

    (2) The law does not provide for delegating decision making/enforcement to the political parties. So whatever the GOP said about anything should be irrelevant.

    If the legislature intended for the “requirements” to be only “options” then the statute should say that.

    Can conservatives not see that the true problem is a meaningless law that the state has promised not to enforce, and leaves enforcement to the political parties which benefit from inside baseball?

    The tragedy is not the impact to Perry or Newt—it is a legal system that gives dictatorial power to the insiders and makes it very hard for the outsider to get on the ballot.

    • lineholder

      ,

      • JSobieski

        (1) The GOP probably did comply with the 90 day requirement
        (2) Given the delegation of power to the GOP, why any non-establishment campaign wouldn’t strive to obtain clear legal compliance is puzzling.
        (3) Note use of the word “MAY” instead of the word “SHALL” and the absence of the word requirement.

        • quill67

          I agree with you that this law is a mess. My lawyer friend plays Magic (the gathering) and hewould have a field day with this one. Everyone knows “May” is much different from “shall” or “must”

          That being said, I would imagine a court would go with the of the law but I am sure some lawyer would know what is common in VA.

  • racetraitor

    Now could you send a really nice letter to the Perry campaign on your nice letterhead? (I’m assuming you have nice letterhead; mine was pretty nice, back in the Stoneage when I had a paying job). :)

    I want you to know that I deeply respect your respect for the rule of law. It just gores my ox that the VAGOP slimeballs might get away with their dirty tricks.

    Go Perry!

  • snowshooze

    Riots at party headquarters yet?
    Or in this case, streams of well dressed Attorneys with their clerks in tow? I would hope so.

  • teme

    I think that might mean this section is about if some random independent or member of some non-major party party wants to get on the general elections ticket for some office. Would be hilarious though if presidential general election ticket could be flooded this easily with 50 signatures, maybe there is something in addition.

    “specified below after January 1 of the year in which the election is held and listing the residence address of each such voter.”

    Also the Republican primary signatures had to be collected after July 1, unlike January 1 in this section, so my guess would be this section is about getting your name on general election ticket as non-Republican/non-Democrat candidate.

    • snowshooze

      We have examined at least a half dozen solid pieces of contradictory evidence, and the consensus is that the laws are completely juvinile, haven’t been followed and the sum total is the chaos we are just starting to see.
      You know what you get when you put a bunch of idiots in the same room?
      The Virginia Republican Party.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        Just the Republican Party in general. It ain’t called the stupid party for nothin.

        • snowshooze

          At this point, humiliation is very much on the table as a weapon.

          Those guys deserve everything they get. pfffft.

  • snowshooze

    I saw that Perry claims 6,000 signatures, is he possibly trying to cash out at the observed threshold that had been used by the Democrats of 5,000?
    I am still wondering if he is going to challenge on the 50 signatures required under ” All Others” which appears to be valid.

  • joshdunn

    It’s an interesting idea. I’m glad that you posted the language of the statute.

    My question is: is there enough time for Perry to get onto the ballot even if he wins in court? Don’t the names have to be on the ballot by January 19th so that service personnel overseas can get an accurate ballot? (Pursuant to the MOVE Act)

    I know that there is a deadline for the ballots to be printed. Does anyone know what that deadline is?

    I’m still shocked that Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann all failed to get enough signatures to qualify. It sounds like all 5 of them were asleep at the switch when Paul and Romney were out gathering signatures.

  • joeyjojoshabadoo79

    Perry and Gingrich in particular have absolutely no excuse for not getting the signatures. Ill vote for whoever gets the nom, but this reflects badly on both of them.