« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Did the VA GOP change the rules on primary ballot access in November 2011?

[Apparently, yes.]

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 26th, 2011 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Richard Winger over at Ballot Access News has an EXTREMELY interesting post (link via here) on the mess that the Virginia Republican party has found itself in over… access to the ballot in Virginia. For those coming in late, background here and here: the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done. There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.

One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed.  In November of this year.

Winger’s article is too long to reproduce here, so I’ll summarize it: prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law. So, for example, Alan Keyes (a popular negative example for people making the ‘any competent campaign’ argument) apparently did not actually have his petitions checked in 2000 and 2008; absent going back and looking at the paperwork (assuming that it even still exists), there’s no way to tell whether he would have survived the scrutiny of 2012. And that’s true of every other candidate who has appeared on the primary ballot in Virginia. None of them qualify for an apples-to-apples comparison – and this remains true no matter how many signatures were collected. If you know that your signatures will not be checked if you get above 10K, you are simply operating in a fundamentally different environment than one where you know that your signatures will be checked.

So what happened? Osborne v. Boyles. On October 24th independent state delegate candidate Michael Osborne filed suit against the Republican party of Virginia (specifically, Fifth District GOP Chairman Brandon Boyles) because of this policy: as the article notes, “the law simply requires that party-affiliated candidates present their petitions to the local party chairman – in this case Boyles – who is responsible for reviewing the petition signatures on their own. It does not dictate how thorough this review must be or give state officials any power to challenge it.” The case is still pending – interestingly, the election that this lawsuit was ostensibly addressing has come and gone – but according to Winger the VA GOP decided in response to bump up from 10K to 15K the threshold for simply deeming the requirements as being met. The complications of it being the day after Christmas makes final confirmation of all of this difficult, but Osborne v. Boyles is an actual case and Richard Winger is one of the go-to guys on the arcane subject of ballot access: what I can check out about this story I have checked out.

As for the implications… well, I think that John Fund’s general comment is correct: this is going to go to the courts. John was not discussing this specific wrinkle, but his larger point that Virginia’s ballot access policies have systemic problems gets a big boost when it turns out that the state party can effectively increase by fifty percent the practical threshold for ballot access – in a day, and in the middle of an existing campaign. The VA GOP still retains ultimate control over who gets on the ballot, of course. But then, they always have – and under the current system they could in fact brazen it out and certify Gingrich and Perry anyway. Of course, that would probably mean another lawsuit anyway; but then, there really isn’t a path out of here that doesn’t involve lawsuits.

But that’s a matter for the courts and the party leadership. On the activist level; as noted above, there has been a certain argument used to defend the VA GOP. It’s an argument that accuses two Presidential campaigns of being ignorant of conditions on the ground… and it turns out that the people using that argument may themselves be guilty of being ignorant of conditions on the ground. If it is true that the Republican party of Virginia decided in November of 2011 to increase the threshold for automatic certification from 10K to 15K, then it is reasonable to suggest that this was a change that unfairly rewarded candidates who had previously run for President in Virginia. Even if you dispute that, if this story checks out then it is still completely unreasonable to compare the Gingrich/Perry campaigns to any historical Presidential campaign in Virginia: if this was 2008 or 2000, they’d both be on the ballot themselves and the subject wouldn’t have even come up. And anyone who still tries to use that argument needs to understand that doing so simply makes them look foolish, instead of the Presidential campaigns that they’re pretty much trying to assault. Put another way… I know that this statement will grate on some people, but here goes: there are some defenders of the VA GOP decision out there who need to start apologizing for their, ah, over-enthusiasm. Whether or not they think that it’s fair, or whether anybody’s apologizing to them, or really anything else.

Because… karma. It’s what’s for dinner.

Moe Lane

PS: Let me take this time to repeat my earlier recommendation to the Romney campaign that they request that the VA GOP check their signatures, too. The deadline for certification is tomorrow; and even as it stands now it is unlikely that the VA GOP will certify anyone besides Romney or Paul. If the Romney campaign wants to have any distance from the VA GOP at all on this issue, it is running out of time to ensure that.

PPS: Some of my colleagues feel that the real, underlying problem here is that the Commonwealth of Virginia should have changed its election laws to reflect the  (valid, in my opinion) issues brought up in the original Osborne v. Boyles lawsuit.  I actually agree with that; there is something definitely odd about having rigorous restrictions on a party candidate’s access to the ballot that are enforced by the parties themselves.  But the laws weren’t changed; the internal rules were, and on short notice.  And I expect that there’s going to be additional, equally valid lawsuits over that.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sunshinek67

    nt

  • Common_Cents

    This is ridiculous. Romney and Paul should be calling for it.

  • acat

    This pretty much destroys the notion that nothing changed.

    This also raises the interesting question of just why Romney and Paul would have gone ahead and exceeded the pre-November limit by 50%, in a “what did they know, and when did they know it?” sort of way.

    In Paul’s case, it may have been because his supporters are notably more likely to fail a challenge, so a 50% margin may have been comfortable for them.

    That leaves the question of who told Romney what the new “get on the ballot free” metric was, and why the other campaigns weren’t *also* told of it.

    Mew

  • David123

    All significant candidates would include Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum, and maybe Cain.

    It doesn’t hurt anything to have plenty of people on the ballot, and that allows VOTERS to select the most qualified person running.

    Virginia’s arbitrary signature requirements have no relationship to being a qualified president. Under Virginia’s rules, Ron Paul is more “qualified” to be president than Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, and Santorum, The most important job of the president is to defend America, and since Ron Paul doesn’t mind if the nutcases in Iran get atomic bombs, he is much less qualified than anyone else running.

  • teme

    So why did according to this 2008 RS post by Erick the 6 campaigns who made it to the VA ballot collected 15k votes, if 10k was enough for automatic qualification?

    http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/why_is_the_gop_losing_virginia_blame_the_republican_party_of_virginia_a_case_study_in_idiocy

    “Romney, Fred, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul all filed over 15,000 signatures each – well above the recommended minimums.”

  • crosley

    instead of just automatically assuming that all 10k signatures were valid. And we’re supposed to be the political party that demands the law do more to make sure voters are valid and who they say they are?

    Also, as someone who’s worked on numerous campaigns, you NEVER meet the minimum signature requirement with only a 10% margin for error. That’s amateur hour nonsense, especially for campaigns that are well funded and have been around the block a few times.

    The campaigns that fell short screwed up, plain and simple.

  • NeoKong

    Is there nobody in the VA.GOP that actually talks to any of these candidates and actually offers to help keep things running smoothly….?
    Can somebody pick up the damn telephone once in a while ?

    For example. I am certain that there were people who were saying to others at work or after work while having a beer “I don’t know if they know. But I tell ya’…someone is gonna’ have a problem if they don’t check their totals…”

    They are on the same damn side fer’ crissakes.
    Can somebody please start running things in a more organized manner….?
    Seriously….I just can’t think of anywhere the GOP or the candidates are not embarrassing themselves on a daily basis.
    It is sad to watch.

    Can’t we do better…?

  • http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Connie+Hair Connie Hair

    Establishment GOP wants Romney and it is readily apparent they will cheat to achieve that outcome–not to mention VA Gov. Bob McDonnell wants to be Romney’s veep.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    If thi is true its the smoking gun that says the VA GOP is in error and not the campaigns. Both campaigns did more than what other campaigns did to get on. They presented over 10,000 signatures each.

    By prior rules they would have been deemed to have met the requirements. Changing requirements mid-stream violates and enters a thicket of equal protection constitutional issues. If VAP GOP doesnt change it WILL go to courts in a fruitless and pointless argument over whether two leading national candidates should get the same place on the ballot that folks like Alan Keyes once got.

    If they could change the rules in Nov 2011, they can change them NOW and allow anyone with 10,000 valid signatures (even if they missed some formalities on the form) to get on the ballot.

  • seanl

    The Republican establishment will use every unsavory tactic at their disposal to get Romney nominated, even if it requires lying, cheating, or stealing.

  • westcoastpatriette

    remedy should come from inside the party–if there is any integrity left in the VAGOP. This is a disgusting outrage and smacks of slimy inside game-playing that will only further divide the Party as it appears that certain self-serving goals take priority over fairness and equal access. This situation screams out for justice. Are you listening, VAGOP?

  • acat

    The VA GOP have done a very poor job of acting like they are impartial in this.

    The appearance of favoritism combined with the holiday news blackout is making them look remarkably stupid.

    Mew

  • woggie

    TPers nationally turn OFF and GOP nationally loses. book it!

  • btpull

    “Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign
    a petition, it is recommended that 15,000 – 20,000 signatures
    be obtained with at least 700 signatures from each
    congressional district.”

    http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/20120306PrimaryBulletin.pdf

  • romansdaughter

    they didn’t even try to be on the ballot. But Perry and Newt should be on cause the whole thing is starting to sound really dishonest. Especially when we are all hearing that Romney’s VA chairman is on the group to verify. There is something smelly in all of this. And Cain isn’t running anymore so no Cain shouldn’t be on the ballot.

  • JSobieski

    The legislature made the rules for what constitutes “significant”

  • buster93

    Yep I just responded to this . I agree it was called clearing the playing field.!!!

  • westcoastpatriette

    **

  • Scope

    who Romney’s VA chair is, have you? Not only is the optic bad that Romney has the current sitting VA Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling a bit bad, but everyone seems to be forgetting that it was in fact the VA GOP who helped get him elected, and he obviously works very closely with them. Bolling is running for the Governor’s seat in 2013, and of course it will be the VA GOP that will be helping him to win that election. It will be interesting to see what the VA GOP does with the fact that Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli is challenging Bollings next in line position, which unfortunately the Gov. McDonnell has already played his hand in with endorsing Bolling over Cuccinelli.

    Check out Cuccinelli’s 2013 website at www.cuccinelli .com, and you will see the blub he has written about the past deal made between McDonnell and Bolling, that Cuccinelli said he was not aware of until it was made public.

  • heraklios

    and millions of conservatives, Evangelicals and Republican leaning independents won’t, ever. To nominate a big government loving, nationaliszed health care loving, pro-abortion, Gordon Gekkoesque creature of Wall Street given the conditions our country faces in 2012 is suicidal, yet, the Establishment doesn’t seem to care. Combine this with the Establishment’s complete sell-out of conservatives in the debt ceiling and payroll tax holiday debates and you really start to wonder which side the Establishment is on. Certainly, not my side.

  • sunshinek67

    English 101 should fix that for you guys~

  • NeoKong

    We haven’t had any debates where a candidate was left out.

    “Oh Mr. Gingrich….? Well he didn’t submit an e-mail response by 5PM Monday night. Sorry but we cannot include him in the debate”.

    Is nobody embarrassed by this?
    Is the VA. GOP really going to put on a primary where 80% of the candidates are not included and not hold their heads in shame…?
    Come on now.
    Can we seriously not come to an agreement amongst all involved and just stop all this silliness ?

    “But NeoKong…what do you want from us…? All we do is run the damn thing. You can’t blame it on us. It’s not our job to make sure everybody knows the requirements. Other people are responsible for that. If we hold a primary that does not involve most of the candidates then is that really our fault ?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I mean, you were happy to do so, back when you were under the mistaken impression that the rules hadn’t changed.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk.

  • acat

    One of a few reasons why I’m not terribly impressed with McDonnell…

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Bachmann & Huntsman are “significant” candidates? Santorum???? And for god’s sake, Cain?

    Bachmann, who I had high hopes for, is a twit. Huntsman has never gotten traction and Santorum is just a pathetic candidate, he wouldn’t carry PA. And then there’s Cain. Sheesh.

    I’m sure you wouldn’t like my list of “significant” candidates either, and I’m fine with that, and THAT is the reason there are filing requirements. Hell, I’d leave Paul off the ballot because he’s not a Republican.

  • bdirks

    But Perry is polling at 1% in New Hampshire, 5% in South Carolina, and, about $5 million later, 12% in Iowa.

    I know he probably polls in the high 70′s among avid RedState posters, but has anyone considered that there just aren’t 10,000 people in Virginia who actually want him on the ballot?

  • sunshinek67

    on the “inevitable electable” one. Coreless and unelectable, a serial political loser with a sizable bankroll, well funded by vulture-venture capitalism. Gingrich coined it right, Rockefeller Republican. I stand by my earlier assessment, he lacks the social intelligence to connect with a vast majority populace that is no where near the top 1%. I would love to see an uprising of the electorate that says on Primary Voting Day, Mitt Romney your millions failed to buy our vote.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    is why we’ll likely never lose the very apt moniker “the Stupid Party”.

  • acat

    Regardless of whether you agree with Johnson’s policies, the fact is the debate rules were written to include Huntsman but exclude Johnson … and now this.

    We need a better grade of establishment.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    :D

  • buster93

    Good luck then. Isn’t JOBS the issue. I am blessed to live in Texas. While o everyone is complaining about lean times I will just be sitting back with a margarita and chillin.!!!

  • cheetah2

    The point is the threshold was raised one month ago. We heard that Gingrich and Perry were scrambling to get more signatures at the last minute. This supports the idea that the threshold was raised when it was too late for them to make the higher cut off to avoid having the signatures all checked.

    The notion that all the signatures SHOULD be verified is valid, but no one can be faulted for working with the system that is currently in place. It would be smart to get just enough to escape scrutiny if that is allowed by the rule that is in place. The problem for Perry and Gingrich is that apparently the rule was changed in a way that made it impossible for them to do so.

    This is so much easier for me to believe than that the Perry Campaign was incompetent or that Gingrich didn’t know enough to get on the ballot in his own home state.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Here. Nobody’s suggesting that Perry’s likely to WIN Virginia, but assuming that there’s at least another 500K voters in this year’s GOP primary the math very easily suggests that even Perry’s 6% would translate into more than 10K votes.

    I assume that I don’t need to write out the math?

  • explodinghead

    I take major issue with the fact that if you haave in excess of 14,999 signatures, then none of them are checked for validity. This seems to encourage voter fraud Chicago-style, or Wisconsin recall-style. It would seem that Perry and Gingrich should have gotten 3,100 signatures of Mickey Mouse and they would have been fine. Too bad that they are honest folks. A sad day for the people of Virginia.

  • cheetah2

    The point is that it looks like the VA GOP were cheater pants by changing the rules at the last minute. Besides this affects Gingrich too who is in the lead in VA polls I believe.

  • lizzie

    although Politico has picked up the “did the VAGOP rules change” this morning, which, for once, is good, because, in what can be an ironic twist of fate, the liberal media might just take aim at the VA GOP, changing the echo away from ‘Gingrich’s absence of a competent campaign’, which continues to be the echo this morning..
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/12/how-do-you-like-those-ballot-restrictions-now-108635.html

    I read thru a link at FreeRepublic that VA state law does NOT require voter address when it is a ballot access petition for the presidential primary.

    news.google “Virginia ballot access rules” and Moe Lane’s RedState post is a big hit!

    The reason it is important to change the media echo away from Gingrich, and Perry’s, ‘absence of ground game’, and onto whether the VA GOP changed the rules, and how did they disqulaify more than 20% of names in the dark of night is how this story MIGHT affect Iowa’s caucusgoers.

    What a slimy distraction in a week where the campaign should be about real issues.

    It is insane that the GOP is force-feeding Romney, and allowing Ron Paul to be the main scare tactic to enable force-feeding Romney because he is NOT electable, just next-in-line rich guy who does not even know that he does NOT understand the economy..

    This is no way to have a democracy. or find presidential leadership.

    Last night, I was trying to remember the details of how this same issue helped derail Hillary in 2008 – her campaign failed to meet filing requirements maybe in more than one late caucus state, and I remember how, at a critical moment, the entire story was about her campaign’s incompetence.

    I am starting to believe in conspiracies and the insanity of America, and that the GOP actually wants Obama to win,

    ever more disillusioned dem who no longer wants to live in America because this America is NOT the one I grew up in. should have moved to Israel in 1977…

  • lizzie

    although Politico has picked up the “did the VAGOP rules change” this morning, which, for once, is good, because, in what can be an ironic twist of fate, the liberal media might just take aim at the VA GOP, changing the echo away from ‘Gingrich’s absence of a competent campaign’, which continues to be the echo this morning..
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/12/how-do-you-like-those-ballot-restrictions-now-108635.html

    I read thru a link at FreeRepublic that VA state law does NOT require voter address when it is a ballot access petition for the presidential primary.

    news.google “Virginia ballot access rules” and Moe Lane’s RedState post is a big hit!

    The reason it is important to change the media echo away from Gingrich, and Perry’s, ‘absence of ground game’, and onto whether the VA GOP changed the rules, and how did they disqulaify more than 20% of names in the dark of night is how this story MIGHT affect Iowa’s caucusgoers.

    What a slimy distraction in a week where the campaign should be about real issues.

    It is insane that the GOP is force-feeding Romney, and allowing Ron Paul to be the main scare tactic to enable force-feeding Romney because he is NOT electable, just next-in-line rich guy who does not even know that he does NOT understand the economy..

    This is no way to have a democracy. or find presidential leadership.

    Last night, I was trying to remember the details of how this same issue helped derail Hillary in 2008 – her campaign failed to meet filing requirements maybe in more than one late caucus state, and I remember how, at a critical moment, the entire story was about her campaign’s incompetence.

    I am starting to believe in conspiracies and the insanity of America, and that the GOP actually wants Obama to win,

    ever more disillusioned dem who no longer wants to live in America because this America is NOT the one I grew up in. should have moved to Israel in 1977…

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Your proposal changes nothing. How does one define “significant candidates?” One way — arguably the best way — is to accept petitions from a large enough number of citizens who want that candidate on the ballot. That’s what the ballot petitions actually do. So what you’re proposing is what is already the law in the state of Virginia, and virtually everywhere else.

    The issue here is not a bad system, but bad people attempting to game the system.

    This is why we object to very bad people playing games within the system. Their games tend to break things that worked pretty well before they started playing games. Remember Al Gore and the 2000 election in Florida? The current level of lawlessness from the progressives is a direct consequence of his gamesmanship in the 2000 election, during which Gore’s lies convinced progressives that they had to aggressively cheat in order to combat the (imaginary) cheating from the Republicans.

  • btpull

    I think you’d have to agree that if Perry, Gingrich, or any other candidate would have simply followed the published directions, then there would not be an issue of being on the ballot.

    Btw, Perry is only polling at 6% in VA. Honestly, I am not sure why RS is so up in arms about this in the first place.

  • tailfins1959

    That is unless you want to follow in Frank Lautenberg’s footsteps. The only way I can see Perry and Gingrich avoiding the stink of incompetence here is to show that there was an understanding they based their decision not to consider a realistic shrinkage factor on their signatures. The final outcome is now secondary. If an investigation uncovers unethical (but not illegal) behavior by elected officials in Virginia, it only peripherally reflects on Romney. After one-by-one each candidate becomes the front runner and is found lacking, are we to conclude the whole Republican field is not up to the job of being President, therefore the only prudent choice is to re-elect Barack Obama? SOMEBODY is going to be the nominee. Dick Morris is even reporting that Rick Santorum is surging for crying out loud. Except for Paul or Bachmann, I will take any one of the candidates. However, not even considering that this could be incompetence on Perry’s and/or Gingrich’s part is just silly.

  • Wubbies World

    Is it your assertion that the rules were not changed in November 2011?

  • nepanyrush

    In New Hampshire, Santorum is 5th and Perry is so far down,according to a poll by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, that he only polls about two percent! In Iowa, Santorum has pulled ahead of Perry.

    Santorum also has won statewide election in Pennsylvania twice — a state with 1 million more democrats than republicans. When he lost last time,he lost to the “pro-life” son of a popular Republican governor and Santorum was demagogued because he took on the third rail of social security — wanting to raise the retirement age by 2 years.

    Perrry’s chance in Pennsylvania? zero.

    Also, as evidenced from the debates, Santorum is WAY beyond Perry in intelligence.

    And Perry is so incompetent, he could not even do what Romney, Fred, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul all did — file over 15,000 signatures. Is that so hard?

  • acat

    The appearance of impropriety comes, in part, from the Romney campaign following the new rules, even though they weren’t published until November.

    Who mentioned the revision to Willard’s campaign and when?

    Mew

  • lizzie

    to burrow in flannel sheets and spend my time online comparison shopping for vacuum cleaners i can no longer afford.

    have no idea why hitting post comment once results in a duplicate.

    Just so angry that the GOP can not give me a way to be optimistic again.

    Romney???? NO WAY ANY INDEPENDENT OR FISCAL CONSERVATIVE DEM WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY.

    not even as a protest vote.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Stupid? I think not.

    The evidence I’ve seen so far justifies expecting that a Romney presidency would differ from an Obama presidency in two, significant ways:

    (1) The Democrats he would appoint to key positions would be more likely to be center-left than hard-left; and
    (2) It is likely that his budgeting and negotiating skills would be greater.

    Apart from those details, I cannot see any reason to expect the POLICIES of a Romney administration to be dramatically different from the POLICIES of the Obama administration.

    This not true of any other candidate in the Republican field.

    THIS Massachusetts Republican will, never, ever, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Mitt Romney. Please be assured that I am not alone.

  • acat

    and will not help him in Iowa.

    Further, your assertion re. Santorum doing well in PA ignores that PA rejected him *before* the rise of Obama.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    When legislation gets to the administrative level, it is by definition arbitrary. You need a number 2 pencil to take the SAT for example.

    In 2000, the R’s were party of following the law in terms of things like timelines for recounts, etc.

    Are we no longer that party? Are election laws to be ignored simply because we find them to be silly? A determination made only after they are applied and yield a certain result?

  • btpull

    That basically stated do not settle for the minimum requirement, but get 15K – 20K signatures then the potential “rule change” in November that everyone is worried about would have been irrelevant.

  • citizenjerry

    Even non-conspiracy theorists might have trouble with this one. It’s almost as if “the powers that be” in the GOP are determined our candidate is going to be Willard Romney, whether we want him or not.

    Guess who wins an election between a Democrat and a Democrat Light? It wasn’t Bob Dole or John McCain.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    smoking dope?

  • jollygiantsd

    This means someone got paid off to arbitrarily change the GOP limit, which means Dems get to flood the ballot while the GOP get only 1 or 2 choices, and both of them just as bad as any Dem.

  • teme

    Looked into that Osborne vs Boyles case. Based on this article it seems that inspecting for procedural errors, duplicate names, total lack of any address information, whether the forms were properly signed by their circulators, was done before, not just the actual comparison. Also considering that every major campaign turned in 15k in 2008, I think campaigns generally assumed they would inspected well. Based on the anonymous sources, it seems that procedural errors caused enough signatures to be thrown out so that those new detailed voter database checks wouldn’t matter, but those anonymous sources could be wrong.

    Though is better enforcement of the existing rules, starting to apply the same standard that is applied to independent candidates, a change of rules? Really nothing significant changed on the rules, if someone assumed that they could still abuse a lack of enforcement, then it’s their fault.

    http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011/oct/19/osborne-says-he-might-take-opponents-campaign-cour-ar-1392758/

    “What upsets Osborne about this process is the fact that Boyles checked each of O?Quinn?s petitions only to ensure there were no duplicate signatures and whether the forms were properly signed by their circulators.”

    “The party chairman did not check whether the people who signed the petitions were registered voters, as Osborne was required to do, nor whether they actually lived in the 5th District. Boyles confirmed this statement Monday during a phone interview with the Bristol Herald Courier. He also said that nothing in the state?s election laws requires him to take any extra steps.”

  • heraklios

    Yes, the GOP Establishment is leading the Party to disaster yet again, but NO, conservatives don’t have to participate in this travesty. We will be around in early 2013 to pick up the pieces and start building toward 2014 and 2016. Hopefully, many of the RINOs and Establishment figures will be washed out of Congress in the Obama landslide which would make our job easier.

  • acat

    One would imagine they’d have a good bit less to like about Straight-Arrow Santorum…

    Mew

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    going to use Keyes anymore, now that you’re aware that you’ve been arguing from incorrect information. Good to know!

    …Romney supporter, right?

  • Scope

    who don’t want Romney on the ballot, and I submit there are more than 100,000 who don’t want Paul on the ballot.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    nt

  • Tbone

    After all, I bet a big percentage of the VA GOP power brokers feed daily in the cesspool of Washington DC. As such, they can be assumed to have no morals, scruples, honesty or integrity left having long ago checked them at the Beltway and forgotten to have picked them up upon leaving for the day.

    Is there anywhere in America with a higher concentration of human scum than the Capitol except for the UN building? Even penitentiaries are filled with those who actually assumed the risks of punishment to commit their crimes unlike Washington where the thieves run free compliments of lobbyists buying their time.

  • teme

    Based on that Osborne vs Boyles and how Boyles enforced the rules, Keyes signatures also might have gone trough the procedural inspection, which is much faster to do than comparison to voter databases, but not the actual comparison of addresses to the voter registries. However the rule text seems to have been mostly same, for the 2000 elections and onward. The rules clearly tell what is required for the signatures to be valid, and recommend 15-20k signatures and minimum 700 per congressional district, and all 6 Republican campaigns who got on the ticket in 2008 followed these rules.

    Based on initial information it seems that the procedural inspection brought both Gingrich and Perry under 10k, so the actual comparison to electronic voter registration database might have not mattered.

  • tailfins1959

    Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels are good guys. I don’t blame them for not running. They are the best under the lens of the “No a**hole rule” as outlined by Robert Sutton. After all, who wants to put their career in the hands of insulting know-it-alls.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It would be interesting to know how many signatures the Romney campaign got in 2008. If it’s less than 15K, it would make things interesting here. I doubt anyone would be able to get that number now though.

  • AceInTX

    How would the vote tally look in say April after such a run?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …going to use Keyes anymore, now that you?re aware that you?ve been arguing from incorrect information. Good to know!

    ?Romney supporter, right?

  • heraklios

    Either one would be minimally acceptable to conservatives but far from our first choice. Given that the electoral strength of the party is in the South and West, I would prefer a proven conseravtive from these regions. There are a lot of good leaders in South and West, all proven conservatives, who could rally the base and take the fight to Obama. Yet, all we keep talking about are Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty, none of whom remotely begin to excite conservative activists.

  • Wubbies World

    So, you do agree that they met the standard before the rule change?

  • sunshinek67

    …….:D

  • sunshinek67

    …… :D

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    We’re in complete agreement! It’s like the Spanish-American War when the North and the South were united against a common enemy for the first time since the Civil War! ;)

  • heraklios

    No one questions his conservative beliefs? Why not pump people like Sen. DeMint, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or one of the many other solid conservatives serving throughout the country instead of repeating the Mitch Daniels, Pawlenty, Chris Christie mantra?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’m a conservative activist and I was excited most by Tim Pawlenty. Too bad he got out as early as he did, because I think he’d be a refreshing alternative to what’s left.

  • AceInTX

    Not a good assumption to make IMHO.

    If this truly has been a last minute change by the party leadership it looks like this is in fact a power play by the establishment n o matter how much some wish it were not.

    I smell establishment all over this…and if it were possible to get to the bottom of it, I’d be willing to bet pro Romney forces have their fingerprints all over it…

    In that…it would serve them right…if Paul beats Romney in VA which could have the unintended consequence of forcing a brokered convention given the weight VA would carry in delegates awrarded.

    Can anyone tell me if VA is winner take all?

  • JSobieski

    Pawlenty was far more conservative than his state, and he moved the state in a conservative direction.

    Daniels has reformed entitlements and healthcare at the state level.

    Calling them vanialla cornbread moderates indicates a focus on attributes other than policy.

    If you want conservative policies, Pawlenty and Daniels would have been excellent.

    If you want someone for whom you can best emote, then other candidates would be preferable.

  • jaykali

    Except that he made the cut, too bad, RP nation loves a nice juicy conspiracy.

  • heraklios

    I don’t know that much about Pawlenty’s record in MN. He just seemed…well…. plain to me and doesn’t inspire much of a fire in the belly. If he’s good on policy then he well could have grown on us.

  • AceInTX

    what did the campaigns know about the change and when did they know it is key

  • JSobieski

    Until recently, neither was to the right (on fiscal matters) of the average voter in their respective states.

    To prefer Huckabee to Daniels reveals a preference not based on conservative policies.

    I actually want to do things like reform entitlements and cut spending. Creating a lot of hot air isn’t my first priority.

  • sunshinek67

    the rules changed in October 2011, and now, Mitt Romney’s campaign chair, VA Lt Gov. Bolling, overseeing the ballot verification process of other candidates.” FIFY

  • JSobieski

    People like you got McCain elected. To the R primary voters in SC in 2008, McCain just “seemed” like the best choice.

  • acat

    That includes DeMint.

    By the way, Daniels and Pawlenty have much more in common ideologically with Perry than with Christie, who belongs lumped in with Romney and Giuliani.

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    That populist? I think he’s the one Republican that would actually outspend Obama. Brownback?? Jindal won’t run (yet), though I think he’d make a great President.

    As for DeMint, it seems to me he’d be much more valuable staying in the Senate and continuing to work for the Majority Leader’s job.

    In any case, it wouldn’t matter if any of these guys were running because enough people would nit pick their faults and they’d look just like what we have now.

  • heraklios

    But my point stands, neither could fire up the conservative base of the party like, say, a Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or I’m sure many others I can’t remember off the top of my head. Gov. Sanchez of NM, former Gov. Bob Riley of AL, Haley Barbour. All of these are solid policy wise and excite conservatives.

  • heraklios

    Had he stuck it out until Iowa, Pawlenty, if he is as good as you advertise, would be leading in IA now given the alternatives.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Unfortunately the base insisted on someone that would attack Romney. How’s that working out for you, btw?

  • acat

    (nothing further)

  • ralphdaily

    Results matter, not excuses

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    minimally acceptable to support enthusiastically. So….what changed?

  • JSobieski

    Governors with a better record on Medicaid reform and health care reform than Daniels?….. None of the people you listed.

    Daniels actually voucherized Medicaid and shifted public employees to HSA acounts. None of the people you mention have a better record on these kinds of issues than Daniels, yet you prefer Huckabee? Really?

    Brownback and Huckabee are very recent converts to fiscal conservatism—particularly when you factor in that they come from center-right states.

    What are you assessments based on? There is a reason why Paul Ryan really wanted Mitch Daniels to run for President.

    Passion is well and good, but your passion is largely misdirected.

    Some of us actually want to accomplish conservative reforms.

  • tailfins1959

    The first is competence; the second is influence. There is a large part of the electorate that has no problem with a conservative, but consider being a klutz or a jerk a disqualification. The gotcha culture of politics, especially promoted by those on the ends of the spectrum drive lots of people away. One thing I admire about the Bushes (W and HW) is how they always demonstrated class, even under pressure.

  • rbdwiggins

    If you mean enabling the new Democrat majority to cement the fundamental transformation of our republic into a socialist welfare state, then you would be correct.

    The American electorate has been programmed toward normalcy bias, and immediately following the total collapse of the US economy (There is no possible alternative should the Democrats regain total control of the federal government.), they will cry out for ‘something to be done” to ease their pain and return “certainty” to their lives. The new Democrat majority will gleefully honor the cries for help and fast-track legislation to cement the transformation.

    Once federal dependency crosses the fifty-percent threshold, only revolution will be able to reverse the transformation. It will be nearly impossible to restore our republic at the ballot box.

  • JSobieski

    Your “logic” is as you admit, really based on your emotional response to the candidates. Just admit it.

    To me, preferring Huckabee over Daniels on the basis of Huckabee being a proven agent of conservative change is . . . 100% laughable.

  • AceInTX

    The question isn’t whether they followed the published rules…it is whether the rules were changed in the middle…nay…toward the end of the game…

    It looks to me like we are looking at the equivalent of tilting the game board in favor of the establishment’s favored candidate in the final inning with bases loaded and the game hanging on who is at bat and how the pitcher is allowed to deliver the ball over the plate.

    In fact if what Moe has written here is true…this is worse than tilting the game board…it flips the game board upside down nakedly declares a the winners and never mind the rules everyone played by to get to the end of the game.

    This stinks and is uncalled for…say what you will about Perry…but Gingrich is leading in VA…what of him not making the ballot? should not the consistent leader in poll after poll have a road to get on the ballot…and do his supporters not have a right to be able to cast their ballots FOR him?

    all your protestations show is the callous disregard some have for the will of the rank and file of the Republican Party and is an indication of the corruption and illegitimacy of those who control the levers of power within the Republican Party.

  • JSobieski

    It is a safe bet that entitlement reform, spending cuts, and tax reform are not high on that persons agenda.

    Probably didn’t know anything about Pawlenty or Daniels (or for that matter Huckabee or Brownback) that happened prior to 2011.

    What aspects of Huckabee’s policies were “solid” from a conservative standpoint? What aspects of Daniels’ policies were not “solid” from a conservative standpoint.

    Huckabee and Brownback both illustrate that solid pro-life politicians may not nececssarily be conservative in other ways, but that voters will project as desired.

  • heraklios

    Plus, the Establishment was pushing hard at that point for the more “electable” McCain. SC also has a lot of veterans who liked McCain because of his personal narrative. Also, downcountry SC has a lot of migrants from the northeast who aren’t your traditional SC conservative voter. All of these factors created a perfect storm that allowed McCain to slip by and win

  • supergirl2911

    It would be more responsible for the state party to make a point of educating all the candidates about the new rules ASAP in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. They see that the race is fluid and someone internally knew what was coming. I do not pretend to know or understand how the changes were communicated, but it seems like incompetency for the VA GOP, not the campaigns. What if the Rhode Island GOP rules changed? Is each candidate supposed to have a ground game in each of the 50 states right now and they should be checking for any updates or court cases.

  • heraklios

    They just wanted a conservative who was not afraid to run on conservative ideas. Pawlenty never projected that at all. Maybe he was trying to move to the middle for the general election too early? We will never know because he quit so soon

  • heraklios

    I look at it the opposite. If a candidate meets the minimum threshhold of competence then ideology becomes much more important.

  • Scope

    The primary is on March 6, therefore they are required by the new rules to allocate the delegates proportionally. Only primaries from April 1 on can choose if they want to do winner take all, or proportionally. Texas will also be proportional this year because their primary is before April 1.

  • JSobieski

    The idea that some candidate would inevitably win or lose is a flawed one.

    “Pawlenty, if he is as good as you advertise, would be leading in IA now given the alternatives”

    Applying SC by anology—NOT if the conservative votes were split across to many candidates.

    That is precisely the point I am making—too many conservative candidates are splitting the vote between them—just like SC.

    Get it?

    Pawlenty staying in would likely have made that situation worse.

  • texasref

    I agree that this new information does make historical comparisons improper to illustrate alleged incompetence. However, the rule itself did not change: if you want to be on the ballot, you must produce 10,000 valid signatures. Whether they will be verified or not, if you want access to the ballot, you must follow that rule. A campaign that relies on historical precedent, hopeful that Virginia will continue to aw-shucks actually verifying to see whether your signatures are valid is a campaign that should not be crying foul all that loudly when the signatures are actually checked.

    I agree this is shenanigans by the Establishment crowd to ram Romney down our throats, but the point remains that even with this new information, the rules are the rules. It is Politics 101 to submit the maximum number of nominating signatures one is allowed to make it as difficult as possible for the opposition to have you thrown off the ballot. If a campaign must rely on their documents not being checked to skate by, saying just because that’s how it’s always been done is weak sauce.

    So I appreciate what you’re saying, Moe, as it does mitigate the whole competence argument. But they still should have submitted enough signatures to withstand scrutiny even if historical precedent indicated they probably wouldn’t have been scrutinized at all. Do we follow the rules only when we know we’ll be checked? Most of us follow the rules because it’s the right thing to do. I’m not saying any candidates purposely didn’t do the right thing, just it’s easier to take shortcuts or perhaps they simply couldn’t muster enough signatures to have any cushion to withstand the verification process.

    Whether it’s Pro-Romney Establishment Shenanigans or just the way the cards got dealt (or both), it’s going to blow up in the Establishment’s face when the Tea Party conservatives (already fed up with a House of Representatives that has betrayed them time and time again like Lucy yanking the football, saying “next time it’s your turn,” always “next time) see two names on the ballot: Romney and Someone Else. Little wonder Someone Else will win going away! Ron Paul should remember that not all the delegates he’s going to win in Virginia truly belong to him, and I hope he distributes them at the convention away from Romney if he is even in a position to do so.

    If Virginia chooses Romney in a 2-man race with ANY of the other current Republican candidates I’ll eat my hat.

  • AceInTX

  • heraklios

    He was solidly conservative on social issues, actually governed from the standpoint of “What Would Jesus Do” in any situation. Given that Arkansas is a relatively poor, rural state, he certainly advocated more populist economic policies desgined to help small business and middle income voters. The middle class and working class whites is the demographic Republicans have to have to win the Presidency and Huckabee knew how to speak to these groups. Many is today’s field have no clue about how to relate to these folks and address their concerns.

  • teme

    “the rules changed in October 2011,”

    No, they were not, the rules were the same, but enforcement was improved. I doubt if any of the campaigns even knew of this loophole before it was fixed, in 2008 all the six major campaigns turned in over 15k signatures, if they knew of it, and planned to abuse then shame on them.

    Republican legislatures and governors have had some nice success in getting some anti voting fraud laws recently, which is good. I think not doing anti signature fraud procedures would be hypocritical.

  • texasref

    since we got bumped to April 3 thanks to meddling, activist judges who can’t resist messing with the map that democratically elected officials provided, ascribing racist motives to a political party simply because the results aren’t what they like.

    I’m more sure of the April 3rd date, less sure of the winner take all. They may stay proportional. Someone chime in.

  • AceInTX

    it’s likely to bleed otherwise Republican voters to a Trump third party run….and ultimately an Obama reelection.

    Before I get the usual catcalls for my head…I’m not advocating such…simply pointing out the likelihood and the dangerous game the Rockefeller crowd is playing by stacking the deck for Romney over the will of otherwise Republican voters.

  • AceInTX

  • heraklios

    Some of the conservatives in the race (Bachmann, Santorum) have no chance but split the conservative pie even more. Proportional distribution of delegates helps remedy this problem but with the national party, Republican media and donors pushing a bandwagon toward Romney, it’s tough to overcome this effect.

  • JSobieski

    A lot of people still have lots of effection for Clinton.

    My point is not that Huckabee was a failure.

    My point is that Huckabee did not by and large implement conservative policies.

    You claim to be policy driven, but if you prefer Huckabee to Daniels you clearly are more driven by something else.

    In terms of conservative policies, Daniels was clearly superior.

    If you focus most on “how to relate to these folks” then maybe Huckabee is your man, but he is not the conservative alternative.

  • texasref

    In defense of Romney… (in other news, it’s snowing in hell)

    No candidate should do anything to open the door to hurt his chances at ballot access.

    Part of the election process is to do everything in your legal power to get your name on the ballot while preventing your opposition from getting theirs on. It makes winning the election a whole lot easier!

    Romney followed the rules. It is not dishonorable to say “oh well” to the others who didn’t.

    I do agree it’s a shenanigan to change the interpretation of the rules at the last minute, but that’s the party’s fault, not Romney’s.

    OK, the snow flurries in hell have stopped. Carry on.

  • acat

    First, in a Romney-vs-Ron-Paul race, I’d have a hard time identifying the lesser of two evils. I despise Romney, and I wouldn’t spit on Ron Paul if he were on fire. That makes this – as Moe appears to allude – more of a “whoever wins, the VA GOP is {copulated}!” scenario. (of course, Moe wouldn’t put it quite so .. biologically.

    Second, I’d like to know what your hat is made of. If you’ve just put a T-bone on your head, it’s a bit different, y’see.

    Mew

  • sunshinek67

    but rule out impropriety by Mitt Romney’s VA campaign chair, Lt Gov Bolling, he knew nothing”.

  • ghostship

    If VA primary voters voted for Paul.

    Paul may do well in Iowa and maybe Virgina thanks to the mess the VA GOP caused. However, Paul’s chance to do well in any other state is practically nil. So a vote for Paul in the VA primary won’t really matter over the long run but it would matter for Romney who might win in other states.

    So really if your a Gingrich, Perry, and etc supporter then Romney is the bigger threat. I would find it funny for their supporters to throw the election to Paul to keep the delegates away from Romney.

  • AceInTX

    and it’s ok to change the rules in the final inning?

  • JSobieski

    Agred. I am only arguing with you because you repeatedly say things that are clearly untrue.

    For example:

    “Had he stuck it out until Iowa, Pawlenty, if he is as good as you advertise, would be leading in IA now given the alternatives.”

    This statement is untrue, and you are Exhibit A for proving it.

    Many voters make choices that are NOT based on policies or actual political accomplishments.

    Pawlenty was losing Iowa while Huckabee won Iowa. Why? Because a lot of Iowa voters are like you—they vote based on what “seems” to be true in terms of personal attributes.

    Iowa has a record of disregarding a candidates actual record.

    That is why Cain did well there.
    So did Huckabee.
    Palin could have won Iowa, I have no doubt.

    In contrast, Reagan was crushed there. I have not doubt Daniels would have been creamed in Iowa.

  • jimmyg

    I agree that with Moe that not only Romney’s but all candidates should petitions should be verified, and if you are not going to verify some, but not all candidates petitions, then none of the candidates petitions should be verified.

    But no where, other than in this forum, have I read that Bolling was in charge of the verification of the petitions.

  • acat

    with The Donald as H. Ross Perot… and Romney too weak to slap him down.

    Also, one of the hallmarks that used to make Country Club Republicans so easy to identify – other than the country club emblems on the grills of their motor cars, of course – was that they’d rather lose with “the right candidate” than win with “an upstart”.

    Romney certainly has many of the hallmarks of the breed, just as Bush 1.0 did…

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Huckabee never met a tax or a social program he didn’t like and never found a problem that couldn’t be solved by the government.

    No. No. No.

  • heraklios

    To run for President you must not only implement solid policies but have the charisma and motivate your supporters to get behind these policies and implement them.

    With Mitch Daniels, I agree he has done a credible job as Governor of Indiana, yet conservatives in Indiana still seem lukewarm towards him. Why is this? Also, he ducked some fights (right to work) which have benefited southern states tremendously in attracting economic development in the past several years. I still say that while Daniels, as a candidate, would be far superior to most in the current field, he has generally steered to the middle in Indiana and wouldn’t motivate the conservative base that much at all.

  • AceInTX

    THAT hurt him badly…

    and it shows the folly of siding with the establishment against your own interests I might add…Rick followed the establishment in endorsing Specter…and they returned the favor in 06 by hanging him out to dry and are furthering their treachery by dumping on him as a candidate now.

    I’m not a Santorum backer in large part because of his betrayal of Tommy in 2004….but there is a lesson to be learned here which is why I make the point.

  • johnt

    to Obama.

  • AceInTX

    z

  • JSobieski

    What was changed was the implementation/enforcement of the law.

    As a lawyer who advises clients, I ALWAYS advise the client to comply with the letter of the law–not some lower standard based on spotty enforcement. You never know when the spotty enforcement will end.

    The best way to get stupid laws of the books is the enforce them. Keep Perry and Newt of the VA ballot, and we won’t have to address this issue in the future.

    Any solution to this problem that is not based on the legistature and governor changing the law is a mistake.

    I say that even though Perry is my first choice and Newt is my second.

  • heraklios

    If he is as solid as advertised by several on here, once the other conservative favorites faltered, he certainly would have had his turn as the “anti-Romney” If he was as good as advertised, he would have taken this opportunity and run with it likely winning Iowa next week.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Frankly Ace, beyond the upstream idiot who wanted to let the state chose “satisfactory” candidates I haven’t followed this thing that closely, the boys have been home for Christmas.

    Based on a couple of comment titles I’ve seen – but haven’t read the comments – it sounds like there’s some silliness going on that should be remedied.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Merriest of Christmases and may the New Year find you in the 1%.

  • snowshooze

    And the faulty logic that if one submitted 15,000 signatures, they were waived through without scrutiny, whereas those who submitted 10,000 signatures would be examined is laughable.
    The glaring and obvious point is..
    ” Call in the kids, we need to sit down and do 15,000 signatures today so we can be on the ballot… no questions asked”
    Or conversly, huge lies are rewarded, and minor errors are punished.
    If 15,000 signatures are automatically accepted without checking…
    Submit 15,000 and move on.
    Now, were the Perry and Gingrich campaigns informed?
    I would think that the GOP of Virginia should have been screaming the news from the rooftops. That Romney’s buddy was completely immersed in the canging of the rule is not trivial.
    My guess is that after a good deal of spilled blood, both Gingrich and Perry shall be on the ballot.
    I ain’t always right though.
    Is it a wonder that they are called ” The Party of Stupid”???
    Yes, I am a member.. but THIS IS STUPID.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And this one post fool easily qualifies.

  • heraklios

    Among other concervatives, my support likely to be much more tepid

  • acat

    The VA GOP still retains ultimate control over who gets on the ballot, of course

    The ones who count and validate are the party leadership.

    The reason Bolling comes up is because of Donald Palmer – see Scope’s comment here …

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Daniels has not steered to the middle in terms of POLICIES. He has steered to the middle in terms of EMOTIONS.

    You clearly favor an emotional result over any policy changes in DC. That is your preference.

    My preference is to reform entitlements, cut spending, and reform taxes.

    I get my emotional results from the people in my life who actually know me. I need proven conservative reformers in DC. Daniels is far higher on that list than either Brownback or Huckabee—people you strongly support because of purely emotional reasons.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    He destroyed the state party, and stole the furniture when he left. Why anyone Republican would want to see that guy elected again is beyond me.

    As for governing from the standpoint of “What Would Jesus Do”, that’s crap. Jesus never suggested the government be used for handing out cash. He said we should do that as individuals.

  • JSobieski

    So we the American voter have to choose.

    Are we serious about conservative reforms, or do we just want a politician we can emote for and project a lot of emotion onto?

    No reformer of entitlements is going to inspire the kind of love the FDR and Huckabee enjoyed.

    My vote is for conservative reform.

    No governor is better on health care than Daniels. The fact that are collectively too ignorant of that fact shows why we are in such trouble. Looking to a Huckabee or a Brownback to get us out of this mess is 100% nuts.

    Indiana is a great success story in terms of medicaid reform and moving GOVERNMENT employees to HSA accounts with low premium-high deductible insurance.

    Indiana is what Paul Ryan wants to bring to DC.

    Bachmann puts an aseterisk on her support of Medicare reform, but you wouldn’t consider her to be milktoast. Daniels supports voucherizing government healthcare, but you consider him middle of the road.

    No wonder entitlements never get reformed.

  • rmiddle

    JSobieski

    In 2000, the R?s were party of following the law in terms of things like timelines for recounts, etc.

    Reply

    That is the main question. Did changing the rules 1 month before the ballets were due change the narrative any?

    The issue in 2000 was rule changes that were taking place that after the votes had taken place. This issue in VA with getting on the primary Ballet is changing the rules well the “votes” were taking place.

    The fact is it is expensive to collect signatures. You have to expend man hours to collect signatures. Remember that man hours require you to tap limited resources you either have to tap money to pay people or tap volunteer but you only have so many hours people can volunteer every week so it is always a limited resource.

    Because of that fact most companions are only going to collect what is needed. So if the rules were once you hit 10K they assumed you had enough to get though validation and then they changed that to 15K at the last min (1 Month can be considered the last min) then many well originated campaigns would be caught off guard and finding themselves scrambling at the last min to meet the requirements.

    Simple fix VA GOP revert to the rules from the start of the cycle and make the changes effective in the next election cycle witch is what they should have done in the 1st place. Now if those rules are applied as there were in the past and the candidates still fail then it is the campaigns fault.

    Thanks
    Robert

  • JSobieski

    Isn’t that what really matters to conservatives?

    /sarcasm off

  • jimmyg

    sunshine said that Bolling oversaw the verification process, you said Bolling should have recused himself. I am asking two questions (1) if he oversaw the verification process, and (2) what he should recuse himself from.

    I seem to be missing some facts which sunshine and yourself are in possession of.

  • renl57

    To me, it’s the reverse.

    Given that the electoral strength of the GOP is in the South and West, the GOP can pretty much count on nearly all those electoral votes. They don’t need a candidate to appeal to those.

    The challenge is to win in the battleground swing states, and a GOP candidate who is popular there could win the election big.

    For example, a GOP candidate who could win Pennsylvania would wreck Obama’s re-election hopes, right there.

    Pawlenty could have won PA.
    Christie could win PA.

    But Perry or Gingrich? I doubt it.

  • JSobieski

    Evern notice how you are more likely to get a speeding ticket at the end of the month than at the beginning?

    As I read the diary, no changes were made to VA election laws. What happened was that there was increased pressure to ENFORCE the laws and that two campaigns assumed lax enforcement—and were accordingly burned on it.

    “They changed” is a bunch of crap. The law is what the law is—and that wasn’t changed.

    What law did the governor of VA recently sign and the legislature of VA recently pass?

    Answer: NONE.

  • texashistorian

    now that judges forced the compromise on Primary and election dates. Currently, as far as I can tell, the Texas GOP rules remain the proportional delegate method, but I believe they can change it if they like, though not sure if there is a cutoff date for changes to the process.

  • AceInTX

    the issue is…at what point are signatures no longer required to be vetted….not how many you need total…

    Whether the vetting bar was raised after the fact and in the final inning of the game is a big deal…especially if the person responsible for doing the vetting is chairman of the Romney campaign and knew how close Romney was to the new bar height as opposed to all his rivals.

    Whether this was all done on the up and up or not is irrelevant at this point…because it looks bad for the VA GOP and the Romney campaign regardless…

    What concerns me most about this however is the danger of Paul actually WINNING VA since he is the only alternative for VA voters to turn to…60 plus percent of whom have expressed an adamant preferance for anyone BUT Mitt Romney

  • acat

    Thus, Romney having exceeded the “10k” barrier and ending up on the ballot presents an *appearance* of impropriety. Or, if you prefer, Bolling had motive and opportunity.

    Mew

  • texashistorian

    There are some in the Texas GOP that are pushing for a return to the winner take all format to give Texas more weight in the final decision, but hasn’t happened yet.

  • snowshooze

    Possibly I didn’t read this correctly but it appears to be the case.
    I am not certain how much value VA. holds for Gingrich/Perry even if allowed on the ballot…so letting nature run it’s course and keeping the status quo for the time being may not be so important, and as you say… this will all shake out later.
    But it is funny in a way, lazy forgers get punished, and good honest hard working forgers get automatic acceptance.
    I cannot understand why if in November they raised the table stakes on signatures, ( Mid-Game..boooo ) that multiple common sense responses did not sprout from every conceivable direction, first, acquire signatures as quickly as possible, and file defensive litigation as a contingency.
    Additionally, I do not know the level of hardship required to collect a signature. Is it actually quite easy, and is it the custom to just get enough, and then quit…
    Or do you press hard and try to get as many as you might be able to gather?
    It would seem to me that I would safely fulfill my requirement and quit.

  • heraklios

    Yes, I definitely want a candidate who supports cutting federal spending, keeping taxes low and, above all, supports federalism so states that want smaller, less intrusive government can be allowed to function that way. Conservatism also means being a social conservative; supporting pro-family policies. I want to know that the Supreme Court Justices appointed by a candidate will also support this agenda. Mike Huckabee? I don’t have any doubts. Mitch Daniels? I think the jury is out.

  • JSobieski

    http://www.varight.com/news/dissecting-virginias-election-law/

    According to the author, presidential primaries are excluded from the signature requirement altogether.

    This analysis does change my mind, because it suggests that not even a signal petition signature is required

  • jimmyg

    Did Bolling oversee the verification of the petitions ?
    What should Bolling recuse himself from?

  • JSobieski

    You “seem” remarkably uninterested in the economic side of the equation.

    What did Brownback or Huckabee ever do for smaller government?

    Your doubts are based on different priorities and being generally uninformed.

    Daniels was far more solid on social issues than Huckabee was on economic issues. Brownbacka and Santorum were big spenders in DC. Huckabee was a big spender in AK.

    If you actually cared about limited government, you would communicate differently.

  • acat

    Go read the post from Scope that I linked to you above.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I don’t remember the particulars, but you can google it or the great one himself will further your education.

  • AceInTX

    They are on the same damn side fer? crissakes.

    Aside from using the LORD’s name in vain there is a problem with this argument….they are decidedly NOT on the same side…

    On one side you have an establishment that is sold out for Romney and a Republican voting populace who have demonstrated in poll after poll that they are decidedly NOT in favor of Romney….

    and again…if the threshold for having your name on the ballot without question is 10,000 signatures at the start of the campaign, then the powers that be who happen to be campaign chairman for the Romney campaign in VA who are in a position to know the Romney campaign has crossed the 15,000 signature threshold decide to raise that bar to 15,000 signatures in the final hour there is a serious question if not of objectivity…if not outright corruption to consider here…

    If the Romney campaign had ANY integrity, he would insist the rules remain as they had been at the start of the campaign…

    Of course…if the question is…does the Romney camp have ANY integrity IS in serious doubt here…isn’t it?

  • gekster

    under the assumption that all the candidates were notified of the change/s.
    The change was in mid-November.
    As of yet, it has not been verified that anyone was notified.
    If it has, I have not yet seen it.

  • heraklios

    But from reports in the local media, Daniels always goes out of his way to distance himself from social conservatives and their agenda because he fears being portrayed in a bad light and fears losing the support of moderates.

  • AceInTX

    /

  • jacobite

    does exist. Just as astronomers used to be able to predict a new planet’s presence by observing the gravitational effects on visible bodies, we can predict the Establishment’s existence by their actions, here, there, and everywhere, in favor of one candidate and opposed to all others. If strange procedural problems and errors were random, they’d be helping all the candidates and hurting all the candidates more-or-less equally. Equally indicative is the line-up on issues that divide conservatives, yet a certain group of GOP/conservative pundits march in lock-step. They are an establishment, or clique, or cabal, or whatever. You can call them Ralph, but there is a certain well-defined group that lines up against social conservatives every time.

  • JSobieski

    http://va.peninsulateaparty.org/

    “To get on the ballot, a presidential candidate has to collect 10,000 legitimate signatures across Virginia ? county by county and city by city ? with at least 400 legitimate signatures in each congressional district. Virginia’s State Board of Elections recommends that campaigns come in with over 15,000 signatures, including over 700 from each congressional district given what a high proportion of signatures typically fail some requirement or another.”

    Virginia’s State Board of Elections has recommended the 15,000 threshold prior to 2011. This is not a recent change.

  • tngal

    As we all know, several didn’t even try. And is it just a slight possibly they didn’t try because the numbers were so extreme. I would expect most campaigns have many of their major coordinating people in the early states.

    Now its possible Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman may not even be contenders come March if they don’t have a good showing in the early states. In which case the point is moot. Or Newt could drop like a rock. You can’t pick the top three or four now since that could change come march

    But to exempt 2 because they tried and failed hardly seems fair.
    Exempt all.

  • AceInTX

    who is more stupid?

    A party establishment forcing northeastern liberals down the throats of a party comprised of 80% conservatives?

    Or:

    The 80% of conservatives who point out the stupidity of the party bosses who keep forcing their failed strategy on us over and over again?

  • gekster

    …..

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Daniels has the enthusiastic support of all the pro-life organizations in Indiana. Do some research, you’re making a fool of yourself.

  • JSobieski

    Not actual accomplishments.

    Got it.

  • AceInTX

    I figure these rules will change PDQ if Paul ends up leading Romney in the one on one match-up…and rightfully so.

  • heraklios

    and Santorum helped pass several balanced budgets in the 1990s. What is your evidence that either is a big spender over and above what anyone else in the GOP caucus has supported?

    With Huckabee, the size of state government in Arkansas is already miniscule compared to to big spending states in the midwest and east. Arkansas has no public employee unions to speak of, already has a right to work law, and generally has a lower level of spending on everything compared to Indiana. The fact that Huckabee may have supported increased government services, mainly in education, for the people of his poor state seems to bother you a lot, but the fact remains that he maintained a small stramlined state government while serving his constituents.

    A good comparison can be found in Alabama. Alabama’s public schools are woefully underfunded compared to most other areas of the country. Governor Bob Riley proposed a tax hike to provide additional funding. This funding would have improved facilities, increased teacher salaries and generally helped to bridge some of the gap between AL and other states. Gov. Riley insisted this be approved by referendum and when it failed to achieve popular support, he went in a different direction.

    The point being that no every tax increase or spending increase is necessarily bad, and also, that it is nearly impossible to reasonably see we should impose a “one size fits all” agenda on every state. Federalism is good…if Indiana’s state government needs to be cut (which it does), Gov. Daniels can implement policies to effectuate that. If Arkansas and Alabama need additional government services (which in some instances they do), then leaders in those states can do what is necessary to support the needs of their people.

  • jimmyg

    I will take that as an” I do not know”,.

  • AceInTX

    and you leave out how Perry fairs in the south on Super Tuesday

  • sunshinek67

    less than two months before deadline. To say that the threshold is 15,000 & fly opens the door for mischief. If that’d be the case how do we know that Romney’s signatures would pass the scrutiny?

  • JSobieski

    http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/20120306PrimaryBulletin.pdf

  • JSobieski

    The law was not previously enforced as it should have been. The letter of the law and what it required have not been changed.

    http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/20120306PrimaryBulletin.pdf

    Kind of like always speeding down a certain road, and then one day, the cops actually do give you a ticket for speeding.

  • AceInTX

    that’s the issue here…not that Gingrich or Perry failed to live up to the rules…but that the rules were changed in the 11th hour.

  • snowshooze

    At the primary level was bothering me as well.
    It is not State business at that level.
    If a party decided to draw lots, roll dice or play rock, scissiors and paper… it’s their party. At that level.
    I agree.
    There is a hole in this mess you could drive a truck through.

  • tomatin

    I’m being facetious of course but where does the extra number of names assure the VAGOP that there are not over 5,000 fraudulent petitions?

    It was easier running a chemical company for a number of years and following overly complex TSCA regs than following these stupid VA primary rules that were sometimes enforced and sometimes not so much. The VA rules sound like if your batch size is big enough you don’t have to QC it.

    The moral of the story is the establishment GOP needs to practice what it preaches and not let regulations get in the way of democracy.

  • JSobieski

    Laws are the pieces of paper written by legislatures, voted on, and signed by the executive.

    No laws were changed.

    http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/20120306PrimaryBulletin.pdf

    http://bearingdrift.com/2011/12/23/let-the-whining-over-virginias-ballot-access-rules-begin/

    http://www.varight.com/news/dissecting-virginias-election-law/

  • snowshooze

    And one that the Virginia GOP could nullify at will.

  • JSobieski

    Lets not think like democrats, shall we.

    The moral of the story is the follow the guidance of the VA Board of Elections.

  • AceInTX

    or the implementation…what ever term you wish to apply here…

    if I am candidate “A” am lead to believe I can exceed 10,000 signatures and by thus obtaining those 10,000 signatures, escape having those signatures certified…then has the head of a rival campaign assist if not guide a rules change that requires me to now achieve 15,000 signatures…when said official knows damned well my rival campaign he is conveniently chairing is close to…or has already exceeded said 15,000 signature threshold…is there not a legitimate question to be raised about the sordidness…if not the outright corruption of the whole process?

  • acat

    I have never said that Bolling or any of the others in the VA GOP did anything wrong.

    However.

    I assert – again – that there is an appearance of impropriety.

    There is a problem Bolling – as Romney’s campaign chair – had an interest in making sure Romney was on the ballot, and Bolling – as one of the higher-ups in the VA GOP and as Lt. Gov. – would have known that the rules changes were coming.

    You can try to spin this as “about a cat”, but that doesn’t change that something stinks in Virginia.

    Mew

  • notpropagandized

    In a bygone era, there was a personal diligence exercised according to propriety that one would not participate in any proceeding where independence was questioned. Further, failure to step back was usually challenged, and if not the reputation of the bad actor was according besmirched. Alas, no longer.

    And rumor heard is that Romney has several years of buying influence and county and state level. As far as I know, it’s hearsay, but would be nice if someone knew details of Romney’s years-long strategy to caputure the US Presidency.

  • JSobieski

    I agree the rule is stupid, but it is also stupid for a campaign not to read election law and campaign laws carefully.

  • acat

    Romney needs to prove that he didn’t need to cheat, that he easily cleared the hurdle, not to satisfy the law but to satisfy public opinion.

    This isn’t a courtroom, eh counselor?

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    and the Liberal Judges in San Antonio who stacked the deck for the Dems giving them 3 of the new districts

  • AceInTX

    //

  • JSobieski

    including at least 400 qualified voters from each of Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate named on the petititon.

    Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition, it is RECOMMENDED that 15,000 – 20,000 signatures be obtained with at least 700 signatures from each congressional district.”

    VA Board of Elections, May 21, 2011
    http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Cidates/Bulletins/20120306PrimaryBulletin.pdf

    The legal requirements are actually quite clear. Nothing has been changed except that the rules were actually enforced this time.

  • acat

    the enforcement that the law delegates to the state parties, which has previously been permitted to be lax, was no longer permitted to be so.

    What this means is that while the speed limit remains the same, fines are now being assessed based on an automated lidar-camera device that determines vehicle speed and snaps a pic of the license plate.

    Mew

    p.s. The device described is real, Illinois is using them to enforce construction zone speed limits …

  • snowshooze

    At the beginning of the piece, the links.. here and here..
    what is the second one?

  • JSobieski

    into adopting a standard below that of the VA Board of Elections?

    I dislike Romney, and will not vote for him in a primary . . . EVER.

    But I don’t see how the other campaigns get off the hook given the May 2011 memo by the VA Board of Elections.

    Is it Romney’s fault that the other campaigns cut it close?

    Small businesses would never cut it that close in their operations—they always look for a safe harbor position.

    Safe harbor in this context is 15,000.

  • AceInTX

    there is a permanent power structure in the Republican Party…people who do the day to day work of the pary from the RNC, to the state chairmen on down…as such…you play by their rules…or you go NOWHERE in the party…stye control the rules…they control the flow of money…they control who advances within the permanent party structures and those who do not…

    to say otherwise is either hopelessly naive or outright dishonest…

    you make a great point in that:

    They are an establishment, or clique, or cabal, or whatever. You can call them Ralph, but there is a certain well-defined group that lines up against social conservatives every time.

  • gekster

    ……

  • David123

    At this point, for example, Michelle Bachman has as many VOTES as Romney+Paul+Gingrich, combined.

    Michelle Bachman is running for president; she has been in debates. If the voters don’t think she’s significant – she loses; no problem.

    Virginia made the process so difficult that Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman didn’t even try to get on the Virginia ballot. Perry and Gingrich tried, but so far it looks like they’re being kept off the ballot for reasons that appear corrupt.

  • gekster

    the safe harbor was 10K.

  • JSobieski

    All of the people running for office have added to the list of administrative requirements that we must comport with on a daily basis.

    I have NO sympathy for the campaigns that botched fulfilment of the requirements of the type that they themselves created for the rest of us.

    I figured out VA petition access law in about 10 minutes of searching. Compared to campaign finance laws, this stuff is peanuts to understand (although admittedly not easy to fully comply with).

    Enforce stupid laws like this once—and the stupid laws will be repealed as they should be.

    Bottom Line: If this had happened to a D campaign, a lot of people would be arguing the other side of the issue.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • JSobieski

    in order to specifically avoid this problem.

  • acat

    and needs to ensure that, given his chair’s level of access, he is squeaky-clean, not just “meeting the standard”… especially since it seems clear that, for campaigns that gathered 15,000 signatures, the checking was minimal at best.

    Mew

  • NeoKong

    Number one.
    I did not capitalize “God” nor did I attach it to a swear word.

    B.
    It seems you may have a point.
    I should have said “we are supposed to be” on the same side given the fact that allegedly we are all Republicans.

  • snowshooze

    I followed the link which made the point that Primary Party Nomination rules for Presidential Candidates were devoid of ANY signature petitions whatever. We could flip quarters for it if those were the Party approved procedures.
    Completely outside of State of Virginia regulation at that point.
    And so, this being strictly and solely Party Politics…the GOP of Virginia could reverse at will.
    Is that correct?

  • JSobieski

    But I do protest calling the 15,000 safe harbor rule “new” given the May 2011 VA Board of Elections Memo.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane
  • Scope

    I doubt many are saying the state laws have changed, including Moe in this diary, but once those ballots were turned over to the VA GOP for validation, they can change their validation procedure any time they choose. Just as the DNC has granted waivers to the DPVA since 2004, only requiring Democrat candidates to collect 4-5,000 signatures, the VA GOP had/has the same ability to grant the same kind of waivers for the GOP candidates. Rather than granting waivers to candidates to lower the signature number required, they instead “arbitrarily” decided to in fact check every signature if you didn’t submit at least 15,000. Did the VA GOP in fact notify the candidates that they would be in fact verifying each signature, unlike other years, for all ballots not numbering 15,000 signatures or above.

    Honestly, it is the VA GOP who has determined that if you hand in at least 15,000 signatures we won’t bother looking at any of those signatures, but if you hand in less we will look at every signature, defies any logic. Someone can right now be looking at Romney ballots, containing signatures for the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, Mickey Mouse, or even names and addresses taken randomly from the phone book for the various districts, and not even verified registered voters, and not a peep has to be said about it. No information need ever be released, none.

    Is it the Perry campaign people in VA that were so stupid to be so honest? or is that honesty, even though it kept him off the ballot the honorable thing to do? Perry’s campaign manager here in VA. is a man of honesty and integrity, and a former VA Atty Gen., read that “former.” There is also the conflict of interest that Romney’s campaign chair. is the current LT Gov, and most definitely has insider access to the VA GOP who decided this year to check the signatures. And isn’t it just a coincedence that the candidate is only one of two to make the ballot.

    Bill Bolling will be running for the Gov. seat in 2013, along with the current Atty Gen Ken Cuccinelli. Bolling has it written on his own website saying that a president Romney will help him in his bid for the Gov. seat. In other words he will call in his chits, and expect a possible president to support him against his opponent, another R candidate.

  • acat

    even agree with you.

    Virginia is a slightly larger plum, though .. and the appearance that it’s been rigged to fall into Romney’s lap, whether true or not, is .. problematic.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I just don’t like it when for the first time in recent memory, R’s are whining about election laws.

  • JSobieski

    That one link provided an analysis of why maybe the law specifically excludes presidential primaries from the petition requirements, but there is no dispute over whether ballot access is subject to the law (the article merely argues that the requirements are different, not that the issue is outside the law).

  • acat

    was the result of the lawsuit Moe mentioned above.

    i.e. it was the suit charging that the State Party folk had played fast-and-loose a few times too many that led to the stepped-up enforcement.

    I don’t have a problem with the enforcement, but I do have a problem with the time frame for the change – i.e. November, not springtime – and the appearance of possible impropriety, i.e. Bolling tipping Romney’s people.

    Mew

  • gekster

    if you had over 10K, then signiture verification would not be needed.
    But that fact changed in mid November to 15K.
    And it has yet to be shown if any campaigns were notified.
    But since the Romney campaign chair is the overseer, then a simple phone call could occur, without any written notification.
    It all smells like dead fish on the beach.

  • JSobieski

    and get 15,000 signatures.

    If they relied on a wink-wink-nod-nod “nobody every really enforces this stuff” and got burned, it is more their own fault than anyone elses.

    They were warned by the VA Board of Elections in May 2011. If they relied on something different, they were being foolish.

    They literally had to read the memo.

  • JSobieski

    Believe it or not, states in the aggregate enact more collectively stupidity than the feds since they are subjected to less scrutiny and they have smaller staffs, etc.

    If this happened to a D campaign, sentinment would be 99.99% that the campaign screwed up.

  • David123

    and that is the core problem.

    Virginia would have us believe that Ron Paul is more competent to be president than New Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, and Jon Huntsman.

  • heraklios

    Then why are you arguing with me about Mitch Daniels? I guarantee you Huckabee is much more likely than Mitch Daniels to endorse Perry?

  • JSobieski

    and the clear language in the Board of Elections memo?

    They were warned—get 15,000 signatures to be safe.

    They ignored the warning.

    They got burned.

    Nothing from any official source should have been “clear” when it contradicts the law and a memo from the relevant government agency.

    When you for less than a safe harbor position, you by definition are taking a risk.

    I agree that Romney’s petition should be checked out given the circumstances. I just find the excuse making unseemly—-is it Florida 2000 all over again?

    Florida’s election laws essentially made it impossible to comply with both certain requirements and the timing requirements, but that didn’t stop us from asserting that the literal law should be enforced.

    Now it hurts our guys and all principle is thrown into the ocean.

    That and people talking about how great Huckabee is compared to Daniels and it really gets me down.

  • acat

    and will even agree that the Perry and Gingrich campaigns may have screwed up in the light of the memo…

    none of that changes that Bolling is poorly placed for Romney to come out of this smelling like anything pleasant. Romney can distance himself a bit by insisting – in public – that all of his names be checked.

    Mew

  • acat

    as a “dirty tricks” guy.

    Since two of his best positioned rivals are now off the ballot – leaving a choice of Romney or Ron Paul – I would hope that Romney would double down on integrity, to take the opportunity to prove that he’s got the names.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    Your attack on Daniels was based on nothing solid, and so I defened him the same way I would defend you against an unarticulared baseless accusation.

    Daniels has a lot to say on health care reform. A lot of what he has to say is embodied in various Ryan plans that I want to build support for.

    I don’t care who Huckabee or anyone else endorses. I just don’t want decisions made on incorrect facts or faulty logic.

    Daniels would have been the best candidate to talk health care. It looks like we may end up with the worst, Romney.

  • oldlady

    Not only because it was his associates in the Va. GOP who counted the ballots, but because Bollinger (Romney’s Va. campaign chairman) loaned Romney the use of his own statewide campaign machine operation to collect the names on his petitions, thus using his own statewide voter lists which he has established over the years campaigning in Virginia. Then Bollinger personally handed in Romney’s petitions. Something, indeed, smells bad in the state of Virginia.

  • JSobieski

    to come out of this mess.

    I agree with you that he should.

    If I were in VA, I would vote for Paul just to make a bloody mochery of the entire fiasco.

  • snowshooze

    As State Ballot access seems to indicate no signatory Petitions are required for Presidential Primary Nominations. As noted.
    Either the signatures are moot in their entirety, and we are all subjected ONLY to GOP internal Party Practices.. as the State has delegated Party Politics to those participating Parties… and to each, their own methodology..
    I am missing something. Try hitting me harder, I just am stumped.

  • JSobieski

    What does a prudent campaign do to reconcile the following communications:

    (1) Clear legal guidance from the VA Board Elections stating what the actual requirements are–so you know if you satisfy these, there are no issues

    (2) Informal enforcement guidance from the GOP asserting that a lower standard will be enforced.. Following these is no guarantee of anything. Its kind of like having a cop tell you that you can safely speed on a certain road so long as you aren’t speeding by more than 5 MPH over.

    If you go (2) in order to save money, cut corners, just didn’t have the time, etc—-at least don’t be a baby about it if you get nipped.

  • JSobieski

    disagrees with you.

  • snowshooze

    So, that brings me to wonder if this is State Vs, GOP or GOP Vs. GOP… And all the while everyone else selling popcorn and trying to get the best seats.
    The State having a bit of different threshhold for Ballot Access but the GOP can certify whosoever they wish within that framework.
    Still not gettin’ it Jsob. Can’t the GOP just say “Ok… maybe that was a mistake, we accept and certify these Candidates”

  • texasref

    Here’s some guidance for the quadrennial quandary* of how to select among (or in Virginia’s case, between) imperfect candidates in a presidential primary:

    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

    I’ll take Not-Romney, Alex, for $1,000.** It goes well with my Fiber One*** bar molded cap.

    *a little alliteration
    **a Jeopardy reference
    ***Fiber consistutes 9 grams out of 40. Please pass the water should my prediction turn incorrect.

  • gekster

    and were any memos sent out to that effect.
    No one has shown any memos were sent.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I would not put it past the GOP doing something Luke this. Funny thing is, I’d vote Paul just to screw the heck out of them.

  • texasref

    about the 15,000 no-check but the 10,000 check.

    Any candidate who submits papers requesting ballot placement should have every single one of their signatures checked regardless of the number. Anything less than that is half-_____ practices.

  • texasref

    because it hurts Gingrich. But you watch the Establishment squirm if we wake up on January 4th finding out Ron Paul won Iowa. They will find a way to get everyone and their brother (and sister) on that ballot.

    Orrrrrr….I could be wrong and that it does *kinda sorta* help Romney because instead of 20% of the vote he’ll get 40% or more, which is at least double the delegates. But that will be little consolation to Romney if the other 40-60% goes to the candidate who won Iowa, should that be the case.

  • JSobieski

    The Memo from the Board of Elections always recommended that candidates obtain between 15,000-20,000 signatures.

    Always.

    No Changes.

    Similarly, the law requiring 10,000 VALID signatures is not new.

    The GOP previously allowed very lax enformcement, and then changed that policy of lax enforcement,

    Who counts on lax enforcement? Lax enforcement is not something you take to the bank.

    Here is the analogy:

    The speed limit on a certain road is 60mph but your cop friend tells you that they almost never stop anyone for going less than 70mph

    Some newspaper reporter writes an article talking about how speed limit laws aren’t enforced. Police dept steps up enforcement as a result.

    You get a ticket going 65mph on the road.

    The cop does not make the laws any more than the VA GOP makes the laws. If you want to be safe, FOLLOW THE LAW. If you want to play games and take risks, go by what the cops tell you can get away with.

    What shows better judgment:
    (1) Following the law and having some slack to avoid a problem
    OR
    (2) Following what someone says to you with a wink-wink-nod-nod, while ignoring what the law requireemnts and what the particular government entity recommends.

    I absolutely DETEST these gotcha requiremnts, but I assure you that as good of a conservative as Perry is, there are more such requirements in Texas than there were on the day he took office.

    Small business people navigate around this stuff all the time. If the campaigns can’t handle it, its pretty sad.

    Bottom Line: If the campaigns followed the law as written or even the recommendations of the Board of Elections, they would be absolutely fine right now. Instead, if they relied on the GOP—then they are fools.

    Never rely on someone else’s lawyer. Going by what the GOP said, instead of what the law required was a mistake.

    Never believe someone when they say “I will not enforce the regulations/rules on you”. Such a promise is never enforceable, and is always subject to change.

    Always adopt a position that alleviates your vulnerability to the discretion of someone else. That is a position of strength. If they had obtained 15,000 signatures, they could tell the VA officials to kiss their behinds and enjoy the view.

  • texasref

    nt

  • JSobieski

    You had a finding of fact that neither Newt nor Perry had 10,000 signatures. You would like the solution of the GOP just discovering that many signatures/addresses were actually valid?

    Kind of like Gore ballots in Fla?

    You really want that?

    Whatever solution happens in Va is going to haunt us the next time there is a Fla 2000.

  • tomatin

    So you support more and more unnecessary regulations and have the gall to imply I’m thinking like them. I guess you just don’t have experience dealing with stupid regulations because it shows.

  • tomatin

    The point was the law itself was stupid by requiring validation from 10,000-15,000 but not over that. But then again lawyers love to defend the stupid with the old rules are rules arguments.

  • JSobieski

    I do not support unecessary regulations. However, I do support following the laws as stated on the books.

    That is true whether the law is a Florida election law in 2000 or a Va election law in 2011-2012/
    See Gore/Florida in 2000. See also the Torch in NJ.

    The remedy for bad laws is repeal, not legal games that pretend there was compliance.

    Stupid laws exist on the books because the people who make them presume that the laws will never bite them in the @$$

    Small businesses deal with these gotchas all the time. The Perry and Newt campaigns (both of whom have received money from me) should be embarassed by this episode for their failure to read a 2 page memo from the Election Board.

    The Va legislature should be embarassed for voting for the stupid requirements in the first place.

    Va voters should be embarassed voting in the people who voted in the stupid requirements.

    “unecessary regulations” is what Gore called Fla election laws in 2000.

    If this had happened to a D, you would be arguing from a totally opposite point of view. You probably did if you were bloggin in 2000.

  • JSobieski

    I argue for fewer rules.

    Fewer but more meaningful rules.

    I am not a big fan of people who are big time legal compliance . . . except when it comes to them or someone on their team.

    The “intention of the voter” was the mantra for Fla re: Gore.

    The “freedom to vote” was the mantra for the NJ re: Torch

    I am unaware of any instance in my lifetime where Republicans acted like democrats with respect to election laws.

    Take your argument with the duly elected VA legislature–I didn’t make these stupid requirements up.

  • JSobieski

    There is a different between opposing a dumb law by repealing the law and having a court somewhere fix the problem.

    The court fixing the problem scenario is also thinking like a Dumbocrat.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    He needs to step up and lead if he really wants to be a national force down the road.

  • Scope

    The case Moe cites from what’s going around the webosphere, it is Osborne vs. Boyles. You read in many places that the Independent candidate filed suit against the GOP VA, which is not true.

    Michael Osborne jumped into the VA 5th Dist. race for a House of Delegates seat in this past 2011 elections. He said that no seat should go unchallenged, as the only other candidate for the seat was a Republican. He is quoted as saying at the time that “if the Democrats don’t want to vote for the Republican, then they would have a choice in the race. He ran as an Independent. He filed his lawsuit the end of October 2011, which is Osborne vs. Boyles. Boyles is the GOP Chair for the 5th district. That is very far different than suing the VA GOP. Boyles put the only Republican on the ballot, as duh, Boyles is the district chair of the GOP. It is a stupid nothing but sour grapes lawsuit, as Osborne claimed that the GOP chair didn’t check his 334 ballot signatures, even though only 125 signatures were required. Osborne claimed in his run that he is very tenacious, and he doesn’t walk away from anything.

    It appears that some are using the “excuse” that the VA GOP was sued so they had to get tough, in order to give nothing more than an excuse to the VA GOP for changing their rules midstream. One district GOP chair was sued by an obvious fly by night, flaky Independent candidate, who has an axe to grind. The case is considered still pending as it was only filed at the end of Oct. 2011, and not in time to affect the early Nov. race. If this case is the excuse for changing the rules, yes in Nov., and checking every signature for the presidential candidates, they are being completely dishonest and crafty.

    This Michael Osborne lawsuit joke is just that. The R candidate verified his own signatures before handing them in. The case will most likely be dismissed, but the VA GOP sees it as a means to an end obviously.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    It’s the only thing people could talk about. Are you sure you didn’t just step into this election the past week or so?

  • The_Gadfly

    how about we do a complex comparison to something Romneybots are well-versed with: insider trading laws.

    Whether or not Bolling himself checked ballots (doubtful, that sort of thing is done by other apparatchiks in the party) he was part of the team that discussed and determined the rules for the party. Thus he had inside information about the terms under which access to the ballot would occur. If he used that information to help Romney gather the signatures before it was released to other candidates, he would be guilty of using insider information for personal gain. In other words, if this were the financial markets instead of politics, he’s be under federal indictment faster than you can say “Martha Stewart.”*

    *No, even though I like Martha Stewart about as much as like Romney, I didn’t approve of the way she was railroaded either. But that is the sort of thing that seems to happens when you are no longer associated with the “in group” these days, and too which so many fair minded Republicans object – in BOTH parties.

  • JSobieski

    Interesting . . ..

  • Scope

    and I suspect that he will remain their because he has endorsed Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling as the next Gov, who is Romney’s campaign chair. I’d say McDonnell is in a very very hard place between the rocks, no?

  • lizzie

    to death…

    just saw Santorum with Steve King after their pheasant hunt, and I am not sure if my eyes can recover from such a bright orange.
    Did RS think the pheasants were going to shoot back?

    Yes, this was on CNN, trying to figure out Ron Paul and Rick Santorum chances in Iowa. (Huntsman now polling ahead of Santorum in Iowa!)
    The same CNN that brought the world a fake twitter revolution in Tahrir Square.

    The same CNN that is covering the VA ballot access issue SOLELY as a failure by Gingrich and Perry to get 10,000 signatures – not one glimmer of nuance in their coverage.

    But, RS’ bright fluorescent orange jacket made me think of John Kerry windsurfing.

    If Ron Paul is really such a fervent believer in the U.S. Constitution, then he should stand up and say we need to dispense with political factions (parties), and let the States choose the Electors under Article 2, Section 1.

    Then Romney can just hand out envelopes full of cash to buy his dream job.

    Save the rest of us a whole lot of “stupid” passing as “journalism” and “punditry”.

    Whoever earlier wrote that America will not survive another four years of Obama and whoever wrote about the complete void of leadership in Ron Paul get my applause for today.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and I think you are being over “lawyerly” about this by emphasizing over and over the letter of the law.

    In this case, there is much more in play than just the laws in question. Specifically, the enforcement of the law–which lies completely within the jurisdiction of the VA GOP. Given that we are all supposed to be on the same team, it is within their power to alter their rules of enforcement in order to protect the integrity of the entire system–which may still happen before this is over.

    Your emphasis on the failure of the Gingrich and Perry campaign teams to comply with the law fails to factor in how the law has been enforced in the past. Until I hear differently from the campaigns in question, are you trying to say that both Perry and Gingrich failed to act in good faith by collecting well over the required 10,000 petitions? Why would they waste their time and money doing so if they actually knew that the petitions would be scrutinized more than ever before? It doesn’t make sense.

    As I said before, we are all on the same team and, unless their is some underhanded intraparty manipulation going on, the VA GOP should–out of respect for the many voters who support Gingrich and Perry–accept in good faith the petitions submitted. Which they have the power to do.

    That’s how I see it. Given the many political forces at play within the GOP, your insistence on focusing only on the letter of the law just doesn’t address the whole picture.

  • The_Gadfly

    particularly when they have the effect of moving the wall back another 100 meters is BAD FORM and not tolerated by Americans interested in fair play.

  • The_Gadfly

    and the VA GOP is gonna have to do some fast footwork to walk this one back.

    Right now the ONLY two candidates who are on the ballot are the unelectable Mittens and the GOP’s Shelia Jackson Lee: Ron Paul.

    Frankly, given how bad this looks, if I were in VA I’d be sorely tempted to vote for Ron Paul. I’m doubtful he can win big in the other states and it would keep Mittens from stealing votes that should not go to him. Granted my actual action would probably be to stay home, but I would be sorely tempted.

  • circlegranch

    upon leaving the governor’s office. Said activity cost MA taxpayers $100k at least. Not illegal, but considered unprecedented and unusual.

    Primaries hurriedly moved up, rules being changed in midstream. Hmmmm…..all this and still not much above 25% of GOP support.

    Are you listening Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina?

  • JSobieski

    It is a mandatory requirement, not some kind of option.

    The Board of Elections sent a memo recommending that candidates obtain at least 15,000 signatures to avoid compliance issues.

    Certain campaigns ignored the May 2011 memo, took their chances, and got burned.

    This is very much analogous to law enforcement realizing that people on a certain road have been historically speeding out of control, cracking down on speeders.

  • The_Gadfly

    he can’t win PA. He didn’t lose because he was running against a pro-life son a Republican Governor, he lost because when the GOP establishment told him to take a dive for Specter, he did. Different people parse it somewhat differently, but that’s essentially what it comes down to. When I was home for Christmas my Dad, who will be voting in the PA elections, told me if it was a choice between Santorum and The Big 0, he’d probably have to flip a coin because of the old adage about “the devil you know” and how Santorum didn’t always vote his constituency when he was in office.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    for the Virginia Grand Prix is what people are complaining about. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the memo they sent out is the one they usually send out.

    STILL, it does not relieve the responsibility of the candidates to make sure they’ve done what’s necessary to get on the ballot.

  • JSobieski

    Gore’s lawyers went into court and argued “intentions” and the underlying purpose behind the laws. The points weren’t illogical.

    If you are fine with that, you are fine with that. I suspect you opposed those arguments in 2000.

    Know this—if some court “fixes” this problem, the D’s will shove this legal precedent down our collective conservative throats.

    If the GOP of VA “deems” that the each campaign provided 10,000 qualifying signatures, don’t get upset when the politicians in DC “deem” all sorts of things to be true that a contrary to the facts.

    Since when is it a defense to a breach of legal obligations to say “you weren’t enforcing this before”?

    Every DA in the country comes in with different priorities than the previous DA. That is why we have DAs. Citing lax prior enforcementis not a defense in any other context. Try that with your taxes, or an attempt to get a liquor license. Different police offficers exhibit different degrees of leniency.

    I find the willingness of conservatives to use arguments from Gore’s 2000 legal briefs to be disappointing.

    The campaigns did with the legal requireemnts things that you, me, or John Citizen would never no—PRESUME that the laws wouldn’t be enforced as written against us.

    That is what the Perry and Newt campaigns did. They PRESUMED that the letter of the law didn’t apply to them, and they got burned.

    I know I am in the minority on this, but I spent much of the 2000 election as a vocal minority as well (living in a Blue State). Doesn’t stop me from sleeping.

    “Out of respect for the voters” is a line that the D’s have used and will use in the future.

  • JSobieski

    We are to conclude that X is some kind of injustice—a last minuted change of “the rules”.

    The Memo specifically recommends obtaining between 15,000 and 20,000 signatures.

    No amount of Romney game playing should be able to confuse candidates about what the actual legal requirements are.

    The better question is: Why did campaigns rely on what the GOP said rather than what the law actually required?

  • truthsquad

    Are you SURE you want Gingrich and/or Perry to get back on the ballot in VA? If Gingrich gets back on, Ron Paul would have more likelihood to win some delegates in Virginia.

    You see, the RNC just released their final delegate allocation paper. In Virginia, they had to change from winner-take-all to proportional distribution of delegates… UNLESS one candidate gets more than 50%.

    If it’s ONLY Mittens and Paul, chances are good that Paul will lose to Mittens.

    If Gingrich and/or Perry get on, chances are good that NO ONE will get over 50%… and that Paul will get at least SOME of Virginia’s delegates, to take to the possible brokered convention.

    Quite the dilemma, eh?

  • JSobieski

    The argument that is consistent with the written laws is to argue that only 50 signatures are required.

    As you can see from the statute, other state-wide offices require 10,000 qualifying signatures. However, the term “President” does not appear on the list, which means that it would be covered under “other” which requires only 50 signatures

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-506

    ? 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;

    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.

  • westcoastpatriette

    petitions have been scrutinized and you have no problem with the arbitrary manner in which the rulemakers apply that scrutiny.

    Just because the Romney campaign turned in more than 15,000 petitions the need to verify their qualification is arbitrarily waived? Why is that not an issue to you? Suppose 5,001 of them don’t qualify?

    And don’t try to lump me in with sleazy Democrats. Don’t you think we have sleazy Republican operatives?

    There are nuances here that you refuse to acknowledge and it makes you look like a traitor to accept this entire situation at face value without any further scrutiny.

  • Common_Cents

    while hunting

  • Scope

    Since 2004, the DNC has issued waivers for Democrats running for any office in VA. They only require that the Dem. candidates gather 4-5,000 signatures. If the Democrat party can supercede state law, then the VA GOP can also. They are currently suggesting that state law only require 5,000 signatures, but not this year. If the Democrats have the ability to change the state rules, then so to does the VA GOP.

    You keep arguing the state law, and seem to forget that once those ballots get to their respective parties, they can then change the rules on what ballots are valid.

    I just got my new voter registration card in the mail the week before last, which is long past the recent VA elections for state races. The literature states that my card may be replaced in the future as the VA redistricting plans have still not to this date been settled and approved. The districts still may change when it most likely will go to a federal judge to rule on the plans, which is still hotly in contention, even though the majority R legislature is still “working with the Democrats” to come up with an acceptable plan.

    On my new voter card, the district number has changed for my House of Delegates district number. VA still has not, and will not likely in the near future have a passed redistricting map, probably even beyond the 2012 elections. And you rely on VA election laws as gospel?

  • JSobieski

    If you want to challenge that go ahead–I’m sure there were SOME instances of user error, but it won’t be enough.

    In terms of the 15,000 safe harbor rule—-I didn’t hear about any conservatives protesting that policy when the VA Board of Elections adopted it.

    I support testing all of Romney’s petitions as well. I am hardly a supporter of Romney.

    Never said you were sleazy—I accused you of adopting “opportunistic” reasoning when it comes to election law enforcement.

    The only way someone would classify me as a traitor would be if they view issues of legality as purely instruments of what the right outcome is.

    That is how Henry VIII ended up killed Sir Thomas Moore.

    The nuances here are that VA law either REQUIRES 10,000 qualifying signatures … or it allows us to factor in “intent” and the underlying “purpose” of the law in the context of broader concerns for “justice” and a need to prevent disenfranchising voters.

  • lineholder

    would this allow Huntsman, Bachman and Santorum into the VA race as well?
    I’m not really sure what the status of any of these 3 candidates might be re: petitions, but is it a possibility that this could take place?

  • The_Gadfly

    The GOP was the rule making agency. When the rule making agency publishes it’s interpretation of the law, unless you plan on spending a fortune challenging the ruling, you go by what the rule making agency says, even if in your judgment the law says something else. And the rule making agency is required to publish its rules in time for people under it’s purview to be able to adjust practices in time to meet the published compliance rules.

  • JSobieski

    hasn’t come out in favor of that.

    What you are suggesting is that the number of qualifying signatures be purposely miscounted.

    Imagine that this was happening to the D’s in Virginia.

    They go through a process involving computer validation of names and addresses and conclude that candidate X falls short of the required number.

    Your solution is to have a recount… a recount with “relaxed standards” as to what a qualifying signature is so that the number will be higher?

    Explain again how this is different from Gore’s 2000 strategy in Fla. If the numbers don’t give you what you want, argue for a relaxed standard so that the numbers go up.

  • JSobieski

    Nobody that I know of out there is arguing this loopwhole. However, it seems like a viable argument to me.

    It is contrary to the past practices of VA though.

  • Scope

    Who do you think is in charge of the Senate redistricting plans, none other than LT Gov Bill Bolling. The plans were put off until after the 2011 elections. The R’s have the majority in both houses. Why is there still a willingness to work with the Democrats when the Republicans have won the “say”? Isn’t redistricting a major issue for both parties, so that they can draw the districts as they see fit? Not with the moderate Bill Bolling. He insists on giving the Democrats their place at the table. Look it up.

  • Scope

    the VA state election board gives up control of the ballots once they are passed from the state agency over to the respective parties. Hey Obama submitted his ballot signatures, which I read were at the rate of something like 35,000 per week. And they say ACORN is defunct, huh.

  • JSobieski

    a conservative view of complying with the requirements would do what the VA Board of Elections “recommended”.

    If in doubt, why play games or take short cuts?

    Do you take short cuts in filing your taxes? Paying bills? Renewing government documents like a drivers license?

    The advantages of cutting corners are small.

    The disadvantages are horrible and consequential.

    Ken Cuccinelli appears to agree with me in any case. Sounds like he isn’t challenging the VA GOP on this one. http://citizentom.com/

  • lineholder

    strong enough legal basis to pursue this?

    I can understand that people want Perry and Newt on the ballot. I can understand that people are also concerned about what the outcome might be if no one other than Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are on the ballot.

    But in the context of negative consequences that might exist if this course of action is pursued….realistically speaking, what are they?

  • circlegranch

    www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-secret-money/2011/12/23/gIQAbTZmHP_story.html

    The above referenced article at the Washington Post reveals that after refusing last week to release income tax records, now Romney is refusing to reveal the identities of his big campaign donation bundlers. He’s within the law to not do so, but its another case of him failing to be transparent. In 1994, he called on Ted Kennedy to release his tax information to ensure voters he wasn’t hiding anything, yet Romney himself would not release his information! He also refused to release same when he ran for gov of MA.

    Of note, Rick Perry HAS released his tax information and Newt says he will release his when he becomes the nominee.

    The WaPo is running a poll adjacent to the online article. At the time I read it, almost 3200 persons had participated with 80% saying Romney should release both his tax records AND the names of his bundlers, compared to 9% that believe he can tell the country to MYOB regarding his income and campaign support.

    Are you awake out there, Iowa? New Hampshire? South Carolina?

  • JSobieski

    I am not arguing for Bolling any more than I am arguing for Romney or Paul.

    The GOP is only free to lower the petition requirement below to what the law requires, but it cannot raise the petition requireemnt above what the law requires.

    A prudent campaign would achieve the requirements of the law, and not put itself at risk with trying to shave off some costs on this.

    I can see why people like Bachmann or Santorum wouldn’t even try to comply.

    What I don’t understand is why people like Perry and Newt cut corners on this. Any college graduate could read the memo put out by the VA Board of Elections or the statute itself.

  • lineholder

    But in the context of reality, if the responsibility for being lax in application of the law in the past lies on the shoulders of the VA GOP, causing candidates to believe that they would be seeing the same or a similar degree of that lack of application this time as well, there is a causal element that relates directly back to the past actions of the VA GOP. (perhaps something of the lines of negligence???)

    I’m not trying to make excuses for those who weren’t necessarily as prudent as they might have been. I’m wondering if the causal element would provide any substance to a challenge in court.

  • circlegranch

    let’s allow their legal teams to investigate. Perry’s website has nothing about this today because the matter is still under scrutiny and evalutation. You have nothing to verify your comment that either or both ‘cut corners on this’.

    Why aren’t people asking why Bachmann and Santorum didn’t even try? Bachmann herself said at the last debate, “I’m a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States.” Really? She also claims she has such an amazing organization in Iowa that she has a majority of all precinct leaders in every single county lined up to get people to the caucus to vote for her. Why then would she deliberately skip over a state that votes on Super Tuesday? A truly ‘serious’ candidate would have gotten volunteers organized and got those petitions signed.

    This is a very fluid situation with an unknown outcome. Answers are pending but its fair to be asking, why didn’t BAchmann and Santorum even try to get on the ballot? Why aren’t they commenting on this?

    Granted, today is a slow news day, but the media, including Fox is very low key on this. Carl Cameron keeps pumping up the idea that Santorum will leave Iowa in 4th place but no mention given to this Tempest in the Teapot, which in and of itself, is suspect.

  • Scope

    Where in my post did I remotely say that the qualifying signatures should be misconstrued? I didn’t. I said that the Democrat party of Virginia has given wavers for the Dem. candidates to not have to collect 10,000 signatures, but rather 5,000 signatures.

    Do you have any information as to the computer system used by the GOP that it has actually been verified to be valid, and accurate? Would that be something similar to the E-Verify system that is only as good as those inputting the information?

    Since the GOP has not validated ballot signatures before this year, as has been widely reported, what accuracy rate do you think the new database system may have?

    My solution is not at all to have a recount, and I never argued that position. My solution is to go back to the “relaxed standards” that existed before this election cycle, most especially not a knee jerk position to now validate every signature, when that standard never applied before this cycle.

    It’s all well and fine to have state rules for ballot access requirements, but then allow state partie organizations to “wave” those requirements. It’s more than a little stringent law requirement when my own party refuses to also “wave” those stringent requirements, especially when they have the ability to do so.

    It must be very very hard to live in the tiny little box you, and probably some other lawyers have put themselves in. How’s that been workin’ out for ya? Are we any closer to strict rule of law lately by either party?

  • westcoastpatriette

    No other explanation for your arrogance in thinking you are the only one capable of judging this mess properly.

    Good thing we don’t allow ourselves to be ruled by attorneys like you. Suppose you would have yourself be crowned king if it were allowed. Then we could all bow down to your diktats.

  • Scope

    have demanded that the voter roles be cleaned up of dead voters? None. I have not seen the first effort to do that by anyone, although it’s been a known problem for years. Why would that be? Why do the states keep having open R primaries, when we know darn well that many D’s will cross over in the R primaries? I really don’t know but do the D’s have open primaries?

  • lineholder

    I could be wrong, of course. But I think what JSob is doing right now is just working through the factors of the situation, within the context of his experiences and knowledge of the law, along with other variables such as situations that have occurred in the past politically, to start pinpointing exactly what may or may not be viable options.

  • JSobieski

    that way, it can’t really be challenged or debated.

    I don’t rule anyone or seek to rule anyone. You are flustered by an argument and proceed to make presonal attacks on me.

    Even if I did want to be a King (and I don’t)—how does that make my argument wrong?

  • JSobieski

    is that better than changing it prior to the deadline?

    Did the DNC waive the requirements after the petitions were counted?

  • circlegranch

    How convenient….all the radio talkers are off on holiday vacation. Hannity would follow Fox’s lead which appears to be disinterest, but if there’s something unethical or even having the appearance of unethical, hopefully Rush or Beck would call it out.

    For all the defenders of the VA GOP and the officials involved, let them do a press conference and explain in full detail what the specifics are; they should come forward and explain any connection to the Romney campaign, and give a full public accounting which would then put this to rest. Of course, when news outlets such as Fox aren’t even covering it or asking questions, the officials in VA figure its not a big deal.

  • JSobieski

    I pointed to one specific example.

    My statement is far more limited than what you make it out to be.

    How can we enforce tougher rules on cross over voters for closed primaries if we cant’ even follow current ballot requirements?

  • Scope

    that I keep hearing over and over. It’s said that if the weather is bad, Paul wins because his volunteers will carry the voters on their backs to the caucuses if necessary. Does that automatically mean that all of the other candidates have not anticipated weather? Why would Perry not have anticipated this outcome, or any of the other candidates as well? It seems that Perry or any of them don’t have a clue of Iowa weather, and don’t believe in SUV’s.

  • snowshooze

    And he ( I have to give credit here ) Probably was quite careful to validate his petitioners prior to submitting them.
    Probably. Or the theory that he is playing games goes right out the window. You wouldn’t want to play that hand unless you were pat.
    All I know for sure is they are a pack of idiots.
    The Virginia Republican Party dug this hole for themselves and have dove into it.

  • AceInTX

    x

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Nor would you ever hear me use it.

    The whole thing does look a little odd though.

  • Scope

    the VA GOP shouldn’t be changing the rules after the fact. That is exactly what they have done.

    Go and read the DPVA and read what they have said. The DNC waived the rules in 2004, and have every year since. THE DNC WAIVED THE STATE RULES FOR SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS. Go there and read their website. Don’t be lazy, you have google access as much as I do.

  • AceInTX

    you have a Romney campaign operative certifying votes for Romney Opponents for Pete’s sake.

    If it’s not criminal it’s blatantly dishonest and as I said…there is no honor in the Romney camp or this would not happen

  • westcoastpatriette

    JSob keeps comparing this to a presidential election which it is not. The rules for primaries are different and a great deal of latitude is given in VA to the parties to enforce the law. He pompously snubs very valid arguments coming from many different angles and implies that rigid compliance with the written law is the only issue at hand.

    His stubborn rejection of all other arguments coupled with accusing those of us who disagree with him of acting like the Dems in the previous presidential elections is insulting, condescending and making me angry. He sounds like a pompous know-it-all attorney who thinks he knows better than the rest of us the only way to look at this.

    I think I am through with this for now and we will see tomorrow how this plays out.

  • lineholder

    will you go look at the diary JSob has just posted? Because what he’s presented may be a means of getting out of this mess. Really.

  • superpatriot

    Gingrich will win Florida, and most likely Ohio, which would give him a victory.

    Am open to opinions.

  • JSobieski

    Good to know.

    Does stubbonrness only matter when one is the minority?

    I could just as easily say that you are stubborn for not changing your position.

    Congress shall make no law . . .

    Candidates shall have 10,000 qualifying signatures

    Just words. Just pompous snubs? LOL

    Maybe the word “shall” merely means “if the legislature feels like it” as opposed to something more mandatory!

    I presume that when the DNC encourages more illegal aliens to vote in D primaries—you will be 100% fine with that use of their discretion?

    Or will that violation of law matter in a way that this does not?

  • rmiddle

    Those are laws that aren’t on paper but the judges have ruled one way on issue long enough that it is considered acepted law. The same can be said about election law.

    When I ran in 2006 there were aspects of the campaign that were in stone things like hard dates for filling finical reports etc. However there were soft things that weren’t spelled out but were like common law if you did this things and a question came up you would be safe.

    It most cases the states define the requirements like deadlines for getting on the ballet etc. However lets the state/county party control who is actually on the ballet. Example in MD after you win the primary the County/State Party have to sign off on the candidate before they can go on the ballet. I assume that was to prevent one party from messing with the other party candidates.

    So although you are correct no state law was changed the Party did change there internal rules right before filling.

    Thanks
    Robert

  • acat

    I’d probably write in – legal or not – Perry.

    Cannot stomach voting for Luap Nor.
    Cannot stomach voting for Romney.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    despite saying I’d swim in boiling oil before EVER voting for Paul …but in a choice between Paul and Willard where Romney and his camp is so obviously gaming the system in VA…the temptation to thumb my nose at these ass clowns would be just too much to bear.

  • AceInTX

    and too short on why said asshat is an idiot…heh

  • JSobieski

    If you know satisfying the statutory requireemnt makes you safe and that following the GOP’s proposed enforcement framework is subject to change—-why not just comply with the law?

    Perry and Newt each obtained somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 signatures. Why not just go for 15,000 as recommended by the Election Board.

  • snowshooze

    But the way this has unfolded, the option of scrapping the Primary looks pretty good from here. They deserve it.
    Were I a VA. Voter, after this fiasco, I would be all for it, because this kind of representation is not worth having.
    So I would go for the lessor of two weevils for now, and come back to the VA. Republican Party quite soon with blood in my eye.

  • AceInTX

    ..

  • AceInTX

    I just think it is good practice to say why said ignoramus qualifies as such

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I didn’t try to get on the ballot. What if I want to now? Should I be included? I always wanted to run for President.

  • snowshooze

    I’d write in the Candidate of my preference as well because since it is a Primary, I would rather concede my ballot than lend the Primary any legitimacy by participating as if I honored this malarkey.

  • texasref

    that allow the fox to guard the henhouse then, but there is nothing criminal about it. You are welcome, however, to count this against Romney as you make your primary voting decision.

  • acat

    Look for similar numbers for Romney and Luap Nor … and much, *much* larger numbers than either of their totals in the down-ticket races.

    Mew

  • truthsquad

    Actually, now VA *IS* winner take all, thanks to Newt/Perry/et al being disqualified. The new rules state that if one candidate gets more than 50% statewide, that candidate gets ALL of the statewide delegates. Now that it’s mano-a-mano, that guarantees that either Mittens or Paul will get more than 50% and will win all 13 (really, 16) at-large delegates.

    And at the District level, it remains winner take all within each District.

    See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76404080/2012-RNC-Delegate-Summary

  • AceInTX

    since the LAW allows the GOP to change the horses mid stream…

    Where I see a problem here is in first allowing campaigns to believe they have crossed the hurdle for signature verification once the reached 10,000 at which point any campaign with any sense would stop spending money collecting signatures and marshal resources for the actual vote…only to then announce that said campaigns had indeed not met the requirements after all….that they now need an additional 5,000 signatures….

    my issues with this practice is bad enough BEFORE you throw in the fact that the Lt Governor is leading the VA Romney operation, is on the board who decided to make the change in such a way that other campaigns who had stopped collecting signatures a while back would find it impossible to make the new hurdle because time was up…and is in a position to tell Romney staffers and underlings to keep collecting signatures because he was in a position on the board to know these changes were coming down…

    In my mind, this is the campaign and elections equivalent of insider trading

  • racetraitor

    And though I haven’t practiced in 15 years (been home raisin’ kids), there’s something about” law versus equity” that I’m trying to pull out of the cobwebby recesses of my brain. As you have stated, it is true that the law has said X. However, it can be argued–persuasively, I believe– that the VAGOP, through their lax enforcement of said law, have induced two campaigns to rely, to their detriment, on a lower standard. It would therefore be inequitable, although perfectly legal, to exclude from the ballot those candidates who met the old standard, which was only changed very recently and in such a way that those two parties would understandably have extreme difficulty complying. I, for one, believe that in such a situation, the result at equity should trump the result at law. Am I missimg something? Like I said, it’s been a long time since I was a practicing legal beagle.

  • AceInTX

    You ARE ignoring the issue no matter how much you proclaim otherwise.

    The FACT is…wile the Law says what it says…the rules for verifying signatures were changed at the END of the process and NOONE was warned of the change…except of course…the Romney campaign since they had their ringer…the LT. Frigging Governor on the board who MADE the change

  • lineholder

    Think it through, and be honest about it. It could be a way out of this mess!

  • lineholder

    Better info! Great idea!! Maybe a way out of this!

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….and I believe both Perry and Newt met that standard fully. I think even Teme would agree about that.

  • snowshooze

    50,000 for Romney..
    50,000 for Paul..
    186,000 for invalidated Candidate #1
    192,000 for invalidated Candidate #2
    And then what? A runnoff when there were only two qualified??

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …it’s not like they will be doing more than snagging hookers off of Kennedy Blvd in Tampa and smoking pot at the Convention anyway.

  • JSobieski

    What law gives the GOP the right to determine compliance with state laws?

    if such a law existed, would the law be constitutional?

    The GOP is not an authorized rule maker, they are only a deputized rule enforcer.

    The fact that VA as surrendered its authority to political parties should make all Americans pissed off at VA—not at me.

    If a law says “X is required” why is it OK for the GOP to ever say that less than X is also OK?

  • racetraitor

    I like JSob’s line of reasoning in his diary. And I really respect his respect for the rule of law (I should have said that in my above post, JSob–sorry for the oversigh;-that’s what happens when you’re typing with one finger because a baby is sleeping in your lap.). I was just wondering if Perry and Gingrich could make an argument at equity, concurrent with any arguments at law that they might have. JSob would certainly know better than I if this would be possible. What say you, JSob?

  • acat

    so Romney and Luap Nor both go to the convention with a very weak hold on the VA delegates.

    Mew

  • racetraitor

    I love me some equity.

  • JSobieski

    I propose to you that the delegation to the GOP and Democrat of enforcement and “rule making” is clearly contrary to the black and white requirements set forth in the law

    “The MINIMUM number of signatures of qualified voters REQUIRED for candidate petitions shall be as follows: . . .10,000 signatures, including the signatures of at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth”

    Where does this law say “exept and unless the GOP says otherwise”?

    Analogy:
    The speed limit on a road is 50mph. A police officer makes a habit of telling people that he won’t ticket them if they stay under 60mph. One day, without warning the cop tickets you for going 55mph.

    Is the cop an @$$? Yes.

    Is the ability to drive faster than 50mph something a smart person would have counted on doing? No

    The VA legal system did not include a delegation of authority to the GOP or any other political party.

    What would you think if the DNC started issuing rulings on Obamacare? They can’t because to do so is unconstitutional.

    Same for this context.

  • AceInTX

    5s on the rest of it….I guess I misread you?

  • Stan

    JSobeski, I looked at your diary post lineholder referred to. You quoted the VA law, and it reads in part “…signed by the number of qualified voters specified below after January 1 of the year in which the election is held…” So, why is it that the petitions have already been processed? Shouldn’t they, by this law, be submitted after Jan 1, 2012? Or am I missing something?

  • snowshooze

    Weak hold meaning non-binding?

  • acat

    faithless delegates?

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    The is a difference in definitions here…but not of meaning….the campaign has been run to this point on one set of rules…and in November…the rules were changed…

    maybe definitions matter to you because you are an attorney….but the principles and the conditions on the ground are what matters…

    I will keep driving this point home till people get it…the Lt Gov was on the committee that raised the bar that kept the current frontrunner in all the polls in VA off the Ballot…the Lt Governor also is the head of the Romney campaign in VA….The Lt. Governor was in a position to know how many signatures the Romney campaign had collected…he was also in a position to know the change in the number of signatures collected was coming down and was in a position to make sure the campaign he is directing exceeded that threshold….

    This smells like week old fish….

  • AceInTX

    The memo in May means nothing in that…it said nothing about the threshold being raised to 15,000…unless I’m missing something

  • AceInTX

    That rule didn’t exist till November….not May….and the Lt Governor was in a position to make sure his boy met the threshold….

    One wonders how much effort the Lt Governor put into making sure the campaigns of his candidate rivals were aware of the changes he was no doubt lobbying for were coming down weeks before the deadline?

    Spin it as you wish…parse it with legalese all you want….this stinks…like rotten, putrid flesh….and has corruption written all over it

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Conservative in the primary, Republican in the general.

    Unfortunately, we do not live in anything approaching a perfect world.

  • Samsara

    From Politico:

    Paul Goldman, a Richmond lawyer who is a former Virginia Democratic party chairman, is helping represent a conservative group in challenging Newt Gingrich’s disqualification from the Old Dominion ballot on March 6, Super Tuesday.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70866.html#ixzz1hhN7fzhB

    Won’t make a difference either way, Fox News has turned on Newt and has become a mouth piece for Romney. Game over.

  • AceInTX

    so what choice do VA voters have?

  • AceInTX

    ,,,

  • greyeagle

    The Perry Campaign turned in 11,900 signatures. However, the GOP elites counting them allowed him less than 10,000. That is an awful large amount of signatures tossed.

  • aesthete

    and that the problems revealed by the process might call for a change to VA law going forward… but in reality? Gingrich and Perry’s campaigns were incompetent, and while what happened was unfortunate and effectively disenfranchises their supporters, it is not unjust or unkind — the laws were followed (quite rigorously, actually), and no malice was intended.

  • jbit

    The point that is being made is that only those connected to Romney were party not only to prior knowledge (possibly) but to the verification process itself. Suppose this was counting of absentee ballots: both parties have members there to avoid the risk of any impropiety, Suppose there was only campaign waters from one party. Suppose again the count came out with 100% for the candidate where the campaign watchers were there. The circumstances surrounfing the count would lend themselves to the possibility of impropriety. Now change ballot counting for signature verifivation and you must surely see that it looks rather fishy, The Gingrich and Perry signatures were deemed to be too few after “X” number where said to be not valid, but who was there there to indicate that that actually was the case. That the ones tossed, were indeed not valid. This needed an impartial third party validating all the signatures for all of the candidates and no matter how many where turned in, up to the level of 10000 signatures should have been verified for all.

  • AceInTX

    you are arguing the law….and I agree with you….this was done within the law….but the law allows for judgement in the way it is implemented…the law requires 10,000 signatures and 400 for each congressional district…we have no argument here….

    Where there is an issue…and argument from my point of view is in the way the signatures are certified….and at what arbitrary point certifying said signatures are no longer necessary…the bar was raised to 15,000 in November at a point where it would be impossible for all but the most well connected campaigns to make the hurdle….having the Lt Governor in your camp while involved in making the change speaks volumes to me in the way this was handled and the result these asshats have achieved…

    Bottom line is…either Willard “the Rat” Romney or Ron “Tinfoil Hat” Paul are going to win VA and the voters have no other choice than to vote for one of these two because there is no Write in allowed in VA

  • aesthete

    All of the members of the conservative coalition (except perhaps a very specific brand of “defense” conservatives) have been knifed in the back by their ostensible “leadership” (and I use that word in the loosest sense possible) by the dreaded establishment. However, social conservatives at least got something out of the arrangement over the years, including some things that they really shouldn’t have (online gambling bans and “faith-based initiatives” come to mind…). In contrast, fiscal conservatives/libertarians were very poorly served over the years by that self-same coalition — it seems rather odd to isolate social conservatives as the victims, when all of the base has legitimate grievances against the state of affairs.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    nt..

  • greyeagle

    Perry is a conservative and would not play well in liberal New Hampshire. Your opinion about his chances in PA, well I prefer to wait and see. Your ugly comments about Perry though are not needed. There is nothing wrong with his intelligence, since he has been elected Governor 3 times of a state about 5 times the size of NH. PA, well TX is much larger than that state too. Perry did turn in nearly 12,000, but enough were tossed to put him below 10,000 leaving only Paul and Willard on the ballot. Ugly comments are not needed to state an opinion.

  • aesthete

    Perry and Gingrich were justly excluded. If rule of law means anything, it is that rules must be followed consistently and without concern for specific situations. If they are bad rules, then they must be changed using established procedures. Next time around, candidates will try harder, and (hopefully) the laws will be better.

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

    standpoint, because the only way so-cons get their goal is via judges on the SCOTUS. Its the spending that never stops and that is killing America,

  • aesthete

    How does one define “significant” this late in the game?

    Your candidate screwed up. Have a beer and hope it doesn’t happen again: there’s no quick fix or remedy, and there shouldn’t be, if one values the rule of law*.

    *Of course, this does not mean that one cannot call for a change to these laws going forward.

  • greyeagle

    They have not been checking Romney’s signatures or apparently Pauls. Just Perry’s and Newt’s.

  • greyeagle

    turned in nearly 12,000 signatures in VA. Enough got tossed to put him under 10,000.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …as that decision isn’t looking so good right now. I hope VA republicans are so upset that they toss out the bums. I would if this had happened in FL :B.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …Fox News didn’t elect our candidates. We do. So don’t whine about the press being against Newt (if that is whom you support) and do your job.

  • aesthete

    that Huckabee would nominate good judges as opposed to Daniels? Both have less-than-stellar histories when it comes to nominating judges (though of the two, Daniels is the one who’s shown the ability to nominate a verifiable strict constructionist to the highest court in his state). Ultimately, you have no proof for your trust; only a feeling. I agree that conservatism is about more than economics, but *proof* of conservatism boils down to a record of success. Anyone can sound conservative: Clinton was a master of sounding conservative when it suited him, and GWB fooled enough people, as well. It is clear that either a) more than simple philosophical preference for conservatism on the part of a candidate is necessary for conservative success in politics, or b) we the electorate aren’t very good at differentiating between sincere conservatism and pandering.

  • greyeagle

    Well, it sure smells to have Romney’s people tossing out signatures for Perry and Newt. They should not have been allowed to vet opponents period. The VA GOP should put down their heads in shame. The election there will be nothing but a SHAM.

  • greyeagle

    You got that right. We would not be the only angry voters.

  • aesthete

    in areas where conservatives traditionally feel that spending is either adequate or misused under the current paradigm, esp. in the areas of education, social services and environmental causes. Additionally, his ethical conduct in the manse was unseemly (especially wrt both his wedding registry and his taking things from the AR governor’s mansion). He raised taxes to pay for all of this, worked with Democrats over Republicans to get all of this accomplished, and neither explained (nor felt the need to explain) his deviations from traditional conservative policy in a way that conservatives might accept. Indeed, he justified every deviation with particularly leftist language, and incendiary rhetoric accusing his opponents of infidelity to Jesus Christ, among other things. I will refer you to Cato’s governor rankings, the Club for Growth report on Huckabee, and general google research to confirm this. (I’m not even touching the problems with the way that he handled clemency in office.)

    Rick Santorum was a driving force behind so-called “compassionate conservatism”, writing many articles on how we need to support expanded social services, gargantuan expansions to entitlements, dramatically increased foreign aid (to Africa and elsewhere), and nation-building under this mantle. His voting record, and bills crafted by himself, after 2000 embodied these undoubtedly altruistic yet misguided ideals: he enthusiastically supported, crafted and “improved” (read: expanded) all of the Bush Admin’s atrocities (NCLB, Medicare Pt D, etc), and more besides. Thankfully, most of his other pet projects didn’t get off the ground, but the man had absolutely no concern for spending in Washington while he was there, and significantly exacerbated the problem. It’s no hard thing to oppose the spending of an opponent (i.e., Obama), but where was he when the Bush Admin was gleefully expanding government and regulation at record-breaking levels? Right where he always was: whispering how much better conservatism will be when it embraces these trends.

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

    I just think she is policy driven, rock solid on the constitution and reliable.

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

    be trusted on entitlements, ie a Pat Buchanan populist!

  • aesthete

    are located in Virginia. It is a surety that VAGOP and the VA Dems are Washington creatures as much as anything else. (Well, that and proximity to DC.)

  • jimmyg

    College Republicans
    Jadan Horyn & Erica Gouse
    Ex-Officio
    Hon. John Warner
    Ex-Officio
    Hon. Linwood Holton

    Ex-Officio
    Hon. J. Marshall Coleman
    Ex-Officio
    Hon. Paul Trible, Jr.
    Ex-Officio
    Hon. George Allen

    Ex-Officio
    Hon. James S. Gilmore III
    Ex-Officio
    Hon. Mark L. Early
    E-mail Mark Ex-Officio
    Hon. Jerry Kilgore

    Ex-Officio
    Hon. William T. Bolling
    E-mail Bill Ex-Officio
    Hon. Robert F. McDonnell

    Ex-Officio
    Hon. John Hager

    Ex-Officio
    Hon. Kenneth Cuccinelli

    Many of you have been arguing that Bolling should recuse himself from, I presume the Va. Republican Committee, because he is Romney’s campaign chair. Jerry Kilgore sits on the same committee and is Perry’s campaign chair.
    http://www.rpv.org/node/270

    I would suppose, although I cannot confirm, that Kilgore had the same information about the primary election available to him as Bolling.

    The one take away I can conclude from this mess is that I am not going to Jerry Kilgore for election law advice.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …I was infuriated as a voter when I got tarred with that “Floridians are incompetent voters” after the whole 2000 mess. I take that sort of thing personally.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    We don’t know, do we? We have to assume, like the VA GOP is assuming, that there are enough legal, qualified signatures simply by virtue of the fact that Romney/Paul collected 50% more (apparent) signatures than required.

    TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    This is all complicated by the fact that it’s been widely reported that the signatures were counted and verified by volunteers who were called in at the last minute to….I don’t know…speed things along? The RPV was sending out e-mails asking for volunteers to come in and help verify the signatures and they were sending out updates about who was in and out via Twitter. Did the volunteers have any training? Did they have any interest in particular candidates/campaigns? Were they card-carrying members of the RPV? How many were PaulBots?

    The process, to outsiders, gives the impression that the RPV was holding a high school student council election rather than participating in the nominating process for Leader of the Free World.

    Transparency and answers to some of these questions by the RPV would go a long way to restoring confidence in the process.

  • snowshooze

    Hey, it’s like we needed some more gross incompetence to detract us from the blatant stupidity and all

  • tea4me

    …to sign a petition?

  • unsk

    It is very apparent that Romney’s people rigged this primary qualification process to benefit Romney. As such the national Republican party if it had any ethics should disqualify Romney in any further primaries.

    The rules were changed at the eleventh hour by people involved in the Romney Campaign to clearly benefit him and Paul. ( And from my perspective Ron Paul is a Romney stalking horse; all Paul does is divide the conservative base and pave the way for Romney who can’t win unless there are multiple conservative choices).

    There is no other explanation for the change. The change is highly irregular, unnecessary and clearly does not benefit the Republican Party as a whole. This is so typical of the Crony Insiders and other Ronmey supporters now dominating the Republican Washington Party Establishment. Everything is done by the establishment to maintain their power to the detriment of conservatives and the country at large.

    Romney is a disgrace as is the GOP Establishment.

  • haners

    Even in moments of epic fail by your own candidate, you manage to twist it into being Romney’s fault. This has nothing to do with Romney.

  • haners

    than face reality. Blaming Fox News is so much easier than facing the reality that Newt has been shooting his mouth all throughout December (and every conservative blog has been talking about them as well) while his polls continue to slump. But you know, it’s all because Fox News is the “mouthpiece for Romney” or something. Was that before or after Fox News bashed Romney for screwing up the Baier interview?

  • teme

    There was full check for any mistakes in signatures and forms and procedures in 2008, and if after those the total of valid signatures fell below 10.5k or 450 per district, they were checked against RPV?s official voter list, if opposing campaign wanted to challenge those results and pay for the official voter list comparison.

    http://images.redstate.com/files/Guidelines%20for%20Observers.pdf

    http://images.redstate.com/files/Guidelines%20for%20Petition%20Verification.pdf

    http://images.redstate.com/files/RPV%202008%20Presidential%20Primary%20Petition%20Verification.pdf

    From: Matt Wells
    Sent: Fri Dec 14 17:59:22 2007
    Subject: Petition Verification
    All,
    This email is to notify you that the Party has collected your petitions from the State Board of Elections.

    First off, congratulations on making it through a grueling process! Now that you?ve done the hard part, we just need to verify the petitions.
    We will be conducting verification at RPV HQ (115 E. Grace St, Richmond) beginning at 9:45am on Monday, December 17th. We will be doing a hard count for number of signatures based on correctness of form (see attached documents for details).
    We?ve got about 40 folks coming in to help with the count, so it should proceed fairly quickly. You all are more than welcome to have one or two folks present as observers.
    I will be out of town next week, so please direct any questions to either Christian Curto or Erika Fischer (copied on this email, or available at 703-254-**** and 757-618-****, respectively), who will be supervising the count.
    I hope you?ll take the time to review the attached documents, so that we can get through this as rapidly and smoothly as possible. It is the goal of the Party to qualify your candidates for the ballot, but we do have an obligation to make sure that the legal requirements have been met.
    Thanks,
    Matt
    Matthew Wells
    Political Director – Central
    Republican Party of Virginia

  • Samsara

    and right now on Fox and Friends they are echoing the WSJ story about Newt praising Romney Care and quoted him saying that 100% coverage is a great thing. Not a word from the comfy couch about the fact that Romney care is the model for Obama Care. The very next segment is an attack on Paul.

    Fair and Balanced?

  • Samsara

    and right now on Fox and Friends they are echoing the WSJ story about Newt praising Romney Care and quoted him saying that 100% coverage is a great thing. Not a word from the comfy couch about the fact that Romney care is the model for Obama Care. The very next segment is an attack on Paul.

    Fair and Balanced?

  • bzip

    Did you mean the vast amount of stories where Newt praised Romneycare:

    Gingrich Applauded Romney’s Health Plan
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577123043147395330.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

    Newt praised Romneycare before he was against it
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/newt-praised-romneycare-before-he-was-against-it-108744.html

    Gingrich ?06 Memo: ?Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney? on Health Care
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-06-memo-agree-entirely-with-gov-romney-on-health-care/

    Gingrich Supported Romney Health Care Plan in 2006 Newsletter
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/27/gingrich-supported-romney-health-care-plan-in-2006-newsletter/

  • bzip

    Or did you mean the piece where Newt is caught in another lie. The lie that his first wife ask for a divorce but the records actually show Newt filed and ask for the divorce. Goes to character and trust and will hit upon women voters in the general as very damaging;

    Newly released court documents cast doubt on Gingrich version of first divorce
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html

    The Gingrich divorce papers
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-papers-108707.html

  • tailfins1959

    Hyperbole is unbecoming a thinking person. However, let’s have a thorough investigation into the Virginia ballot access process. I warn the Perry and Gingrich people: They may not like what a thorough investigation uncovers. Imagine images of the stupidest looking petition pages with the caption: “Submitted for the Gingrich campaign”

  • Finrod

    On this, she’s right on, 100 percent. We are setting ourselves up to lose when we hamstring ourselves by following rules the other side never follows.

  • heraklios

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/12/27/virginia_gop_had_not_checked_signatures_before.html

    Confirmation of the skullduggery practiced by the GOP Establishment/Romney campaign to shove any opposition aside. I will reiterate again that NO WAY I will ever vote for Mittens under any circumstances, and I believe many conservatives share my opinion on this, so the Establishment should think very carefully before forcing Romney on us.

  • heraklios

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/12/27/virginia_gop_had_not_checked_signatures_before.html

    Confirmation of the skullduggery practiced by the GOP Establishment/Romney campaign to shove any opposition aside. I will reiterate again that NO WAY I will ever vote for Mittens under any circumstances, and I believe many conservatives share my opinion on this, so the Establishment should think very carefully before forcing Romney on us.

  • AceInTX

    You keep ignoring the FACT that they changed the rules in November thirty days more or less before the deadline….

    My question is this…so they complied with the letter of the law

    So what?

    They, (they includes the director of the Romeny campaign in VA), arbitrarily said if you collect 15,000 signatures then you will escape scrutiny of signatures….

    Your argument hinges on the May letter which “RECOMMENDS” campaigns collect, (By your admission), ” between 15,000 and 20,000 signatures”. So if you’re going to change the rules 30 days out, why set the bar at 15,000 signatures as “RECOMMENDED” in your gold standard latter from May….why not set it at 20,000 signatures which the letter also “RECOMMENDED”?

    Could it be that the Lt. Governor; who just happens to help set the rules…AND who just happens to LEAD the effort for Romney in VA, knew team Romney hadn’t exceeded that 20,000 signature threshold…but that Team Romney had indeed exceeded the 15,000 signature threshold while Romney’s chief rivals have not?

    Keep defending them if you wish…you are right where the “LETTER OF THE LAW” is concerned…but where the rules of justice and fair play is concerned…this is a travesty…and the smell of corruption is pervasive in this.

    Split hairs as a good atty if you will but it doesn’t change the fact that this is a joke of the first order and a tragedy for VA and the Republican Party!

  • teme

    According to the Republican Party of Virginia 2008 Presidential primary documentation, Gingrich and Perry wouldn’t have survived their validation standards either.

    Found some interesting stuff from 2007 from Red State archives about the validation of signatures and papers.

    There was full check for any mistakes in signatures and forms and procedures in 2008, and if after those the total of valid signatures fell below 10.5k or 450 per district, they were checked against RPV?s official voter list, if opposing campaign wanted to challenge those results and pay for the official voter list comparison. From what we have heard, it was the procedural validation alone that brought both Perry below 10k, so they would have been out by these rules also.

    This is probably why the all 6 Republican campaigns who got to the ballot collected those 15k signatures, the key persons knew the rules and collected what they were asked to collect.

    http://images.redstate.com/files/Guidelines%20for%20Observers.pdf

    http://images.redstate.com/files/Guidelines%20for%20Petition%20Verification.pdf

    http://images.redstate.com/files/RPV%202008%20Presidential%20Primary%20Petition%20Verification.pdf

    Here is observer invitation:

    From: Matt Wells
    Sent: Fri Dec 14 17:59:22 2007
    Subject: Petition Verification
    All,
    This email is to notify you that the Party has collected your petitions from the State Board of Elections.

    First off, congratulations on making it through a grueling process! Now that you?ve done the hard part, we just need to verify the petitions.
    We will be conducting verification at RPV HQ (115 E. Grace St, Richmond) beginning at 9:45am on Monday, December 17th. We will be doing a hard count for number of signatures based on correctness of form (see attached documents for details).
    We?ve got about 40 folks coming in to help with the count, so it should proceed fairly quickly. You all are more than welcome to have one or two folks present as observers.
    I will be out of town next week, so please direct any questions to either Christian Curto or Erika Fischer (copied on this email, or available at 703-254-**** and 757-618-****, respectively), who will be supervising the count.
    I hope you?ll take the time to review the attached documents, so that we can get through this as rapidly and smoothly as possible. It is the goal of the Party to qualify your candidates for the ballot, but we do have an obligation to make sure that the legal requirements have been met.
    Thanks,
    Matt
    Matthew Wells
    Political Director ? Central
    Republican Party of Virginia

  • cheetah2

    I don’t have time to look and see if this was already posted. I like this guy.

    http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-richmond/cuccinelli-says-va-ballot-screams-out-to-be-more-accessible

  • westcoastpatriette

    I got so angry with him yesterday that I told him his arguments make him look like a traitor for refusing to acknowledge we have the sleaze factor in operation within the GOP.

    I have nothing against attorneys but sometimes JSob goes too far throwing his legal knowledge around as if that makes him superior to the rest of us and, of course, the only one with the sort of wisdom necessary to assess the correct way to look at things.

    Anyway, good to hear you share my disgust.

  • 1spark

    another “oops” moment for Perry that’s for sure.

    Look, I like Perry. He’s genuine when he talks to you. But the man is just not ready for the work that’s needed to be POTUS.

    If he’s not keeping up with Ron Paul or Mitt Romney (who BOTH ran a 2008 bid and KNOWS the ins and outs of a presidential race) he’s not gonna cut it against Obama.

    In fact, this is more ammunition for Obama to use in the later debates.

    I don’t see how Perry supporters are still on his side and excusing all the missteps that are showing many Americans how ill-prepared he really is.

  • audax

    ..and Later went on to be the Libertarian Candidate for President in 1976

  • snowshooze

    What is the worth of Virginia? Can we gamble that and not sweat it?

  • audax

    …afterall an an Audax is one who dares, so “Let us dare for to dare is to do!” LOL

  • tomatin

    and a presidential election are comparing proverbial apples and oranges. But I get that’s how a lawyer’s mind thinks.

    This is the problem when you rely on legalese interpretations over common sense when creating rules. It just seems to me that requesting certification of signatures at one level and not at another belies common sense.

    Gingrich and Newt messed up by not double and triple checking the rules. But that does not make the rules any more consistent with common sense. Frankly I would expect Republicans to put common sense over legalities in this case and search for a pragmatic solution because all this does is hurt the party.

  • cjd87

    Ok so Mittens does everything he can to get his challengers off the ballot fine. Everyone vote for Paul. HOw embarrassing would it be for Romney if Paul beats him heads up in VA?

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….and it puts himself clearly in support of the insurgents and opposed to the ‘establishment’ powers-that-be within his own state even as they are embarrassing Virginia in the eyes of the nation.

  • timb5274

    You can find more info on my blog regarding how RPV may not have satisfied the requirements of Va law at http://timboyer.blogspot.com/

    I am a conservative Republican district vice-chair and blogger in VA, and have compiled quite a lot of info on my blog you may find interesting

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Eugene Fansler

  • Pingback: Gaylord Anene

  • Pingback: Tiana Knepper

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: hiking shoes for women

  • Pingback: see

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: dig this

  • Pingback: KSL Squaw

  • Pingback: aranzacje nowoczesnych wnetrz

  • Pingback: online rubrikkannonser

  • Pingback: cardio workouts

  • Pingback: right here

  • Pingback: paleo recipe book

  • Pingback: Universitas Terbaik

  • Pingback: sony ax2000

  • Pingback: leappad 2

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: ugg pas cher

  • Pingback: Clicking Here

  • Pingback: real google sniper review

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: acheter louboutin

  • Pingback: pond5 promo codes discounts

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: Get More Information

  • Pingback: Dorothy Hakimi

  • Pingback: seofabrik

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: paleo bread recipe

  • Pingback: dubai property

  • Pingback: more info

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: computers

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: the best legal steroids

  • Pingback: spybubble free

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: sources

  • Pingback: Trade In Wheels

  • Pingback: business>company

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: Lower Abdominal Pain

  • Pingback: astral project definition

  • Pingback: meditation out of body travel

  • Pingback: free webcams

  • Pingback: homes for sale in Indianapolis Indiana

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: supply chain risk management

  • Pingback: gutters tampa florida

  • Pingback: meter

  • Pingback: spss training manual pdf

  • Pingback: green coffee bean max

  • Pingback: learn more here

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: sony battery

  • Pingback: Best Credit Repair

  • Pingback: ING Direct

  • Pingback: MC Hammer

  • Pingback: elephant tube

  • Pingback: plumbers toronto

  • Pingback: tartamudez

  • Pingback: american mortgage help

  • Pingback: Tas Branded

  • Pingback: sushi catering boston

  • Pingback: NHL hockey updates

  • Pingback: Make Money Youtube

  • Pingback: gain followers on tumblr

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: Secure your online privacy

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: how to build backlinks

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: computer repair in pittsburgh

  • Pingback: Allevamento Rottweiler

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: backlinks kaufen

  • Pingback: Welded Razor Wire Fence

  • Pingback: Dumpsters

  • Pingback: mold inspection

  • Pingback: Rent a dumpster

  • Pingback: lebron shoes

  • Pingback: tablets pc

  • Pingback: designer mens shirts

  • Pingback: samsung chromebook

  • Pingback: cafe shop

  • Pingback: buy african mango

  • Pingback: WarZ Items

  • Pingback: logos quiz

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: Click here for more Info

  • Pingback: online bingo free bets

  • Pingback: casino slots

  • Pingback: play blackjack online

  • Pingback: horoscopes

  • Pingback: free cell phone service

  • Pingback: cheapest car insurance

  • Pingback: hushållsservice

  • Pingback: Seattle Janitorial

  • Pingback: commercial cleaning

  • Pingback: Janitorial Service Seattle

  • Pingback: all good

  • Pingback: Medical Practice Marketing

  • Pingback: dkfjadlfk

  • Pingback: lego shop

  • Pingback: Joe Francis

  • Pingback: swimming pools

  • Pingback: hair loss vitamins

  • Pingback: jobs virtual assistant

  • Pingback: ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org

  • Pingback: forex broker singapore

  • Pingback: information

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: freelance logo design

  • Pingback: craft making

  • Pingback: http://premiumdevil3986.soup.io/post/289251531/All-you-need-to-know-about-Aphrodisiaque

  • Pingback: dig this

  • Pingback: wellnesshotel

  • Pingback: salsa

  • Pingback: unique visitors