« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

VA Ballot Access – No Way to Choose a President

As Moe posted yesterday, it appears that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the only two candidates who have qualified for ballot access in Virginia. The Republican Party of Virginia has announced that Rick Perry had not collected the required 10,000 signatures and as I type this, the news is breaking that Gingrich is 2000 votes short of qualifying. Via Twitter:

RPVRPV@VA_GORichmond, VA After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary.

The Washington Examiner ran a gleeful hit piece Friday night quoting an anonymous “source with knowledge of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) petition signature verification process” who said Perry was “dead on arrival” and didn’t follow the “simple” rules required in VA.  The piece continues:

“The source said the Virginia debacle was an “epic failure” on Perry’s behalf, and the candidate’s failure to get on the ballot showed a total lack of organization and incompetence, which is not a trait voters should accept from a presidential candidate.”

The article also notes that the rules were sent to “all the Republican presidential campaigns” in March, but later admits that Perry’s campaign may not have received the detailed instructions because he didn’t enter the race until August.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch informs us that the Romney campaign had their petitions personally delivered by none other than Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, Romney’s VA campaign chairman.  It probably didn’t hurt that someone in the Romney family has pretty much been running for president since the Johnson administration, so they’ve known and understood the rules of the game for much longer than the other candidates. Props to their campaign for playing well.

Unfortunately for Virginia voters, especially conservatives, they will only have two candidates to choose from on their primary ballot:  Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Isn’t Mark Levin a resident of Virginia? I can’t imagine how he’s going to split this baby in half.  Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman didn’t even bother to file,  presumably because the process was so burdensome that it wasn’t worth the time or investment.

Ashby Law had a blog post on Thursday warning that this would happen, saying that it is,

“…a labor-intensive task so expensive and time-consuming that at least one and possibly more campaigns will not even attempt it this year.  And, the very real possibility exists that one or more candidates who made a run at it will come up short and be kept off the Virginia primary ballot as a result.”

The blog goes on to describe the process of gaining ballot access, which is likely the most burdensome in the country:

“A minimum of 10,000 petition signatures collected statewide, including at least 400 from each of its 11 congressional districts.  That’s hard enough.  But then there are the additional restrictions:  The petition circulators must be registered or eligible to vote in Virginia.  The signatures must be gathered using the State Board of Elections’ official form, a two-page document which must be reproduced as double-sided.  (Single-sided stapled forms are not accepted.)  Signatures must be collected on forms that are specific to each city, county and congressional district.  Only “qualified” voters may sign a petition.  And every single petition form must be sworn and notarized.”

The blogger claims to know top political consultants who turned town lucrative offers working on presidential campaigns because they thought the task could not be accomplished.

To make matters worse, the Republican Party of Virginia appears to have rigged the system in favor of candidates who were able to gather a comfortable excess of names on petitions. Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, Pat Mullins, issued the following (undated) directive:

“Any candidate who submits at least 15,000 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions
statewide and has at least 600 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions from each of the 11 Congressional Districts shall be deemed to have met the threshold for qualification and will be certified (provided, of course, that other requirements of State law have also been met)”

“If any candidate submits fewer than 15,000 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions statewide or fewer than 600 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions in one or more of the 11  Congressional Districts, the Republican Party of Virginia will individually verify signatures until the 10,000 signature statewide threshold and/or 400 per Congressional district is met.”

In other words, if a candidate can gather 50% more signatures than actually required, the standard for those signatures is lower than for the signatures of candidates who gather 14,999 signatures or less.  It appears that the Romney campaign, which boasted of gathering “some 16,000″ signatures was able to escape the scrutiny of having every signature individually verified. I’m assuming, since the RPV verified Ron Paul’s certification so early that he also met the higher standard. Unfortunately for Perry and Gingrich, they didn’t hit the magic number, so their signatures were held to the higher standard.

The Ashby Law blogger thinks that,

“[T]he Party’s plan to scrutinize some candidates’ signatures and not others, based upon the arbitrary standard of whether the candidates submitted a full 50% more than the statutory requirement, violates the Equal Protection Clause under Bush v. Gore. “

Moreover, he points out that the larger problem is the excessive standard in Virginia, which has turned the primary process into little more than a factory-style signature gathering machine with little actual bearing on the process of choosing a qualified president:

“Each successive petition drive has gotten harder and harder as volunteers have grown more and more tired of the arduous, tedious work it takes to gather thousands upon thousands of signatures in ever more frequent petition drives.  The drives have gotten more expensive, too, as campaigns have resorted to paying volunteers to incent their efforts.  What should be a test of a campaign’s organization and grassroots has become a drain on them—exhausting volunteers and siphoning away money better spent contacting voters, delivering messages, identifying supporters and driving turnout, all important objectives that petition drives have proven worthless at advancing.”

This is the takeaway, I think, from what happened yesterday. Congratulations, Virginia. You have two fantastic signature collectors on your exclusive ballot.  One is a loon and the other is a candidate that 75% of Republicans don’t want. Instead of substantial conservative candidates spending time in your state, spreading the conservative message to your voters, you will have the “Great Romney-Paul Debate of 2012.” Enjoy that circus.

COMMENTS

  • thirstyboots

    These excuses are an embarrassment. The rules have been the same for decades and this problem never existed. Four years ago, 6 candidates made the ballot. This only shows how pathetically weak this field is. A bunch of C-Listers who, due to the weaknesses of the favorite (Romney) and the insurgent (Ron Paul) gained a status that in normal years they’d never achieve.

    Santorum, Perry and Bachmann aren’t serious candidates, just jokers who are full aware they’ll bow out of the race well before Super Tuesday. I doubt they put much of an effort in collecting the signatures. Still, it’s very telling how Perry had $15 million on hand and failed to hire a few folks to collect the signatures. Expected from him though.

    And is it surprising Gingrich screwed up? This is Newt we’re talking about. Always reckless, irresponsible and an organizational failure. It’s his ethos.

    • bzip

      You can go around blaming the candidates (and they should take some of the blame) BUT who suffers? Who are the real losers?

      The American people, the Va voters are the real losers. You can fill this page with all the hate directed toward any of the candidates you want – it doesn’t solve the problem and it doesn’t help the voters.

      It is the voters who suffer the most and in the end the American people will suffer. So keep it up, just keep filling these pages with your hate. You, thirstyboots aren’t solving any problems but only spewing your “HATE” all over the place, just keep it up!

      • thirstyboots

        No point in losing time with “candidates” who can’t met simple law requirements to get on the primary ballot.

        I won’t answer to your personal remarks. If you want to further discuss with me, drop them – otherwise this was my last reply. Debate the issue.

        • heraklios

          He sailing to re-election with nary a blip on the Radar Screen. He is looking at running against an unelectable Republican with a libertarian candidate likely to draw 8-10% of the vote, mainly from normally GOP voters. What’s not to like if you’re Obama?

          • lineholder

            And we do still have an opportunity to turn the tide and influence that outcome.

            The situation in VA stinks. But regardless of what the decision within that state might be, it doesn’t excuse any patriotic American from taking an attitude of self-fulfilled defeatism.

            We need to fight as hard as we can against the left. No holds barred.

          • heraklios

            except their preferred candidate and a nutcase?

          • lineholder

            The rules in VA have been in place for a while. They aren’t anything new. I checked with my brother who lives in the state. Our own people messed up on that one, heraklios

            This isn’t the time to get discouraged or wallow in self-pity. We hit an obstacle. Fine. We just have to pick ourselves back up by our own boot-straps and move forward to accomplish as much as we can within the scope of the options still open to us.

          • Scope

            I have lived in VA for almost 20 years, and I can assure you the VA establishment has it’s hands in everything, and has for a very long time. There absolutely exists here a “next in line” political philosophy. As I posted elsewhere, our current Atty. Gen. Cuccinelli announced not long ago that he will seek the Gov. position for 2013. The “next in line” Lt. Gov. Bolling (also Romney’s VA campaign chair) has all the big brass here screaming because Cuccinelli had the nerve to “break protocal.”

            The problem here in VA is there has not been any new blood in the GOP for many many years. The old guard is very moderate, so it’s no surprise some of those very people very familiar with the inside are telling everyone here to stop whining because of the ballot mess. One guy even complained because some of the campaigns like Perry and Gingrich didn’t camp out here in VA, and spend money in the state, because they are currently concentrating their efforts in the early states. The nerve of them. It is sounding alot like the Iowa GOP who expects and demands that every candidate dump tons of money into their coffers. I can almost guarantee there will be some major shakeups here in VA.

          • thirstyboots

            In fact, they became less stringent since four years ago. When six guys made the ballot.

            Serious candidates never had a problem making the ballot in Virginia. Never. With this same requirement (harder actually).

            And they were set by the state.

            I’m sorry, but if you don’t have enough support/organization/money to meet every ballot requirement, you shouldn’t be running for president. It’s the toughest, biggest electoral contest in the history of mankind, not a playground for amateurs.

    • romansdaughter

      You need to take a holiday and get some Christmas cheer. You are like Uncle Scrooge. Grief, you just roam over the threads spewing out your hateful comments. Go have a Merry Christmas!

      • thirstyboots

        Defending the Virginia GOP from bizarre accusations is not hate at all. And incompetent candidates deserve the heat, regardless of who they are. Sorry if you can’t understand this – most probably only because I assigned blame to your favorite candidate, whoever that may be – but there’s nothing else to it.

    • elayman

      Worse than C-level for their myopia in not recognizing that by elevating unelectable fringe candidates and trashing conservative stellar-quality candidates who would not have an uphill battle with Obama, like Huntsman, it diminishes the appeal of the GOP across the country. And now we are left with Romney and Paul. Who could have guessed? Let the hand wringing and moaning for a nonexistent perfect nominee commence in earnest.

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

      won’t have their candidate on the ballot? What does this prove? Aside from the fact that it shows Ron Paul can register kids at a hookah bar who want him to legalize pot and it further emphasizes the fact that Romney has not had a real job for the last four years, other than running for president, what exactly does this 10,000 signature requirement prove, in terms of ability to run an actual country?

      • thirstyboots

        and/or the national support/organization to wage a serious national campaign. Darwinism at its best.

        Is this the first time you’ve heard of ballot access requirements?

        Do you support Perry? Do you know he vetoed a law – HB 1274, curiously approved unanimously in both Houses – which repealed an old requirement in Texas that signature gatherers must read a 93 word statement to every voter they approach? Poetic justice, I guess.

        In any case, I personally favor tough ballot access laws, especially for primary elections paid by the taxpayers.

        • aesthete

          the voters figure out just how important discipline and organization are in their choice for candidate. Nah, that’d be too democratic. Ballot access rules and other laws governing our elections are, if one views them charitably, an attempt to fix the damages of a system with unchecked universal suffrage, and if one views them unkindly, a means by which to prevent challenges to the incumbents, well-connected, and established players who get to make the rules. In either case, they expose the flaws of universal suffrage, IMO.

          • thirstyboots

            However, ballot access rules are, in my opinion, in another realm. Just a procedural issue. The tax-payer is in his rights to expect the electoral process to be cost effective – especially the primary process – and the voter shouldn’t be forced to go through dozens of joke candidates to pick his favorite. Limits costs and mistakes.

            Democracy should be limited but at another level. I don’t really think this is a limit to the electoral process; merely technicalities that are necessary – one can argue about the exact arrangement, the signatures, the deadlines, whatever, but in the end some set of rules will need to be in place.

          • acat

            how much does it cost to check and reject a candidate?

            how much does it cost to print a ballot with 4 names instead of 2?

            Who benefits from ballot access laws, the party insiders, the taxpayers, or the grass roots?

            Mew

          • thirstyboots

            I don’t know in which world do you live, but in states with loose ballot restriction laws, there are a lot more candidates than that. For example, in New Hampshire there have been up to 60 candidates in a presidential primary ballot. You don’t think that’s a pain in the ass for voters and counters?

            Beneficiaries from ballot access laws are the larger parties. Basically the two party system. And the taxpayers. Ballot access rules have never prevented true grassroots candidates from being on the ballot, just joke candidates. I had no idea that there were so many ballot access radicals over here.

          • acat

            deliberately ignoring the point.

            As usual.

            Yes, ballot access rules have their place, just as candidate debate access rules do.

            That said, your argument is bull, and you’ve doubled down on it here.

            Answer. The. Question.

            Mew

        • jbit

          The most recent poll I could find is this:

          Quinnipiac

      • JSobieski

        But you have have to admit that your argument resembles what Democrats say when state election laws prove inconvenient.

        If 10,000 signatures is a stupid requirement then election laws should be changed.

        In 2000, a lot of D’s were complaining about stupid requirements in election laws.

        I seem to remember similar complains in NJ when the Torch bailed out in the last minute.

        We can’t be for enforcement of election laws only when it favors our side or our candidate.

        Perry is my #1 choice. Newt is my #2 choice. I agree the law is stupid, since a much lower threshold can be used to keep non-serious candidates off the ballot.

        The legislature of VA should fix this. Judicial roulette is not the solution.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      Any set of rules that eliminates 4 of the 6 major candidates is flawed.

      The point of these types of rules is to keep the crazies off and that didn’t even work in this case.

      • intensity

        Will be on the Virginia primary ballot. The GOP is not dumb enough not to allow the two candidates with the best chance of beating Obama to be on an important primary.

        ABO’12-WIth Perry 1st pick and Gingrich 2nd

  • sunshinek67

    about disenfranchising thousands of Virginia voters, over 20,000 collectively. Not to mention however many thousands would have voted for Bachmann Santorum & Hunstman.

    Thirstyboots am I mistaken but isn’t it you that always defends Mitt Romney in these RS rooms? Makes me like Romney even less than I already did. There is a blogger Walt Gilbert, Damn Dirty RINO, that made a joke last nite on Twitter Ron Paul for President…..in Virginia, lol! If you think Virginia rules laws whatever are going to circumvent Democracy, and conservatives are going to take this lying down, think again. This isn’t over by a long shot. And it backfires on Mitt Romney as it does absolutely nothing to promote his 25% 5 year ceiling that he’s enjoyed, this only makes folks despise his candidacy even more.

    • heraklios

      Take them out whereever and whenever we can

  • quill67

    Never mind that these types of laws are destroying our democracy, nor are an embarassment to the Republican primary process. There is a bit of humor.

    People in VA can just stay home. Ron Paul will win and Romney can know that Republicans thought less of him than Ron Paul (as long as he has no chance to win nomination…if he did then yes, even I would have to vote for Mitt)

    • circlegranch

      The 20-25% in their state that want Romney can go vote and the 75-80% that don’t can stay home and know that their November vote is the one that counts the most. Excellent opportunity to exercise their 10th Amendement right as a sovereign state.

      Apparently, their grassroots faction of the GOP there has been asleep at the switch, otherwise this fiasco could have been detected long ago and the arguments and clarification of new or existing rules determined far enough in advance that this could have been avoided. If the GOP changed the rules in response to the legal challenge, did they so inform all candidates that had filed to run?

      Yes, candidates have an obligation to know the rules and shame on any state campaign chair that dropped the ball, but the VA GOP also had an obligation to be very clear up front that some rules were going to be different in response to a pending legal case.

      Let this be a lesson to other states that if you have some potential glitches in your primary process, now’s the time to come forward and get them on the table. This entire situation is increasingly suspect whether there’s good reason for that or not. Appearances matter. Perception is reality and if there ever was a year for the GOP, state by state, to have their act together and be very transparent and forthright and to make every effort to keep campaigns informed and apprised of possible pitfalls, this was it.

  • jaykali

    Voters will be pissed. I do sympathize with this as candidates have like 50 states to worry ab right. This definitely favors organization on the ground, guess who has it and who doesn’t.

  • lizzie

    Thank you Paula, for your in depth report/analysis
    Just thought I would repeat my view again by crossposting from Moe Lane’s Day Two thread:
    Virginia is the new Florida
    lizzie Saturday, December 24th at 1:11PM EST (link)

    I have no dog in this hunt, but think any state with NO write-in option, especially when it is an open primary, needs to rethink their defiinition of

  • lizzie

    “Virginia 2011 Independent Candidate for Legislature has Big Impact on 2012 Presidential Primary ”
    December 25th, 2011
    “There are currently many news stories and blog discussions about the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law. Some large blogs, such as Red State, have over 300 comments about the story. Some defend the current Virginia ballot access laws on the grounds that in past presidential elections, a fairly large number of Republican presidential primary candidates managed to qualify.

    But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.

    The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent

    • lineholder

      I’m not familiar with the credibility of this particular site and when I went to check the source, there weren’t any other corroborating links….

      It was the in the law to check the signatures (obviously or this Independent candidate wouldn’t have had a basis for the lawsuit) but this had not been applied in a practical context until now. That’s the fault of the VA GOP, not the candidates. It also explains why (R) candidates might have thought the application of the law would be lax and they would get a “pass” on this…maybe.

      So did the VA GOP inform all candidates of this change in Oct?

      Ignorance of change in policy isn’t quite as bad as complete and total failure to follow through, although the outcome is likely to end up being the same in this case.

    • teme

      Found this from 2008 from Red state archives by Erick:

    • snowshooze

      I have to be missing something.,
      At below the State level, in the Primaries… I would think any outside the party in question would be irrelevant entirely.
      Or let me see… um… we could drag the Democrats into court and sue them because we didn’t care for the method they used to pick their Nominee…
      Our only possible interest would be strategic and meddlesome.
      This is a point I am still trying to sort out.

      • JSobieski

        The VA GOP can scrap the primary and have a state convention determine the delegates. Nobody could say squat about it.

        However, a ballot in a primary is subject to state law, and thus is subject to legal challenges.

        • snowshooze

          I would think that the People of Virginia, given the current debacle might be quite gleeful at the prospect after having been snubbed.
          Of course, we still appear to be a bunch of fools…
          But Romney and Paul would probably be pretty miffed.
          It would be worth it.

        • snowshooze

          I would think that the People of Virginia, given the current debacle might be quite gleeful at the prospect after having been snubbed.
          Of course, we still appear to be a bunch of fools…
          But Romney and Paul would probably be pretty miffed.
          It would be worth it.

          • JSobieski

            The petitions for Newt and Perry don’t comply with the law.

            What are they going to do? Engage in some Gore-like “lets fix things” litigation where thrown out signature is looked at to see if there was some hidden intention to express and unwritten address?

            People can always sue, and sometimes lawsuits are filed for leverage.

            I have no predictions how this will turn out except to say this . . . nobody ever went broke taking the long position on human stupidity.

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            Although the Republican Party of VA has already announced that the Perry and Gingrich campaigns failed to submit 10,000 signatures of qualified voters, it seems the decision as to whether a sufficient number of qualified voter signatures were actually submitted to the VA Board of Elections is solely the province of the VA Republican Party and not the Board of Elections. Keep in mind, this is the Republican Party primary, not the Board of Elections’ primary.

            Here’s what the pertinent part of the applicable statute says regarding who determines the validity of the signatures on the nomination forms:

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

            You can read the whole thing here: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-545

            The candidates turn in the petitions to the Board of Elections in sealed containers. Those sealed containers are then transmitted to the chairman of the party of the candidate. The party chairman then “shall, by the deadline set by the State Board, furnish to the State Board the names of all candidates who have satisfied the requirements of this section.” By what standard or standards? None are specified. I see nothing in the statute that says the state party chairman must provide anything other than “the names of all candidates who have satisfied the requirements of this section” and nothing that gives the Board any authority to reject those names. (I have not read the entire election code.)

            So, will the VA Republican Party chairman change his mind as to which of the candidates met the 10,000 signature requirement? Can he? And are his actions beyond legal challenge by the Board of Elections under the statute?

            Imagine he changes his mind and deems Perry and/or Gingrich as having satisfied the 10,000 signature requirement. Would Romney or Paul file suit to enjoin the Board from adding the names of Gingrich and Perry to the ballot? I believe the courts would dismiss any such complaints on the grounds that they present nonjusticiable political questions. Courts are loathe to entertain controversies that might prevent candidates from appearing on a ballot.

            Two good overviews of the VA statutes relating to the presidential primary election process are here:

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

            http://www.varight.com/news/virginia-may-have-improperly-excluded-signatures-from-perry-gingrich-a-recount-may-be-needed/

            It will be interesting to see what happens next, if anything.

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior

          • JSobieski

            it is however one thing to originally conclude

            Scenario#1: “they submitted more than 10,000 signatures, so surely they satisfied the 10,000 requireemnts”

            AND

            Scenario #2: AFTER confirming that there aren’t 10,000 qualifying signagtures, stating that if someone submitted 11,000 there really must be 10,000 qualifying signatures anway

            The law actually requires there to be 10,000 qualifying signatures. How comfortable are people with the process of having the GOP “make a finding” after all of this that there really were 10,000 qualifying signatures?

            I find those political gymastics to be quite damaging to any level of reality and truth.

            Do we want the VA GOP to make a factual finding that everyone knows is untrue?

          • David123

            Doing so certainly invites the voters of Virginia to conclude that Ron Paul is more qualified to be president than Mitt Romney.

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

            <>

            You’re absolutely correct in making this point. But I think the people of VA (and the GOP across the country, for that matter), should demand that Paul’s and Romney’s signatures are also checked (in a way that assures the integrity of the process). As Moe has suggested, Romney’s camp should have come forward to demand it. The result could disqualify one of both of the remaining candidates which could force a nominating convention, which could help the VA GOP come out of this smelling a little better.

          • snowshooze

            And it would appear I am in pretty good company with my confusion on the matter.
            My current evaluation is that the entire VA Republican party has just built the worlds largest can of worms for themselves, and the backwash of this is likely to get all over the rest of us as well.
            If anyone wanted to make themselves look bad and open themselves to allegations of cronyism, bad judgement and poor form…
            VA Republicans just laid out the roadmap.

  • lizzie

    “Virginia 2011 Independent Candidate for Legislature has Big Impact on 2012 Presidential Primary ”
    December 25th, 2011
    “There are currently many news stories and blog discussions about the Virginia presidential primary ballot access law. Some large blogs, such as Red State, have over 300 comments about the story. Some defend the current Virginia ballot access laws on the grounds that in past presidential elections, a fairly large number of Republican presidential primary candidates managed to qualify.

    But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.

    The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent

    • carolina

      VA (especially the VAGOP) needs to do something to right this wrong. I bet Romney’s signatures would not hold up either if they were electronically checked.

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        …the more corrupt and incompetent this looks…for the VA GOP.

    • carolina

      VA (especially the VAGOP) needs to do something to right this wrong. I bet Romney’s signatures would not hold up either if they were electronically checked.

    • sunshinek67

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2825002/posts

      This is not over, “rules are rules” folks.

    • JSobieski

      A conservative approach to law and order is the following:
      (1) Enforce the laws on the books
      (2) Have fewer laws on the books

      A liberal approach to justice and furtherance of the public good is the following:
      (1) Have lots of laws on the books
      (2) Selectively enforce the laws to fit your vision of justice

      The bad thing here is not the event causing the actual enforcement of the law. The bad thing here is the law itself, and the fact that it was essentially unenforced (i.e. arbitrary) until now.

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        …as I’m not in favor of having arbitrary laws that are only selectively enforced in ways that are highly problematical.

    • teme

      Found this from 2008 from Red state archives by Erick:

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

      Here is from Hotair:

      “Some are asking if the requirements for petition signatures changed between 2008 and 2010. They did in 2010, but they appear to have gotten easier to collect, not more difficult. Instead of requiring a Social Security number for each signature, the law was changed from shall to may, only for the last four digits of the SSN.”

      Apparently the address check was improved this year, but in previous years signatures that had no address at all were still thrown out like they were this year:

      “A Gingrich campaign official, prior to the move by the RPV, said the problem is how the rules are set up, arguing that the party is, for apparently the first time, cross-checking the addresses that signature-givers provided against the electronic voter database file for accuracies. A name without a proper address match was tossed, the official said.”

  • Pingback: Colin Dearmore