Patterico's Pontifications

12/27/2011

Perry Sues to Get on the Virginia Ballot

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:33 pm

Allahpundit says the law might possibly support his position. But I’m still unimpressed. The requirements were clear. They were not met, by Perry or Newtie.

If you can’t manage the organizational wherewithal to get on the ballot in all states . . . doesn’t that potentially say something about the kind of president you might be?

I will add that, while Perry has been my candidate (to the extent I have one), and while I don’t typically begrudge someone their ability to take advantage of their pension rules, I still find something grating about his double-dipping. Namely: my mom is 73. She is a teacher. When she finally retires (which she may not do until she is 75), she will be forced to surrender her Social Security in order to collect her teacher’s pension. Which is part of the reason she is working until the age of 74 or 75.

It is my admittedly unresearched understanding that this is a state rule. If so, isn’t there something a bit off about a state that allows its governor to double-dip at the age of 61, while my 73-year-old teacher mom can’t “double-dip” by collecting the Social Security and teacher pension benefits that she has earned?

UPDATE: Reader H.H. writes to say the rule against my mom’s collecting Social Security when she retires is a federal rule.

86 Responses to “Perry Sues to Get on the Virginia Ballot”

  1. The military get to double dip-

    Shoot them! I’m always amazed by the resentment over this.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  2. Plus do you know specifically why the signatures were invalidated-I can’t find that out anywhere.

    So it seems a lot of bloggers are rushing to judge before knowing all of the facts.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  3. 2. I saw in comments somewhere(Hot Air) a purported Virginian say the forms had to be video copied on both sides, be entrusted to Virginians, that the Party made a change recently so that the number required could be modified with 24 hours notice,…

    No other witness confirmed but then I seldom look past the last page if that.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  4. Big Government reports that the VA GOP changed the rules last month. That’s why Perry is suing, and probably has a reasonable case. Sure, his organization could have watched every state to see if they did so, but it’s not the kind of thing you generally expect to happen.

    FuzzyFace (63c7e4)

  5. One of the two grounds for the suit seems to me to be a no-brainer. The rules require petitions to be circulated only by people who are eligible to vote for the candidate, i.e. citizens of Virginia. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’m astounded that anyone thought such a rule could stand. He should win summary judgment on this one.

    The other ground is that the requirement for 10K signatures, and 400 from each district, is so onerous as to violate candidates’ first and fourteenth amendment rights. That seems to me to be a tougher case to make, though not an impossible one.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  6. Milhouse from the Rick Perry petition does it seem like the VA GOP disqualified the petitions because the circulators were not qualified as in state residents?

    Or, is the Rick Perry team stating that-the requirement of the petitioners being in state is too high a bar for an out of stater or gives an in state candidate an unfair advantage?

    Does Buckley apply or does it possibly not apply because it is a candidate rather than a reform in this case? (Probably a stupid question.)

    Also I think in the VA regulations they added a clause-”or eligible to vote” to supposedly meet the Buckley standard.

    Someone seemed to interpret Buckley as being unconstitutional simply because of the requirement that the circulators of the petitions had to be registered to vote and not merely eligible to vote in Colorado.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  7. the precedent Mr. Governer Perry cites is compelling as far as it all goes… no?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  8. Sigh. Didn’t you read the last 600 comments on Karl’s post? But to recap:

    Just because there are rules does not make those rules constitutionally valid when they concern a fundamental enumerated right, such as the right to petition or other vital rights, such as a voter’s right to a fair and free election.

    The Virginia ballot-access rules are (at the very least) among the most onerous in the nation, requiring 10,000 valid signatures, spread out among all the congressional districts (some of which have damn few Republicans). The forms must be double-sided exact reproductions, with each page separately notarized. A given form may only be signed by residents of a single city and congressional district (if a city is split between districts, you need two forms). If cities are small, that means a signature gatherer needs a pile of forms and needs to prevent people from signing (and fouling) another city’s or CD’s form. Counties matter, too.

    Until this year people were asked to put down their social security number. At least that was dropped (how many would put that down with their name and address on a form proffered by a stranger outside the grocery store?). Probably because every court that sees such a requirement strikes it down. But that should give you an idea of just how much of an incumbent protection measure this is (for state offices): most everyone who tries to do this will fail, and that’s pretty much the plan. Romney failed in 2008.

    And in 2008 all you needed was 10,001 signatures, no matter how unlikely — there was no verification. Now they vet it unless you turn in 15,000 signatures, and that safe harbor was allegedly set after Romney turned in 16K.

    It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to do this (or you need thousands of maniacal minions), and you have to do it at the same time you are contesting the early primaries. It isn’t any wonder that super-rich Romney and cult leader Paul were the only two to succeed, nor is it a surprise that Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman didn’t even bother.

    Perry and Gingrich came close, but, sadly, didn’t meet the 15K number in time. Not surprising as it is judged next to impossible by many observers.

    So, the sucker voters of Virginia get a false “choice” between Romney and a crazy man, and the first choices of two effing thirds of the Republicans won’t be on the ballot. This is the kind of thing that drives people to stay home in November, especially if Romney (or, God help us, Ron Paul) is the nominee.

    Good for Perry suing — these kinds of ballot access laws are struck down all the time. But I think that it is Virginia’s Republican voters themselves that have better standing — they are hurt badly, and through no fault of their own.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  9. oh. but anyways I’m glad someone not named me is suing cause frankly I have better things to do wif my one god-given life … like try all of Mr. Otis Jackson’s soul dogs (!) or maybe even scoot over the hill tomorrow and grab me and NG a tasty tasty oki dog!

    (Oki Dog, in West Hollywood, or Oki’s Dog, on Pico serves the Original Oki Dog—two hot dogs on a flour tortilla, covered with chili and pastrami and wrapped up like a burrito.*)

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  10. The rules require petitions to be circulated only by people who are eligible to vote for the candidate, i.e. citizens of Virginia. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’m astounded that anyone thought such a rule could stand.

    A long list of 3rd-party ballot-access cases going back into the 90′s say you CAN NOT require this.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  11. but yes yes yes you are preaching to the choir wif respect to the unseemliness of Mr. Governor Perry’s pension whorings.

    Get a job, loser.

    Even if it’s just president of the failsh*t united states.

    It’s not like you couldn’t do worse.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  12. Damn Kevin M. that about sums all that I have tried to find out about this. Except, I didn’t know about the localities problem to that extent.

    This is the kind of thing that drives people to stay home in November, especially if Romney (or, God help us, Ron Paul) is the nominee.

    Down ballot, I have a feeling this hurts Allen for the Senate seat. I know I sure would be less likely to show up if I lived in Virginia and the message from the VA GOP was-we don’t trust you to vote so your choices are:

    Romney or crazy-with no write in option.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  13. OMG MACACA is running again?

    no one tells me anything

    my god Team R is scraping the bottom of the candidate barrel, days are

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  14. We should reform Medicaid and Medicare but unfortunately it won’t happen until we tale back the senate and white house.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  15. Bush secured the borders?

    Good one Bushbots.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  16. And again. I recommend Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News, once a newsletter, now a blog as well. Any number of posts on Virginia’s disaster, such as the one about how the Virginia AG wants to drastically reduce the signature count, or this about Newt’s “proper” criticism

    Gingrich could plausibly sue Virginia over its requirement that circulators cannot work in Virginia unless they live in Virginia. Lawsuits against residency requirements for circulators have won in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Some of these victories were against bans on out-of-state circulators, and some of them were against bans on out-of-district circulators.

    Or this about how Rhode Island’s Republicans are worried about their primary failing for the same reasons.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  17. as you ponder about the bushbots, please to click here for to enjoy the soulful sounds of the captain’s and also the tennille’s 1976 smash hit “lonely nights”

    (angel face)

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  18. i can’t gitcha

    outta mah mine

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  19. Virginia state law should not apply to Rick Perry.

    He should be on the GOP primary ballot even if he did not meet legal requirements in place since 2000.

    He is special.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. One of the two grounds for the suit seems to me to be a no-brainer. The rules require petitions to be circulated only by people who are eligible to vote for the candidate, i.e. citizens of Virginia. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’m astounded that anyone thought such a rule could stand. He should win summary judgment on this one.
    – And what exactly is “blatantly unconstitutional” about that rule?

    The other ground is that the requirement for 10K signatures, and 400 from each district, is so onerous as to violate candidates’ first and fourteenth amendment rights. That seems to me to be a tougher case to make, though not an impossible one.
    – And the candidate’s rights have been violated how?

    Icy (17f7a5)

  21. Daley, you have to try before you sue to have standing. Hypothetical damages get hypothetical hearings.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  22. I don’t understand the objection to Perry’s so-called “double dipping”. There’s no question that he’s entitled to the pension. He could sit at home and do nothing for the rest of his life, and receive it. Or he could go into the private sector and earn as much as he liked, and receive it. So how is the state worse off because he chooses to continue to work for it? And why should he not be paid the same money for that work that anyone else would be? Would anybody here voluntarily turn down money that is rightfully theirs, or work for free, just because their employer needs the money?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  23. Considering that Perry submitted 11,900 signatures and only about 6,000 were considered valid (a “pass rate” of about 50%), just how many of those 16K that Mitt submitted would be valid. At 55%, that would be about 8,000 valid signatures. Ooops, that doesn’t make it either.

    But the new rules (and maybe really new rules) say that at 15K we don’t check. How convenient.

    It’s not at all clear that either Romney or Paul would pass the 10K requirement if they had to be validated. So, that 15K “Safe Harbor” rule might be really important, and if it was set recently it would be ripe for a challenge.

    What would people say if NO CANDIDATE qualified? Darn rules? Or, what a travesty?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  24. …at 50% that would be about 8,000 signatures…

    Kevin M (563f77)

  25. And what exactly is “blatantly unconstitutional” about that rule?

    It blatantly violates the circulators’ rights. Everybody has the inherent god-given and constitution-protected right to circulate whatever petitions he likes, and solicit people’s signatures. Second, every voter who signs a nominating petition has the right to have his signature count regardless of who solicited it. Forget about strict scrutiny; what rational basis could the state possibly have to reject otherwise valid signatures merely because of who solicited them? What difference could that make, and how could it affect the validity of the signatures themselves?

    And the candidate’s rights have been violated how?

    By not allowing him to stand for election; isn’t it obvious? The right to stand for election is surely just as important as the right to vote, and the state may not burden it with too-onerous requirements.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  26. I don’t get it. If the cutoff is 15K or more so that they don’t bother checking then why didn’t the other candidates get more than 15K signatures? They can’t complain about the rules if it applies to everybody. I’m guessing one of the reasons the rules are “onerous” is to prevent a bunch of Democrat operatives from influencing the primary for President and supplying unlimited “Republican” candidates to siphon delegates. If they want find out who is at fault all they have to do is hold up a mirror and look at it.

    Dave B (982f20)

  27. “Morning Examiner: World War Newt” Conn Carroll
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/morning-examiner-world-war-newt/277051

    Conn Carrol has a good description of the situation with regards to Newt and Perry. The careful checking on the signatures is a brand new feature.

    {^_^}

    jbd (99eed4)

  28. Yes, Pikachu, but there’s a tea flavored alternative in Jamie Radtke, she may be too lifeydoodle for you.

    narciso (87e966)

  29. Regarding teacher’s pensions and social security there is a federal rule, the Windfall Elimination Provision , which reduces (but does not eliminate entirely) your social security benefit if you are also receiving a pension from working at a job (like some teaching positions) where you were not subject to the social security tax.

    James B. Shearer (4841ca)

  30. Good luck, Rick!

    Colonel Haiku (c26934)

  31. It look like that Ron Paul will win in the Virginia primary election because the conservatives and Tea Party will not vote for Romney. The state of Virginia need to be investigate.

    m (aa7950)

  32. Forget about strict scrutiny; what rational basis could the state possibly have to reject otherwise valid signatures merely because of who solicited them?

    The ability to organize signature collection using only state residents is an indication of the depth of support for the candidate in that state. It’s similar to requiring X number of signatures.

    You seem to be saying that states may constitutionally determine the extent of voter interest only by counting signatures, but it’s not clear to me why this would be so.

    Scrutineer (27df25)

  33. “The rules require petitions to be circulated only by people who are eligible to vote for the candidate, i.e. citizens of Virginia. This is blatantly unconstitutional, and I’m astounded that anyone thought such a rule could stand”

    Rick Perry recently signed into law in Texas a requirement that those doing voter registration drives be Texas voters. If the VA rules are unconstitutional, I’d say the Texas ones are too.

    And now Perry goes to federal court to overturn state action.

    sable (036ce7)

  34. Mercurial, inconsistent application of those rules, no matter how clear, provides an anchor for a case. The “super double secret probation” rules esp. safe harbor could mean candidates were treated unfairly.

    Some of the literal demands of the rules are questionable (only virginian may gather, all districts must have 400 a piece) and when they are not even enforced consistently….

    I only ever wanted to vote not-Romney.and keep confusion alive in hopes of preserving the possibility of some eleventh hour choice. I hate them all – the entire set (or rather, think all are deficient, some more than others and in varying ways.)

    I may even in this circumstance contribute to a clearer Not-Romney vote than would have been possible if there were more choices on the ballot. Others may have a favorite excluded.

    Exclusion of mainstream candidates, I think, points to some flaws in the VA-GOP handling of the maer and the rules themselves, not just campaign disinterest or disorganization.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  35. Mercurial, inconsistent application of those rules, no matter how clear, provides an anchor for a case. The “super double secret probation” rules esp. safe harbor could mean candidates were treated unfairly.

    Some of the literal demands of the rules are questionable (only virginian may gather, all districts must have 400 a piece) and when they are not even enforced consistently….

    I only ever wanted to vote not-Romney.and keep confusion alive in hopes of preserving the possibility of some eleventh hour choice. I hate them all – the entire set (or rather, think all are deficient, some more than others and in varying ways.)

    I may even in this circumstance contribute to a clearer Not-Romney vote than would have been possible if there were more choices on the ballot. Others may have a favorite excluded.

    Exclusion of mainstream candidates, I think, points to some flaws in the VA-GOP handling of the maer and the rules themselves, not just campaign disinterest or disorganization.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  36. “Daley, you have to try before you sue to have standing.”

    Kevin M – I understand that. The rules were fine for Republican candidates making it on the ballot in 2000 and 2008, but not Rick Perry and Newt.

    Rick Perry – No Excuses.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  37. Perry is like a little rich boy.

    tadcf (ead2bd)

  38. I’m guessing one of the reasons the rules are “onerous” is to prevent a bunch of Democrat operatives from influencing the primary for President

    Gee, other states don’t have that problem, except possibly Massachusetts; where they get elected.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  39. It blatantly violates the circulators’ rights. Everybody has the inherent god-given and constitution-protected right to circulate whatever petitions he likes, and solicit people’s signatures.
    – And there is some state rule or law that says otherwise? Not that I’ve seen, there isn’t.

    Second, every voter who signs a nominating petition has the right to have his signature count regardless of who solicited it.
    – Hey, it always sucks for everyone that took the time to sign a petition when not enough of them signed for it to make any difference. Them’s the breaks!

    Forget about strict scrutiny;
    – Forget about the law? Forget (conveniently) about taking steps to avoid fraud in the political process? Sure.

    what rational basis could the state possibly have to reject otherwise valid signatures merely because of who solicited them?
    – And so the “intent” monster rears its ugly head. Well, to say that the rule is not rational is much different than saying that it’s unconstitutional.

    What difference could that make, and how could it affect the validity of the signatures themselves?
    – The difference, I’m guessing, is that it forces national candidates to make local connections for drumming up support. And it doesn’t necessarily affect the validity of any signatures; but then, it IS their rule to make, so . . .

    Me: And the candidate’s rights have been violated how?
    Milhouse: By not allowing him to stand for election; isn’t it obvious?
    – Uh, no. What’s obvious is that states do have the right to impose restrictions on who can be on the ballot. You can complain about what the restrictions are, but complaining that they don’t have the right to impose restrictions at all makes one sound like a Democratic Federalist.

    The right to stand for election is surely just as important as the right to vote,
    – Yes. Every candidate that meets the requirements then has the right to stand for election.

    and the state may not burden it with too-onerous requirements.
    – Agreed. BUT, if Grandpa Isolationist was able to meet the requirements, then how ‘onerous’ are they, really?

    BTW, still waiting for a specific explanation as to how Virginia’s rules are unconstitutional.

    Icy (17f7a5)

  40. Icy try reading the Sixth Circuit Court’s opinion in -

    Nader v. Blackwell.

    Here’s a fun part:

    In addition, we find the Seventh Circuit’s analysis in a similar election case, Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2000), particularly persuasive. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs, who were political candidates, had standing to challenge Illinois’s circulator registration and residency requirements, even though the candidates had actually acquired enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot. See id. at 857-58. The court reasoned that the candidates had been injured in two ways. First, “being denied use of non-registered, non-resident circulators, they were required to allocate additional campaign resources to gather signatures and were deprived of the solicitors (political advocates) of their choice. This in itself can be an injury to First Amendment rights.” Krislov, 226 F.3d at 857 (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424 (1988)). Second, “because they were prohibited from using non-registered and non-resident circulators, they were limited in the choice and number of people to carry their message to the public.” Ibid. As Meyer makes clear, limiting the size of a candidate’s audience and reducing the amount of speech about his views that he can generate is a cognizable injury. See Meyer, 486 U.S. at 421-22.

    *******

    Then there is the concept of overbreadth doctrine-you can read about that at the end of the Sixth Circuit Court’s Opinion in Nader v. Blackwell.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  41. HotAir this morning debunks the Virginia signatures have never been checked and rules were changed midstream myths circulating among conspiracy theorists. Ironically, signature checking meme is destroyed by fanatical Perry supporter Erick Erickson in a 2008 post .

    “The Virginia Democratic Party actually went out and collected 7,500 signatures for each of their presidential candidates. Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich all submitted the bare minimum of 10,000 signatures. Guess what? They were all approved.

    I can tell you that as an elections lawyer and a political consultant, I have never seen a signature drive go by where every single signature was accepted. But they were by the Virginia Democratic Party.

    Contrast that with the Republican Party of Virginia (go below the fold):

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

    So what did the Virginia GOP do? Well, they did absolutely nothing to help any of the candidates other than put out clipboards at their state fair booth.

    Then they decided to attempt some kind of unprecedented “verification” process. Historically, forms have never been checked by either party, often they never even open the boxes. They gave no one notice of this new process. They sent all the campaigns an email notice the Friday afternoon after they’d all filed their signatures. You can see the memo below. As you can see its a ridiculous attempt to replicate Florida in 2000.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. IOW, bite me.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. Doesn’t matter FIrst Amendment of the Constitution is a powerful thing.

    The Sixth Circuit Court of opinion actually quotes the Supreme Court decision in Buckley.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  44. I live in Virginia. Word from politico friends is it all slid by until. It’s not exactly a conspiracy but it’s still squirrely and not in the interest of voters of the Commonwealth.

    sarahW (b0e533)

  45. madawaskan and sarahW – There is no doubt the requirements are onerous, but the unsupported theories that the rules changed midgame and that the Romney campaign has been rigging the game or officials have been rigging the game in his favor are just fevered dreams more typical of leftist swamps.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. The fact that Erickson allowed Moe Lane to publish the crap he has on this issue at Redstate while knowing what he does seriously diminishes his credibility in my eyes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. daleyrocks

    In Nader v. Blackwell the only reason Blackwell was found to not be liable besides the concept of immunity was because supposedly Buckley had not been out long enough..

    If you read my comment at #40 -which you might have missed because it looks like we were posting at the same time-seems like Nader v Blackwell is pretty damn relevant to Perry’s claims in VA.

    And Nader v Backwell refers to the Supreme Court decision in Buckley.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  48. Newtie

    Being a bit disparaging there?

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  49. madawaskan, Military Retirement is not a pension, it is pay;
    as they are subject for recall to active duty at any time, for any reason, up until they reach a certain age.
    And, they have FICA deducted from their pay.
    The systems are so intertwined that in the 60′s, military ID numbers were changed from the system in place since probably the start of Selective Service,
    to the inductee’s Social Security #.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  50. “If you read my comment at #40 -which you might have missed because it looks like we were posting at the same time-seems like Nader v Blackwell is pretty damn relevant to Perry’s claims in VA.”

    madawaskan – I did not miss your comment. It is irrelevant to Perry’s failure to meet the requirements of existing Virginia law, something numerous Republican candidates of various strength have been able to do since 2000. The precedent is relevant to a challenge of existing Virginia election law after Perry’s failure to make the ballot.

    Rick Perry – No Excuses

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  51. I blame Kyoto, Halliburton and Transfats.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. So anyone thinking Mitt can bring home IL in the general?

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  53. The TV episode with Lucy (Ball) in the chocolate factory was about a malfunctioning assembly line, not an incompetent employee.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  54. It’s not Pearl Harbor either. Pearl Harbor is what Iran is threatening to do – to close the Straits of Hormuz in response to sanctions. Pearl Harbor was also a response to sanctions.

    All in all, Obama is likely to have either a big foreign policy disaster or a foreign policy success – or both – before the election.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  55. Maybe here is something with Lucy here. Lucy with the football, with Newt Gingrich being Charlie Brown.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  56. Pearl Harbor was also a response to sanctions.

    A highly simplified explanation of the event, entirely expected from you.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  57. Thanks, madawaskan! It’s been quite awhile since someone has responded to my request for info by supplying actual info.

    And now, some thoughts. From the Krislov v. Rednour decision that you cited:
    The Constitution does not prohibit the States from enacting laws which incidentally burden candidates, for such a proscription would similarly preclude the regulation of elections and efforts to ensure their integrity. Because elections must be regulated to remain free from fraud and coercion, some latitude is given to regulations designed to serve these purposes.
    – And that is one of the points I was trying to make to Milhouse. There is no inherent “right” to be on the ballot. One does, however, enjoy the right to be fairly considered for inclusion on a ballot.

    And from that same court decision:
    Although the Illinois provision does not go so far as to specifically prohibit candidates from associating with individuals who are not residents of Illinois or who are not registered to vote, it still substantially burdens this right of association by preventing the candidates from using signatures gathered by these circulators in an attempt to reserve a place on the ballot.  By doing so, the law inhibits the expressive utility of associating with these individuals because these potential circulators cannot invite voters to sign the candidates’ petitions in an effort to gain ballot access. This, in turn, prevents these individuals from being used as conduits for disseminating the candidates’ brand of political speech.
    – This is a bit problematic. When the court writes “these potential circulators cannot invite voters to sign the candidates’ petitions in an effort to gain ballot access” it is, at the very least, being disingenuous, if not outright deceptive about how these laws apply to freedom of speech, and of association.

    There is no state law that says a candidate cannot have their out-of-state person standing right next to the in-state petition circulator, holding a sign that says “My guy’s great!” and verbally inviting registered voters of that state to sign the petition being held by the guy next to him. Nothing. But the court is implying that the out-of-state guy is not allowed to solicit signatures on the in-state guy’s clipboard. And that is untrue.

    Icy (17f7a5)

  58. There’s a basic political philosophy question that’s still on the table: If you can’t drum up enough local support to be on the ballot, then why should you be on the ballot anyway? Just so you can say you were there? After you lose?

    Icy (17f7a5)

  59. Icy, the “local political support” is indicated by the signers, not the signature gatherers.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  60. 56.

    SF: Pearl Harbor was also a response to sanctions.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 12/28/2011 @ 10:51 am

    A highly simplified explanation of the event, entirely expected from you.

    No, not really. Franklin Delano Roosevelt imposed sanctions on Japan, preventing it from importing oil. Japan had no oil. This would have forced Japan to abandon its war in China. Japan began negotiating with the United States. In the meantime there was this dispute within Japan as to whether or not to go north (to Russia) or south for their next war. In any case, all those people who profited from the war, wanted to continue. Japan could get oil by attacking and conquering the Dutch East Indies, now known as Indonesia. The Dutch East Indies was ruled by the Dutch government in exile in London (unlike the French colonies, many controlled by Vichy)

    While Japan was deciding this, a Japanese businessman who was profiting from the conquest of China and who for a while was considered a Class A war criminal, but never was prosecuted, Ryochi Sasakawa, (later the number two donor to the Carter Presidential Center at Emory University in Atlanta) flew personally on his airplane to meet Mussolini to get his agreement to let Japan join the Axis.

    Japan decided on an all-out attack on all places in eastern Asia near Japan. Because Admiral Yamamoto warned that Japan would lose a prolonged war, and they wouldn’t listen, he and they also
    decided on a surprise attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor (which had recently been reinforced) in hopes of preventing the United States from intervening in the war by destroying its capability.

    But the United States did intervene and did not turn away from Japan. Even though all this happened in the middle of World War II.

    This is a lesson that maybe some generals in Pakistan have learned.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  61. See, it wasn’t such a simple explanation of the events of 7 Dec 41, after all.
    It was, in fact, a logical step to take to protect the supply lines that Japan intended to initiate from South-East Asia back to the Homeland to continue the conquest of China, which had been its primary objective all the while (or at least since 1932), everything else was tactics in pursuit of a strategic objective.

    What that has to do with Pakistan escapes me, as the political class in DC would run and scream from a “Pearl Harbor” today, where “leading from behind” is thought to be incisive.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  62. Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 12/28/2011 @ 9:51 am

    in the 60′s, military ID numbers were changed from the system in place since probably the start of Selective Service, to the inductee’s Social Security #.

    1969. Actually a 2-year phase-in from July 1, 1967 (when new members of the armed forces were no longer being separate serial numbers) to July 1, 1969.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  63. Icy

    …From what I have read…and I wish I could come up with the specific text-the in state requirement for the circulators impedes the candidate’s ability to get out his message because it limits his resources.

    For all practical purposes the people that know Perry best and those that he would trust the most-would most likely come from Texas.

    Also the validity of the signatures is and or should be independent of the status of the citizen’s that collected them.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  64. …and, it wasn’t just the oil-embargo, but also the embargo on scrap metal, which was crippling Japan’s heavy industry.
    With the fall of the Neatherlands to Germany in 1940, also of Singapore, the Dutch East Indies were open to Japan’s domination and use of the oil and rubber resources there and in Thailand, Malaya, and Indo-China.
    They just miscalculated, in the way Hubris leads all of us, that a “sleeping giant” was immaterial to their aims.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  65. Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 12/28/2011 @ 11:24 am

    Thanks for the confirmation.
    This old brain just doesn’t remember dates the way it used to, particularly of events I was a part of.
    AF19694521

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  66. Icy

    There is also this from one of the concurring judges in the Nader v. Blackwell case -Sixth Circuit Court-

    KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I write separately to clarify our holdings today. First, we hold that Nader has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the voter-registration and residency requirements contained in OhioRev.Code§3503.06.1 Accordingly,we consider the merits of Nader’s constitutional claims. We hold that the voter-registration requirement contained in Ohio Rev. Code § 3503.06 is a severe restriction on political speech which cannot survive strict scrutiny. Similarly, we hold that the residency restriction in § 3503.06 severely limits political speech and is not justified by a sufficient state interest. Therefore, we hold that the voter-registration restriction and the residency restriction contained in § 3503.06 are both unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Finally, we conclude that because these violations were not clearly established in 2004, Blackwell is entitled to qualified immunity.

    ***

    It’s also interesting to note that they say Blackwell is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established back in 2004.

    It’s now seven years later-the VA GOP might not enjoy that same luxury.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  67. Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 12/28/2011 @ 11:27 am

    and, it wasn’t just the oil-embargo, but also the embargo on scrap metal, which was crippling Japan’s heavy industry.

    Scrap metal. I remember that’s what they said happened to the Second Avenue El (sold to Japan)

    Several Els were demolished. The Third Avenue El remained until 1954, and the portion in the Bronx till about 1975 when some part fell and the politicians rushed to demolish it.

    With the fall of the Neatherlands to Germany in 1940, also of Singapore,

    Singapore was only after December 8, 1941 and was part of the same attack as Pearl Harbor..

    the Dutch East Indies were open to Japan’s domination and use of the oil and rubber resources there and in Thailand, Malaya, and Indo-China.

    All after Pearl Harbor.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  68. Indo China I’m not sure. That was ruled by Vichy France.

    Sammy Finkelman (b17872)

  69. Drew, are all of those signers too lazy to go out and gather signatures themselves?

    Icy (17f7a5)

  70. They probably are.

    Dohbiden (ef98f0)

  71. The restrictions on the copying of petitions, and the requirement for notorization (I take it that both sides have to be notorized seperately?), are much more onerous than would seem to be reasonable.
    Here in CA we have had petitions available for internet download, where the person downloading can sign it, get his neighbors to sign, and then just mail it in to the aggregator for submission.
    Ask Gray Davis how that went for him.

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  72. SF, I’ll give you Singapore, but Japan’s interjection into SE-Asia after the fall of the govt’s in Holland and France happened prior to Pearl.
    Singapore was the last “jewel” to shatter.
    BTW, just how independent of Berlin do you thing Vichey was?

    AD-RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  73. To be clear, I’m no fan of a law that says who I can or cannot have circulating my petitions, especially as it applies to a national office.

    What I find questionable are the actions of Congressman “Bully” & Governor Grafter in waiting until the crap hit the fan before filing lawsuits to protest the “unfairness” of the law in Virginia. This brings up several thoughts:
    – Their campaigns are truly disorganized
    – They are, at least in part, counting on the publicity this generates to help them; and when it comes to publicity generated by playing the victim, to say the least YMMV.
    – Unlike the case cited by madawaskan where candidates that made it onto the ballot sued for unfairness anyway, I think it’s a safe bet that neither Gingrich nor Perry would be suing if they had made it onto the Virginia ballot. IOW, it’s all fun and games until you lose on a technicality.

    Icy (17f7a5)

  74. Well because of issues of ripeness/justiciability Perry had to wait until after the process.

    madawaskan (89a442)

  75. The fact that some must forfeit one earned pension to get another is a pretty good argument for personal control and ownership of pension assets. If they are private property, they are constitutionally protected form govt. looting. We are fast approaching the day when all counting on SS will find a big file cabinet full of IOUs subordinate to claims by china.

    dunce (15d7dc)

  76. The rules were fine for Republican candidates making it on the ballot in 2000 and 2008, but not Rick Perry and Newt.

    No, they weren’t. Nobody in 2000 or 2008 had to deal with these rules.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  77. Forget about strict scrutiny;

    – Forget about the law? Forget (conveniently) about taking steps to avoid fraud in the political process? Sure.

    what rational basis could the state possibly have to reject otherwise valid signatures merely because of who solicited them?

    – And so the “intent” monster rears its ugly head. Well, to say that the rule is not rational is much different than saying that it’s unconstitutional.

    You’re being incoherent. Can you really be unfamiliar with the terms “strict scrutiny” and “rational basis”?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  78. .

    Because elections must be regulated to remain free from fraud and coercion, some latitude is given to regulations designed to serve these purposes.

    – And that is one of the points I was trying to make to Milhouse. There is no inherent “right” to be on the ballot.

    Where exactly did I suggest that states don’t have “some latitude”? The right to be a candidate, like the right to vote, may be reasonably burdened, but not unreasonably.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  79. “No, they weren’t. Nobody in 2000 or 2008 had to deal with these rules.”

    Milhouse – Rules were unchanged in 2012. Candidates submitted more than 15,000 signatures in 2008 and signatures were checked according to 2008 Erick Erickson post at Red State. Idea that rules were changed midstream was a myth. Richard Winger was just making sh*t up. See HotAir post with links from this morning.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  80. The fact that some must forfeit one earned pension to get another is a pretty good argument for personal control and ownership of pension assets. If they are private property, they are constitutionally protected form govt. looting. We are fast approaching the day when all counting on SS will find a big file cabinet full of IOUs subordinate to claims by china.

    Except that Social Security is not and never has been a right; it is and has always been a welfare program that exists by Congress’s will, and which Congress can change or repeal at any moment. Pretending otherwise is a useful way to make people upset, but it won’t change the facts. The only rational reason anyone has to count on receiving SocSec is a guess that Congress will never have the guts to change it. That’s a pretty good guess, but if it ever fails those who relied on it have only themselves to blame.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  81. Where exactly did I suggest that states don’t have “some latitude”? The right to be a candidate, like the right to vote, may be reasonably burdened, but not unreasonably.
    Comment by Milhouse — 12/28/2011 @ 11:37 pm

    – Well, there you go. We agree!

    Icy (711ae3)

  82. Newt on Virginia – mistakes were made:

    “We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 – we needed 10,000 – 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud.”

    Hey, that doesn’t sound anything like the ACORN scandal! :)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  83. Mark Steyn (I think) noted today on the Rush Limbaugh show that Newt Gingrich might be ineligible to vote in the Republican Presidential primary in Virginia, or disqualified himself:

    You see all would-be voters must take an oath saying:

    “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican party for president.”

    Newt Gingrich has said he would not support Ron Paul. Of couyrse he could sign it anyway since Ron Paul has a extremely small chance of becoming the nominee, so that reservation doesn’t detract much from the intention.

    This is a new requirement, just approved Wednesday.

    Sa,mmy Finkelman (d3daeb)

  84. Virginia Attorney General Intervenes in GOP Primary Ballot Dispute

    The failure of other candidates to qualify — notably Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry — led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

    Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns.

    “Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

    Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

    Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

    Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a “legal and constitutional embarrassment.”

    Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it.”

    Gov. Perry (563f77)

  85. And every time I say “This time I won’t forget the sock”, and then I do. Although Gov Perry approved of this comment.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  86. Desperate times call for equally desperate measures…

    Colonel Haiku (760682)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5122 secs.