Category Archives: Blog

Rick Perry Virginia lawsuit updated

Posted on by
Reply

More history on those Virginia rules

 

Perry et al., plaintiffs

Regarding that Rick Perry lawsuit—since joined by Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum—over ballot access in Virginia, far too many people state erroneously that the Virginia rules are longstanding.

Today’s Washington Post reinforced the canard:

“Virginia’s ballot-access rules, in place for four decades, are considered the toughest in the nation. Candidates must collect 10,000 signatures, with at least 400 from each of the congressional districts, while some other states only require candidates to pay fees or sign forms.” [emphasis added]

When an excellent reporter, top-notch herself and one of the best political reporters at a major paper, transmits a mistake  this way, the mistake has reached significant proportions. Ballot access in the U.S. is a serious issue.

What follows below is the best and most lucid correction on this point easily available. Be it noted that the author does not sympathize with the GOP lawsuit, as the rest of his blog makes clear. The excerpt quoted here pertains only to the history of the Virginia rules on signature-gathering and the Virginia primary:

“Prior to 1988, there was no primary in Virginia at the Presidential level . . . The state decided to hold a primary in 1988, likely in an effort to gain more prominence for the Commonwealth in the first election since 1968 where there would not be an incumbent President running on either party’s ticket. That year . . . a candidate was allowed on the ballot if they had been “prominently discussed in the news media, or who had qualified for primary season matching funds.” (Source: Ballot Access News) George H.W. Bush won the Republican Primary that year. The Democratic Primary was won by Jesse Jackson.”

“Whether it was because of that Jackson win or for other reasons, Virginia didn’t hold a primary in 1992 or 1996 and reverted back to the caucus/convention model. The Virginia primary came back in 2000, but this time candidates had to submit ballot access petitions. The rules were the same as they are now, at least 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each of Virginia’s Congressional Districts. That same system was in effect in 2004 and 2008, and for eight years pretty much any candidate who submitted a petition package with at least 10,000 raw signatures made it on the ballot.”

Since incumbent George W. Bush was the only GOP candidate on the ballot in 2004, Virginia did not hold a Republican primary that year. Virginia will not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012.

A larger difference remains, between the rules of 2000 and 2008 and the rules of 2012. The difference is enforcement:

“Then, just this year, an Independent candidate for the Virginia legislature filed a lawsuit against the Republican Party Of Virginia:

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’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.”

 

The difference is no mere detail:

“In other words, prior to this year, the RPV was allegedly not really checking the signatures submitted for validity. As long as a candidate submitted the raw number(s) required then they got on the ballot. The Democratic Party of Virginia apparently follows the same process and has not held its candidates to the high standard that the technicalities of the law require. Since the State Board of Elections relies entirely on the political parties to determine who is eligible for the primary ballot(s), this is apparently entirely legal. It does, however, make one wonder if other candidates would have found themselves in a similar situation in the past had their petitions been given more than a cursory examination.”

A reasonable question.

Further reinforcing the point, the Republican Party of Virginia itself has represented these rules as new. Here is the official party statement on the ballot dispute, quoted again:

“In October 2011, RPV formally adopted the certification procedures that were applied on December 23.”

 

Maybe something hinges on that word “formally.”

 

Whatever the outcome, the defendants in the GOP lawsuit have made the history of the rules part of the grounds for their appeal. As the defendants told the appeals court,

“The presidential primary is scheduled for March 6. Two candidates met the statutory requirement of filing 10,000 valid signatures, including at least 400 from each Congressional district. In past elections, there were larger slates of candidates who have met the Virginia statutory requirement and were included on the primary ballot.” [emphasis added]

 

On its face this sounds like a telling argument. Surely it becomes less telling if it turns out to be inaccurate.

Rick Perry, ACLU on the side of right in Virginia

Posted on by
Reply
Pillars of reason

[Update Friday night]

The District Court has now turned down plaintiffs’ application for relief, saying that Perry and the rest knew the rules going in. The judge’s line of thought is that they played the game and lost, so now they want to change the rules. The judge also ruled that the doctrine of laches–unreasonable delay in filing the lawsuit–prevents the plaintiffs’ getting the decision.

The decision is understandable, even to a non-lawyer, but the situation is still puzzling. Generally a person has to be injured by something before filing a complaint. One has to be injured to have a cause of action. So it is hard to understand how Perry and the rest could have filed a lawsuit over the Virginia Board of Election rules before failing to get on the ballot. Wouldn’t the other side just have said, You still have time?

Perry filed immediately after failing to get certified. That left–as both sides agree–little time to move, before the period of mailing absentee and overseas ballots. That problem itself stems partly from the fact that Virginia’s primary date is March 6, a date chosen by the same people who set the rules for signature gathering. According to the GOP of Virginia, the new rules were adopted in October 2011.

Virginia’s primary was previously earlier. In 2008, it took place Feb. 12. John McCain won with 50.04 percent of the vote and got all 63 delegates. It was held on Feb. 29 in 2000, when GWBush beat McCain 53-44. There was no GOP primary in 2004.

Ironically the name of the game in Virginia seems to be to lock up the primary, adopted in place of a state convention under the rationale of giving more voters more of a voice.

Any next step in court may have to be the constitutional route. There again, though, time constraints make raising constitutional questions a challenge to say the least.

Rick Perry, ACLU make good points in Virginia

The Virginia ACLU is doing a good job on Governor Rick Perry’s lawsuit in Virginia. If only the ACLU in Illinois could show as much pep.

At issue, as previously written, are Virginia’s rules for gathering signatures as a presidential candidate:

  • Any presidential candidate, even a major-party candidate, who wants to appear on the ballot in the March 6 primary must gather 10,000 signatures of registered voters
  • At least 400 signatures must come from each of the 11 congressional districts
  • The signatures can be gathered only by people who themselves live in Virginia

The rules do not allow write-in candidates, in the primary. Also, the Board of Elections recognizes only two parties, the Democratic and the Republican, a fact that is being noted in the legal filings.

Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry having failed to qualify for the Virginia ballot, his legal team went to court, suing GOPers on the state Board of Elections. Perry won a round Monday when federal judge John A. Gibney ordered Virginia’s local electoral boards to hold off on mailing out absentee ballots.

The response has been interesting.

Defendants Charles Judd, Kimberly Bowers and Don Palmer are appealing the January 9 order. They are joined by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Solicitor General of Virginia E. Duncan Getchell, Deputy Attorney General Wesley Russell, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Joshua Lief. AG Cuccinelli initially was so dismayed at all the GOP candidates left by the wayside that he explored the possibility of changing the rules—in 2012. The idea died within a day, and Cucinelli issued a public statement affirming the state GOP’s determination that, indeed, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates qualified under Virginia rules to appear on the ballot in the Virginia primary.

On the plaintiffs’ side, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia filed an amicus brief yesterday.

Defendants are appealing the temporary injunction on mailing out absentee ballots. From defendants, in appeals court, comes this filing on January 10:

“In their Notice of Live Testimony, State Board defendants gave notice that they intend to prove the following through the testimony of Don Palmer:

  • The presidential primary is scheduled for March 6. Two candidates met the statutory requirement of filing 10,000 valid signatures, including at least 400 from each Congressional district. In past elections, there were larger slates of candidates who have met the Virginia statutory requirement and were included on the primary ballot.
  • It is the duty of the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide at least 45 days for military and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot . . . January 9, 2012 had been set as a target date by the Board to have localities complete the preparation for printing of ballots. [56 days]
  • That there are 134 electoral jurisdictions and each must print its own ballots, which must be approved by its own electoral board and then the State Board of Elections before they can be used. Moreover, there are two large printing companies that are utilized to print the vast majority of ballots in the Commonwealth and that on or around the second week of January is when most approved ballots will be sent to the printers . . .” [emphasis added]

Reasonably enough, the disadvantages to sending out two different ballots are argued, as is the cost of having the ballots printed over again.

What’s this about printing new ballots over again? –Well, back up front and center on page 3 of the filing, defendants state,

“As the attached Declaration reveals, defendants have received information under the mechanisms of the consent decree that lead them to believe that most of the 134 jurisdictions have already printed some or all of their absentee ballots. Because of the intervening holidays, Virginia jurisdictions will have only four business days after the ruling on January 13, 2012, to attempt to avoid violations of their legal duties.”

Thus it just so happens that immediately after defendants certified their two candidates, the two firms mainly used by local boards printed out Virginia’s ballots. Commendable efficiency, when you think about it:

  • The deadline for signatures was Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011
  • The deadline for certifying candidates to the Board of Elections by the Virginia Republican Party (RVP) was Tuesday, Dec. 27
  • Rick Perry submitted his signatures Dec. 22; officials made a “preliminary determination” that there were not enough signatures Dec. 23
  • The defendants’ appeal says that ballots were already printed by Jan. 10
  • Two weeks remain until what is said to be the practical deadline for having ballots ready to mail, Jan. 27

In short, absentee ballots were readied in less than two weeks during a period including Christmas, New Year’s,  two weekends and two federal holidays. Now the state party establishment is arguing that it does not have time to re-do the ballots. Defendants argue that federal and state laws require absentee and overseas ballots to be mailed 45 days before the March 6 primary, i.e. by Saturday Jan. 21.

No claim so far as to whether the ballots’ already being printed either speeds up the process, or hinders it.

Still—back to the above—this is where it gets interesting. One claim made by defendants, as above, is that other candidates have been following these rules for years, and have managed to abide by them.

BUT

We already have the contrary statement on record, quoted in earlier posts, from the Republican Party of Virginia. In pertinent part, as they say,

“From the earliest days of the campaigns, RPV has actively told candidates that Virginia’s signature requirements could be a difficult legal requirement to meet for those who were new to Virginia politics.

In October 2011, RPV formally adopted the certification procedures that were applied on December 23:  any candidate who submitted over 15,000 facially-valid signatures would be presumed to be in compliance with Virginia’s 10,000 signature law.” [emphasis added]

 

There is no long history of candidates’ successfully meeting these demands, in Virginia. Virginia did not set these rules until almost the end of 2011. There have been no general elections under these rules.

Q.E.D.

On other matters in the case

The ACLU amicus brief does not deal with any of the above but instead addresses the RVP’s odd requirement that signature gatherers must be Virginia residents.

More on that later.

Meanwhile, as previously written, the RVP statement makes abundantly clear that it recognizes the obstacles to ballot access:

“Second, Virginia’s State Board of Elections advises candidates to collect 15,000 or more signatures to be safe, based on their long experience with average failure rates.

Third, RPV adopted the 15,000-signature presumption because the Party wants all of its candidates to qualify for the ballot. The 15,000-signature presumption served as an incentive for candidates to comply with the law with a safe margin of signatures.

. . . RPV officials encouraged candidates repeatedly, through both counsel and field staff, to submit 15,000 or more signatures in an abundance of caution, so that they would meet the legal requirements. 

Candidates were officially informed of the 15,000 rule in October 2011, well in advance of the Dec. 22 submission deadline. The rule was no surprise to any candidate – and indeed, no candidate or campaign offered any complaints until after the Dec. 23 validation process had concluded.

Despite this early notice and RPV’s exhortations to candidates, only one candidate availed himself of the 15,000 signature threshold – Governor Mitt Romney. RPV counted Governor Romney’s signatures, reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000. Never in the party’s history has a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures had 33 percent invalidated. The party is confident that Governor Romney met the statutory threshold.

Rep. Ron Paul submitted just under 15,000, and was submitted to signature-by-signature scrutiny on the same basis as the other candidates who submitted fewer than 15,000 signatures. After more than 7 hours of work, RPV determined that Rep. Paul had cleared the statutory 10,000/400 signature standard with ease.

Two other candidates did not come close to the 10,000 valid signature threshold.

RPV regrets that Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry did not meet the legal requirements established by the General Assembly.  Indeed, our hope was to have a full Republican field on the ballot for Republican voters to consider on March 6.”

Paul

By the way, the Virginia GOP also considered instituting a loyalty oath of sorts. Gov. McDonnell was among those urging the party to drop the idea.

These draconian measures are, let’s face it, new. CBS reports that the state GOP did not check primary petitions against a database back in 2008.

New Hampshire primary results coming in

Posted on by
Reply

New Hampshire primary results coming in, reporting and periodic reactions–

8-oh-not-much-and 30 seconds p.m. New Hampshire polls now officially closed, NBC et al. can pronounce that Mitt Romney is the projected winner in the state’s primaries. Percentages about where they have been, with Romney well ahead of Ron Paul, the latter solidly ahead of everyone else, and Gingrich and Santorum about tied.

Next big hurdle for the political news media: finding enough to say about Newt Gingrich’s ad campaign in South Carolina to eat up or fill up the air waves for the next couple of weeks. As Al Gore pointed out, SC governor Nikki Haley has already endorsed Romney.

More suspenseful is the Virginia legal matter. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue in their supporting brief that the constitutional question may never have to be considered by the court. That is, the question of whether Virginia’s restrictive rules on ballot access violate the First Amendment and the 14th amendment, among others, may not have to come up at all.

Plaintiffs hold that the Virginia Board of Elections, named defendants, misapplied Virginia statute in the first place. That “may” and “shall” question.

To a non-lawyer, it does look as though that one will have to be answered. But determinations depend on the courts.

7:44 p.m. With 5 percent of the NH vote in, it’s Romney with 36  percent, Ron Paul with 25 percent, Huntsman with 15, Gingrich and Santorum close to tied at 11 percent and 10 percent respectively.

Votes in are those only from polls closing at 7:30 rather than 8:00.

‘Real’ returns to begin flooding in at 8:00.

Rick Perry’s brief and complaint look substantive, in that filing against the Virginia Board of Elections GOPers.

Of particular interest: the difference between “may” and “shall.” Plaintiffs argue, convincingly, that the Virginia statute says candidates “may” file a petition with 10,000+ signatures. Plaintiffs’ attorneys quote the statute at copious length, clarifying that the statute does indeed use “may” at some points and “shall” at others. Turns out there was a Virginia legal case, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court just four months ago, in which the court ruled explicitly that when the law uses “may” in some places and “shall” in others, the wording is to be regarded as intentional.

Funny how little of this is coming out in the ad-infinitum commentary and reporting on the primary process. Virginia is not the biggest state in the union, with the most delegates, but it is not a small state. Furthermore, it has been treated by the national media as a definitively ‘red’ state for twenty years now, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary.

7:07 p.m. Switching channels to Current TV—

Useful reminder from former Vice President Al Gore, re South Carolina as a hotbed of socially conservative et ceteras: the late Lee Atwater constructed the South Carolina primary in the late Seventies as a conservative firewall–i.e. to protect the establishment candidate. It was thought that Ronald Reagan might need some protection against an insurgency by John Connally.

Setting aside any question of how ‘insurgent’ the GOP challengers actually tend to be (aside from Ron Paul), in national elections, the fate of John McCain in 2000 is another memento mori for insurgent candidates. McCain was infamously slandered in a whispering campaign by GWBush’s people, including First Brother Marvin Bush. Thus ever challengers, in South Carolina. Huckabee went down in SC in 2008, too, but more cleanly.

6:07 p.m. First 1 percent of the votes reported, and it’s Romney out front with 37 percent, Ron Paul 26 percent, Huntsman 21 percent. Rick Santorum with zero, tied with Michele Bachmann, no longer in the race. Newt Gingrich so far with 11 percent but looking forward cheerfully to South Carolina, where the super PAC supporting him has bought more million$ worth of television ads than any other campaign including Romney’s.

To do him justice, Gingrich is one of the few candidates who appropriately defended Romney’s famous “I like firing people” comment. Ron Paul also defended Romney today, against the all-sides demagoguing on the off-the-cuff remark. Paul went farther, defending the entire Bain Capital process as capitalism at work.

Romney’s getting vilified for firing people is one thing. His getting vilified for the remark about insurance companies not providing good service is one of those sadly selfish mishaps that drag down the entire political process. It also sheds further light, if any were needed, on GOP party establishment priorities. Romney suggested, after all, that people should have a choice about insurers. He went so far as to suggest that insurers should do right by their customers. He even went so far–and this seems to have been the bridge too far–that customers can exchange an insurance company that does not do well for another one.

These ideas are not popular among GOP candidates for office. It will be little short of miraculous if they are repeated on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, for other GOPers to attack Romney for them is rather like the attacks on Rick Perry for taking a humane line toward immigrants.

Speaking of Bain Capital–

Wouldn’t it be great if the millionaires and billionaires connected with Bain Capital had joined in an enterprise to buy suffering companies and do something good with them? This idea is not to be confused with charity. A consortium could legally act as a private task force–acquire companies and re-engineer them with socially conscious objectives in view. Keep an eye on the situation of the workers, keep an eye on the environment, learn to make a worthwhile product. Is that notion considered on-its-face impossible?

Romney

Rick Perry lawsuit moves forward, Virginia ballots delayed

Posted on by
Reply

2012 Rick Perry Virginia lawsuit, 2

Rick Perry lawsuit moves forward, Virginia ballots delayed

Perry

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s legal team won an early round in Virginia courts Monday. Federal judge John A. Gibney ordered all of Virginia’s local electoral boards to hold off on mailing out absentee ballots.

In a conference call, Judge Gibney ordered the Virginia State Board of Elections to send a directive to each local board to refrain from mailing out any absentee ballots until after a January 13 hearing on the temporary restraining order and injunction moved by the Perry campaign. Perry’s campaign is suing Virginia Board of Elections members Charles Judd, Kimberly Bowers and Don Palmer over Virginia’ rules restricting access to the presidential ballot for candidates.

As previously written, at issue are the Virginia rules, the most burdensome in the nation, that

  • Any presidential candidate, even a major-party candidate, who wants to appear on the ballot in the March 6 primary must gather 10,000 signatures of registered voters
  • At least 400 signatures must come from each of the 11 congressional districts
  • The signatures can be gathered only by people who themselves live in Virginia

The rules do not allow write-in candidates, in the primary elections. Be it noted also that the Board of Elections rules recognize only the Democratic and the Republican parties. Thus the 10,000/400 signature-gathering rules do not have the rationale of leveling the playing field for smaller parties or for nonaffiliated candidates.

Defendants Judd, Bowers and Palmer are appealing the January 9 order. They are joined by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Solicitor General of Virginia E. Duncan Getchell, Deputy Attorney General Wesley Russell, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Joshua Lief.

Perhaps the rules should have been vetted with this kind of firepower before they were instituted.

Gov. Perry, Repubs gain ACLU support

On the plaintiffs’ side, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has filed for permission to file an amicusbrief.

The ACLU position:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the petition process is political speech that is protected by the Constitution and that the state can’t impose residential requirements on such speech,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.

“Petition circulators must explain their candidate’s positions to the electorate, and persuade voters that the candidate deserves to be on the ballot,” added Willis.  “Reducing the number of available petition circulators by imposing a residency requirement limits this important means for candidates to get their message across.”

The ACLU brief argues that the residency requirement not only violates the free speech rights of candidates, but of petition circulators, voters, and political parties, as well.

“Non-residents who wish to circulate petitions for a candidate are deprived of the ability to do so,” said Willis.  “Voters are deprived of the information and ideas that these circulators would provide.  And the Republican Party is unfairly limited in its choices for a nominee when valid candidates are unable to obtain the required signatures.”

Perry’s lawsuit is joined by Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum. Michele Bachmann also joined in before dropping out of the race following the Iowa caucuses.

[update]

Local readers of the Washington Post have to find information about Perry’s Virginia lawsuit elsewhere. The print edition received in my county contained no mention of it this morning, although the online edition has two short AP items.

The edition of the paper going out to Prince George’s county must run off before midnight. The day after the Saints won the wild-card playoff against the Lions, bizarrely the WashPost sports section contained no mention of the Saints or of the game.

Rick Perry is right about Virginia

Posted on by
Reply
Perry

Rick Perry right about Virginia

Rick Perry is right. Virginia’s rules for gathering signatures to get a candidate on the ballot in Virginia violate the U.S. Constitution.

Quick run-down on the rules:

  • Virginia law recognizes only the Republican and Democratic parties as parties
  • Any presidential candidate who wants to appear on the ballot in the March 6 primary must gather 10,000 signatures of registered voters
  • At least 400 signatures must come from each of the 11 congressional districts
  • The signatures can be gathered only by people who themselves live in Virginia
  • The primary election does not allow write-ins

State GOP party chairman Pat Mullins reiterated the above on the party web site:

 “Under the Code of Virginia, any candidate who wants to have their name placed on the March 6, 2012 Republican Presidential Ballot or the June 12, 2012 U.S. Senate Primary must collect the signatures of 10,000 registered voters statewide, with at least 400 signatures of registered voters from each of Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts.”

Mullins’ statement omits that kicker about signature gatherers having to be from Virginia.

The upshot for 2012, as everyone knows, is that well-funded Texas Governor Rick Perry, Virginia resident and U.S. history consultant Newt Gingrich, and three other Republicans failed to get their names on the ballot in Virginia. Perry did not get enough signatures; Gingrich collected more than 11,000 signatures but had many invalidated by state GOP officials, who hate him; and candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum did not even file to get on the ballot in Virginia. Thus as of now only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are eligible to compete for Virginia’s 50 delegates on March 6.

It’s a Schadenfreudefest.

Signs of the times

Ironies abound.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the rules for getting on the ballot are left to the states, and there is no national standard for state ballot access. Legislation to limit how far states could on restricting ballot access was repeatedly introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, but without success. Paul, again, is the only candidate besides Romney whose presidential campaign organization succeeded in getting him onto the ballot in Virginia for 2012.

Paul’s campaign still had to jump through extra hoops. As the statement of rules issued by GOP state party chairman Pat Mullins continues,

“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).”

Romney’s campaign turned in more than 15,000 votes, as the somewhat defensive statement issued by the Republican Party of Virginia notes. Thus Romney’s petition was adjudged valid on its face under the rules. As the RPV puts it,

“any candidate who submitted over 15,000 facially-valid signatures would be presumed to be in compliance with Virginia‘s 10,000 signature law.”

 [boldface in original statement]

Ron Paul’s signatures, au contraire, went through a round of vetting:

“Rep. Ron Paul submitted just under 15,000, and was submitted to signature-by-signature scrutiny on the same basis as the other candidates who submitted fewer than 15,000 signatures. After more than 7 hours of work, RPV determined that Rep. Paul had cleared the statutory 10,000/400 signature standard with ease.”

The RPV situation deserves more attention than it has gotten. Admittedly, a primary pageant featuring Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Rick man-on-dog Santorum, Donald Trump and the rest tends to suck up oxygen that might otherwise go to constitutional questions. Then we got Perry’s televised gaffes. Then Newt Gingrich inveighing against money, negative advertising and lying in politics. Now the prominent alternative to Romney seems to be Santorum, who is also trying to whittle Gingrich down to size. With this kind of air show on television, it is often difficult to turn to reading.

That said, the RPV statement is still an act of epic folly.

Back to Ole Virginny, and we don’t mean to asperse Scandinavians

Virginia Republicans adopted the new rules in October 2011, obviously to prep for the 2012 election. The rules overwhelmingly benefit Mitt Romney and were undoubtedly crafted to enhance Romney as the inevitable nominee. (Romney advisor/strategist Stuart Stevens, a Mississippi native, is among Romney supporters based in Virginia.) The RPV itself clearly knows that the restrictions are, as Perry’s legal challenge says, onerous:

“From the earliest days of the campaigns, RPV has actively told candidates that Virginia’s signature requirements could be a difficult legal requirement to meet for those who were new to Virginia politics.”

The rationale for restricting ballot access is protecting the integrity of elections. Yet the Virginia rules give a pass to exactly those most liable to jeopardize election integrity, namely the biggest and best-funded campaigns. This is not to suggest that Romney’s signatures are fraudulent. But the rule exempts the biggest list of signatures from any checking at all. RPV defensiveness suggests that the RPV itself recognizes this exemption as questionable:

“The presumption of compliance was set at 15,000 for a variety of reasons.

First, in the party’s long experience with petitions, RPV has never encountered a situation where a candidate who submitted 15,000 signatures has failed to make the ballot (absent cases of obvious fraud).

Second, Virginia’s State Board of Elections advises candidates to collect 15,000 or more signatures to be safe, based on their long experience with average failure rates.

Third, RPV adopted the 15,000-signature presumption because the Party wants all of its candidates to qualify for the ballot. The 15,000-signature presumption served as an incentive for candidates to comply with the law with a safe margin of signatures.

Fourth, under Virginia law, RPV’s Chairman is assigned a profound legal obligation to ensure that each candidate has met Virginia’s legal requirements. The Party was afforded under Virginia law only 5 days over Christmas to review ballot petitions and signatures. The 15,000-signature presumption was intended to assist the RPV Chairman in meeting his legal obligations in an efficient process that would run quickly while providing the Party and the Commonwealth assurances of legal compliance based upon mathmatical [sic] experience.” 

Since the state GOP (clearly) knew that the restrictions were onerous, furthermore,

“RPV officials encouraged candidates repeatedly, through both counsel and field staff, to submit 15,000 or more signatures in an abundance of caution, so that they would meet the legal requirements. 

Candidates were officially informed of the 15,000 rule in October 2011, well in advance of the Dec. 22 submission deadline. The rule was no surprise to any candidate – and indeed, no candidate or campaign offered any complaints until after the Dec. 23 validation process had concluded.

Despite this early notice and RPV’s exhortations to candidates, only one candidate availed himself of the 15,000 signature threshold – Governor Mitt Romney. RPV counted Governor Romney’s signatures, reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000. Never in the party’s history has a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures had 33 percent invalidated. The party is confident that Governor Romney met the statutory threshold.”

Romney gets to pass Go.

Briefly, the other couple of oddities:

As mentioned, the signature gatherers must live in Virginia. No other state has that requirement, which would seem to increase local control over any signature gathering.

No other state requires major parties to spread the signatures around among congressional districts, either. A few states do set that bar for new political parties, or for nonaffiliated candidates:

  • Louisiana requires 500 signatures from each district–OR a fee of $500 instead of signatures.
  • New York requires signatures from a majority of the state’s districts, for candidates from a non-established party.
  • North Carolina requires 200 signatures from at least four districts, for a new political party or for a nonaffiliated candidate.

But only the Virginia GOP brought you that rule that even the Democratic and the Republican parties, established parties, have to spread their signatures around among every congressional district. The rule effectively prevents any college town from harvesting enough signatures to put, say, Ron Paul on the ballot with ease. Further smoothed the path, in October 2011, for Romney.

On Jan. 3, after the Iowa caucuses, Perry was going to reassess his campaign, going home to Texas instead of to South Carolina.

On Jan. 4, Perry tweeted On to South Carolina.

Presumably, staying in the race keeps Perry’s lawsuit in Virginia from becoming moot or from being dismissed for lack of standing.

If so, Perry’s staying in the race a while longer will benefit the citizenry–not for the Machiavellian reason of dividing the field against Romney, but because Virginia’s rules are genuinely weird. One step farther, and the Virginia GOP, entrenched in the state government, would be able to make only one party legal in the Old Dominion.

Briefs in the case are due today (Friday Jan. 6).

Some local back-and-forth has occurred since Perry filed his lawsuit. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was so appalled by the consequences for Virginia’s primary that he initially said he would consider changing the rules for the year. Cuccinelli has announced that he will run for governor in 2013 in Virginia (where elections are held in odd-numbered years, and the governor is term-limited to one term). Cuccinelli changed his position the next day. Even the kookiest state attorney general is not supposed to change election rules for the election in process. AG Cuccinelli’s discomfiture put him at odds with Governor McDonnell (Douglas), who has given no sign of displeasure over Romney’s being the main man on the ballot.

More on the legal challenge later.

The Iowa caucuses–still looking for Brand X?

Posted on by
Reply

Live-blogging the Iowa caucuses, where participants may or may not be still looking for Brand X.

12:58

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney have now both given their ending speeches–34 votes out of 120K+ votes cast, separating them–and Santorum spoke more effectively. But he’s still calling the Affordable Care Act fascism. He just does it by speaking tenderly of his Italian grandfather, who left Italy under Mussolini.

Two words you don’t hear from Romney or Santorum on occasions like tonight: “insurance companies.”

Sometimes it is hard to understand these guys. How can they possibly think that having the insurance companies act as gatekeepers to health care, to medical attention, is a good idea?

12:01

One candidate made news in his final speech. Rick Perry is suspending his campaign, reassessing–to return to Texas rather than continuing to South Carolina. Perry has ended up with 10 percent of the vote, with 96 percent of votes in, in Iowa. Plenty of money for staying in the race, according to the conventional wisdom, but not a lot of point in doing so.

Looks as though Perry’s attacks on Mitt Romney had less effect than the returned fire.

With only 4 percent of votes yet to come in, Santorum leads Romney by something over 100 votes. The two are statistically tied at 25 percent each.

11:13

Finally, they (MSNBC) cut away to hear Ron Paul speak to supporters. If the cable channels had done that earlier, as often as they aired clips of other candidates speaking, Paul would probably have gotten better than his 21 percent. Speaking to ebullient volunteers, Paul presses some buttons that the Obama White House needs to be aware of. Not the gold standard. But Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex, yes. “It’s time to get out of Afghanistan,” yes. And most of all, that as Ron Paul remarked, his campaign is bringing into the GOP some ideas it desperately needed, most of all, “the conviction that freedom is popular.”

When was the last time you heard any Republican candidate for office say that? Who else in the GOP could have been capable of enunciating it?

10:49

With votes coming in and 88 percent of votes counted, it’s Santorum with a tiny lead tied with Romney at 25 percent each, Ron Paul with 21 percent. Bachmann loses a point for 5 percent, Rick Perry gains the point for 11 percent, quite close to Gingrich’s 13 percent, a constant for the night so far.

Looking ahead to tomorrow, and the question already shapes itself: What crusade can Newt Gingrich be invited to throw himself into? Can he be induced to spearhead a national drive for a constitutional amendment to throw money out of politics? And if so, who can be found to fund the position?

In short, WHAT’S THE JOB OFFER FOR GINGRICH?

10:16

News flash: NBC will not project the winner of the Iowa caucuses race. We’ll just have to wait and see who the winner is, when–get this–all the votes are counted. Unheard of.

Still effectively a three-way tie, with 45 percent of the vote in. But a gap is widening for now between Santorum-Romney and Ron Paul, who now has 22 percent to Santorum and Romney’s 24 percent apiece.

Update 9:13

With 13 percent counted, it’s Ron Paul 24 percent, Mitt Romney 24 percent, Rick Santorum 23 percent. Numbers Paul 3821, Romney 3650, Santorum 3636. The percentages have been steady among the top three so far, fluctuating only between 24 percent and 23 percent.

All this to choose delegates to attend the county conventions March 10.

Discussion on MSNBC centers mainly on how support will coalesce around Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate. One intriguing interruption: a hoax came in a little while after vote counting began, a bogus news flash that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is dropping his bid and endorsing Ron Paul instead. Hoax.

Discussion of Santorum’s chances, if any, has hinged so far on suggestion that Gingrich is now going to go after Mitt Romney and will damage him. Santorum himself earlier said that Romney and Gingrich were the contenders in the establishment primary, as opposed to the sui generis Ron Paul primary and the Christian-right primary featuring him, Bachmann and Perry.

Some theorizing is that the GOP nomination might hinge on how angry Gingrich is–whether he’s mad enough to destroy Romney out of revenge.

Maybe so. But it is hard to imagine a Gingrich so angry about campaign ads that he becomes numb to the appeal of money. Surely any effective, well funded behind-the-scenes team could make him forget some of his pain, offering him further well-paid consulting work to throw himself into.

Update 8:44

Second raft of numbers comes floating in–this time it’s Rick Santorum on top with 26 percent, Ron Paul second with 23 percent, Mitt Romney (still) third with 18 percent. Numbers: Santorum 463, Paul 406, Romney 318.

Hmm.

Update 8:32

First numbers actually in–a breathless one percent of caucuses reporting, and the breakdown is –drumroll here– 43 percent Ron Paul, 19 percent Rick Perry, 14 percent Mitt Romney. All that looks a bit less definitive when clarified with numbers: 9 for Paul, 4 for Perry, 3 for Romney.

Still, at least the commentators are finally, realistically, talking about Ron Paul. As commentators point out, Paul’s appeal for young voters–fiscally responsible, socially liberal, anti-war–is something the Obama team could study.

Update 7:30

A good, succinct run-down of the political situation coming out of the caucuses, by Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Also, Rachel Madow presiding, a surprisingly interesting discussion of campaign finance law with Romney attorney Ben Ginsberg. The Rev. Al Sharpton contributed good questions. He elicited the statement from Ginsberg that each candidate could address other candidates’ PACs, just not his own. To ask a supporting PAC to, for example, cease running a negative ad would be coordinating and thus in violation of campaign finance law after Citizens United, according to Ginsberg. Sharpton will have opportunities to follow up on this line of thought, in all probability.

Reminds me of 1950s law-shaped “Brand X” television advertising, see below. This issue needs further clarification, and will get it.

Meanwhile, one must admit that it is not entirely painful to watch Newt Gingrich hoist by his own petard–while claiming that he is damaged because he, he alone, tried to oppose negative advertising.

Signs of the times in Iowa

Some consensus has emerged among discussants on air that a Romney-Santorum-Paul finish is probable if not certain, also that since neither of the non-Romney ‘top’ finishers is Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, the exact order in which the top three finish is unimportant. Analysts have reminded each other ad infinitum that Romney-supporting ads have been directed against Perry and Gingrich, not against the others. So, Perry and Gingrich are the candidates perceived as having some national capability, as representing some sort of threat.

Q.E.D.

There is a parallel to all this in old anti-trust legislation, back in the earlier days of television. For at least a while, it was illegal for an advertiser to mention any competitor by name, in commercials. The result was that sponsors would tout their products against all others in some vague and sweeping language–“dentists recommend,” etc. Or they would claim that their product outperformed “Brand X.”

This struck a lot of the old comedians as a vein to be mined for humor.

Now, of course, advertisers can specifically mention (inferior) rival products by brand name. They’ve been able to do that for years. So can political ads, including those paid for by interest groups in support of a candidate, without the candidate’s official endorsement. It is beginning to look as though those previous anti-trust laws/regs, designed to prevent combining against a competitor, had a point.

Frustrating for every form of typical primary-season narrative that no Brand X has emerged yet in Iowa. The question topping almost all others, as caucus night heads toward some kind of result, is what t he primary line-up will look like, without one. The question as to how many voters will turn up to participate in the caucuses is almost secondary, if equally hard to answer with a prediction. (This writer has no guess as to how the caucuses will go.)

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is saying this evening that he will be spending a lot of time in New Hampshire, apparently more than in South Carolina. Guess he figures his Catholicism will be a barrier in SC, more of one than in New England. Still seems an odd game plan, especially for someone so hyped at the moment who was born in Virginia.

Live-blogging Iowa caucus day–Gingrich on incentive

Posted on by
Reply

Live-blogging the Iowa caucus coverage–

Time in a bottle

12:51 They presented Newt Gingrich just now, speaking on the stump in Burlington IA, mainly railing against negative ads. How many of you here are fed up with all the negative advertising? he asked his audience, getting some hands raised up. –So go out and vote for me, and you will be casting a vote against negative ads, a vote that could change political campaigns in this country.

Noble sentiments. They come oddly from a guy who started the day and seized CBS’ attention, this morning, by repeatedly calling Romney a liar. To be precise, it was not Gingrich who used the word liar. He just (repeatedly) answered yes, when Norah O’Donnell asked him whether that was what he was calling Romney. Schieffer helped Gingrich dig the hole deeper, following up with that old eleventh-commandment question as to whether he would support Romney as the nominee. Gingrich said yes, leading to softball Qs as to whether he would really support a “bald-faced liar” as Schieffer put it. Still yes. Gave Gingrich another chance to say something disrespectful about Obama. These people are tiresome.

Back to Gingrich’s Burlington appearance–

Having stated his opposition to negative campaign ads and to donations in the millions from Romney’s millionaire friends, again, Gingrich segued to criticism of federal judges. They’re too strong, he said.

Again, he might be right in some sense. Federal judges can get away with a lot, including selective punishment and caving in to political pressure. (Something the right wing is none too shy to apply; ditto federal lobbyists.) Gingrich comes across as something of a macht haben recht type himself, though. Hard to see him as the right messenger.

Side note: It’s funny how few of these sanctimonious Christian-right-cultivating political candidates cite the Sermon on the Mount. Reminds me of Tim Tebow. A quick physical sign of his religion may have First Amendment protection. But there is nothing particularly devout about it. As all Southern Baptists were taught, following the Sermon on the Mount, it is best to pray in the privacy of your own closet.

The hypocrites, as the Speaker of the Sermon on the Mount pointed out gently and with mild urbanity, have their own reward. You–the genuinely devout–are seeking yours elsewhere.

Speaking of pieties, Gingrich also proclaimed today that he wants to “incentivize the work ethic.” He wants to incentivize invention, to incentivize innovation.

This is the kind of statement you get from a major party that seizes every opportunity to oppose

  • a living wage
  • raising the minimum wage
  • health benefits on the job
  • retirement benefits from working
  • prosecution for fraudulent managers
  • prosecution for endangering workers’ lives
  • prosecution for Wall Street executives
  • limiting bonuses for malperforming executives
  • education in music and mathematics
  • support for the arts and letters at every level
  • physical education and healthful exercise
  • Et cetera

Gingrich, of course, puts it differently. In his spin, the other party–the Democrats– “want to take money from everybody who’s successful to give to everybody who’s failed.” Possibly his term ‘failed’ refers to everyone who has been foreclosed on after unemployment, and in turn everyone who has become unemployed as a result of the worsening economy.

It is beyond incredible that our publishing industry rewards this kind of Orwellian claptrap with mega-bucks book contracts, and that our infotainment industry rewards it with mega-bucks speaking engagements.

In Gingrich’s particular case, the buzzwords innovation etc probably his ongoing willingness to accept money from Big Pharma, which has a vested interest in preventing prescription medications from (ever) becoming generic and thus affordable.

Gingrich and Bachmann in particular seem to share Gov. Branstad’s penchant for using stump appearances and interviews as communiques for potential donors.

Not illegal, just unsavory.

Live-blogging Iowa caucus day

Posted on by
Reply

Live-blogging coverage of the Iowa caucuses: First voting of the new year, first voting in 2012, as we are often reminded.

Romney in Iowa

The unspoken refrain here btw is ongoing apologies for repeating things that have already been said, sort of like a continuing objection by defense attorneys in a deposition hearing.

Wish the network and cable commentators felt the same way. Some items from left-over Xmas stockings:

  • as ever, some network analysts are trying desperately to home in on their default analysis for every election cycle–the scenario boiling down to an establishment front-runner and an insurgent challenger from the wings of the party. This narrative has been applied to every GOP race and most Democratic races in adult memory. It seems not to be working this year, but that’s not stopping them.
  • commentators, guest interviewers and guest interviewees alike are by-and-large working to boost Mitt Romney. We’re seeing it right now, on the day of the caucuses, especially. The Reverend Mr. Franklin Graham weighed thus in last night on CNN, not endorsing any candidate including Romney but saying repeatedly that “We are not voting for a pastor-in-chief. We are voting for a commander-in-chief.” He used the word “qualified” more than once, too, generally shorthand for Romney among supporters. Graham said nothing to boost any Christian-conservative candidate against other candidates.
  • Trying to shoehorn this election season into a winnowing-the-field narrative. So far, the winnowing has not occurred.
  • Trying to figure out whether to characterize this primary season as a marathon or a sprint. Both are cliches. Neither illuminates much of anything.
  • Avoiding discussion, in a political context, that would shed light on what Republicans in Congress have actually done this year.
  • Legitimizing dreadful policies and mean statements.
  • Leveling out the differences between the parties, downgrading or burying the Dems and rehabilitating or dignifying Repubs.
  • Refusing to say directly that the GOP top crust in office is trying to break the middle class. You don’t hear that. You do hear NBC’s David Gregory saying, with straight face, that Mitt Romney has a message for the middle class.

Not once do regressive tax policies get brought up. Only infrequently do the costs of GWBush’s two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and unbridled incompentence and fraud on Wall Street get brought up.

Simple, but accurate–almost every Republican in federal office is working for one overarching trend: rich-get-richer.

Regardless of the wishes of ordinary people who voted for them, now being terrorized by rhetorical hammering on ‘the debt’, the function they fulfill in public office is to benefit the few who will hire/retain them in parasitic functions such as consulting and lobbying, once they leave office.

It is no demagoguery to boil down their message for the middle class: Drop dead!

Speaking of winnowing, Sarah Palin is trying to get into the game. Palin is calling on Huntsman and Bachmann to leave the race.

I see Huntsman (counter-intuitively) as vice-presidential material for Romney. None of these candidates has a very good shot against President Obama.

[added]

Commentators also tend to position ‘electable’ versus everything else including every kind of merit. There is more than a kernel of truth to the observation that politics is not for the perfect. But the gross differences between better and worse do not necessarily boil down to a difference between character and being ‘electable’. The large media outlets do not have a good track record when it comes to picking the electable candidate, anyway.

Of course, they have been on the receiving end of a lot of obfuscation themselves. Bush and Cheney did not run on a platform of assaulting the Middle East abroad and the middle class at home. If they had, presumably they would have been perceived as less electable even by the corporate media outlets.

Iowa caucus day, and Gingrich calls Romney a liar; Live-blogging the coverage

Posted on by
Reply

Live-blogging the coverage on the media-saturated Iowa caucuses–

7:40 a.m. We’re not off to a good start. Newt Gingrich just appeared on CBS’ The Early Show, pitching for himself, and called Mitt Romney a liar.

Gingrich

The exchange with guest interviewers Norah O’Donnell and Bob Schieffer started ordinarily. Gingrich boosted himself, then criticized Romney’s super-PAC ads against him, then characterized Romney’s positioning as less than candid.

O’Donnell: “Are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”

Gingrich: “Yes.”

O’Donnell, flapped at getting a direct answer to an oversimplified question, pressed Gingrich to repeat. So he did. Schieffer ditto.

For the record, there is a difference between characterizing a statement as false, or even a lie, and characterizing the person as ‘a liar.’ This is a central distinction in ethics.

In politics on television, no difference. Gingrich could have said, “No. I’ve done no name-calling,” and gone on to make the distinction between lying–something everyone has done at some point–and throwing out the whole person. Of course, throwing out Romney Gingrich’s objective.

The GOP in Iowa; Live blogging the coverage

Posted on by
Reply

GOP in Iowa –Live blogging the coverage

 

Gingrich

The last 48 hours leading up to results from the Iowa caucuses, and “every second counts” according to CNN. That principle does not apply to air time. Yesterday evening, minutes after saying repeatedly that CNN would be bringing you the candidates’ words, live and unfiltered, Candy Crowley cut away just when Ron Paul was heading to the podium.

CNN had been actively touting its direct presentations of the candidates, saying It’s as though you are there. You too will hear the candidates, just as if you were in Iowa. Et cetera. The audience out in televisionland, however, never did get into the room to hear Paul speak to his live audience. A split screen a little while later showed where each candidate was, Rep. Paul speaking at the podium, one visual in the graphic among six. No audio. Instead, more commentary from Crowley—repeating summations of the up-and-down already amply reported–more commentary from guest pundits, and a couple quick cut-aways to Newt Gingrich, in interview, and to Michele Bachmann on the campaign trail. Admittedly some humor value was there to be had. Bachmann said more than once, aiming in the general direction of the mic thrust into her face, that “thousands” of Iowans were switching to her. Bachmann has repeatedly declined to say that she would support the Republican nominee for president, whoever s/he was, always declaring that she will be the nominee. It could have been the diplomatic answer but was styled verbally with typical Bachmann ham-handedness. She did the same kind of thing when asked questions about the war, saying repeatedly, “I’m a mom.” Then she pushes herself as the one “genuine” candidate in the mix.

Crowley interviewed Paul on air today, with clips aired more than once. Since most of the air time in the interview went to Crowley rehashing attacks by opponents—mainly Gingrich–against Paul, the interview was not equivalent to live coverage of the candidate speaking. Paul’s answers tend to be terse and to the point, one source of his appeal. So Crowley ended up doing more of the talking in the interview.

 

Santorum reported as surging

As of this writing, Mitt Romney tops the polls in Iowa, followed closely by Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is aiming fire at Paul. Paul validly responds that the overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of Afghanistan, as he does.* Gingrich and Rick Perry are closely fighting for 4th-5th. Michele Bachmann is consistently at the bottom.

One hesitates to be a mind reader, but somehow that last item feels—what is the word?—unsurprising.

One good thing about listening to television is that it makes you think about the language we use.

A phrase that should be retired, whether it comes from the candidates or the commentators, is “At the end of the day.” I am influenced in this wish partly by the late John Weiglein, a good man who wished the same thing.

Another candidate for retirement, aside from Gingrich and the rest: “If you will.” (Rick Perry is already retired.)

“If you will” is a phrase used when putting forth something a bit doubtful, or something not established, or something a bit risky. The phrase is what one offers when stumped for a final answer or a precise formulation, compelled by the exigencies of the conversation to provide an interim suggestion. It softens the overreach. It is a social gesture to reassure the hearer that one is not overreaching, or at least not wantonly or for the fun of it. It is not a phrase to be used when one is saying exactly what a thousand other pundits have already said, or when one is describing something in perfectly ordinary words. Example: “Michele Bachmann’s coming in last in GOP polls is unsurprising, if you will.”

 

*As does this writer.