Tag Archives: Rick Perry

The 2012 primary in Virginia; any news?

Posted on by
Reply

Virginia and Ohio—quiet and quieter

On tomorrow’s ‘Super Tuesday’ primaries, safe predictions do not abound. One remaining prediction is the lack of suspense over the outcome in Virginia.

Mitt Romney

With only two candidates allowed on the ballot—neither of them Newt Gingrich with his southern strategy, who had been leading the polls in Virginia—a nation is not bating its breath. Items of real news aside from vaginal probes are few and thin.

One is that King George County, Virginia, is not under the Voting Rights Act as of now.

Another is that on the eve of the primary, Rep. Eric Cantor has endorsed Romney. No surprise there. There is no Gingrich or other ‘alternative’ on the ballot, and it was a safe guess that Rep. Ron Paul was not going to get Cantor’s endorsement. Almost simultaneously, a top Cantor aide has abruptly resigned from Cantor’s staff to join the ‘Young Guns’ Super PAC. An objective observer could also bet that Romney’s chances in tomorrow’s Virginia primary are considerably more solid than those of the upper-ticket GOP in the general election in Virginia.

More on the general tenor of the political discourse in Virginia (setting aside vaginal probes), from Roll Call:

“Similar attempts at “no super PAC” pledges have fallen flat in California and Virginia. Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) told a debate moderator that he would “agree to it tomorrow” if he and former Sen. George Allen (R), his opponent in the open-seat race, could nix outside spending. Allen responded during the forum that such a pledge would tread on free speech.

Anti-Kaine broadcast attacks by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS have already topped $1.5 million, according to his campaign. Kaine is one of eight Senators and a dozen House Members targeted in a U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad campaign that by some estimates is in the $10 million range.”

There’s a lot of quiet free speech of the behind-the-back kind in Virginia, the state that most resembles Dallas on a larger scale.

That quietness has been breached lately, to the intense regret of GOP insiders, by the remarkable state requirement that prospective abortion patients get a vaginal probe.

Virginia governor

If only corporate media outlets would stop talking about ‘moderate’ Republicans. In practice, the so-called moderates are those flexible on the social issues who always go along with rapacious economic policy.

But more on that later. Unfortunately, the big contest re Virginia, bigger than Romney’s tax returns, is not hitting in the big-time media. The big contest is the court battle—initiated by Gov. Rick Perry—over the issue of how far a state party can go, even in-state, to block intra-party competition.

 

Rick Perry

Quick run-down or recap:

Perry having failed to qualify for the ballot in Virginia’s GOP primary, he sued Republican members of the State Board of Elections, joined by the other GOP candidates who likewise failed to get on the ballot, over Virginia’s onerous rules for qualifying. District Court Judge John Gibney, who gave Perry et al. a temporary ruling holding up the mailing of absentee and overseas ballots, then ruled against Perry’s bid to be placed on the ballot. Perry et al. appealed the decision (not joined by Michele Bachmann, who had dropped out of the race). Both sides were briefly appellants.

Siding with Perry along with his fellow GOP non-qualifiers was the ACLU.

Gibney allowed the ballot process to go forward, saying that the plaintiffs—Perry, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman, and Rick Santorum—could not re-play the game after losing. Huntsman dropped out of the lawsuit, having dropped out of the presidential nomination fight.

Rick Perry dropped his appeal Jan. 27. Newt Gingrich dropped his appeal Feb. 6. Case closed. So it’s over–except that it’s not over, because the rules are still on the books.

As politicos know–and discussed for a couple of days, before designating Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee, then almost dumping him, then waffling on the razor’s edge of whether a primary loss could finish him off—Perry and Gingrich failed to get on the Virginia ballot when they could not turn in enough signatures. Only Romney and Ron Paul managed to qualify as candidates for the Virginia primary with its 50 delegates to the national convention. At issue are Virginia’s rules for signature gathering: Even a major-party candidate must turn in petitions with 10,000 valid signatures, including 400 signatures from each of the Commonwealth’s congressional districts. Furthermore, Virginia requires that all signature gatherers must be residents of Virginia. Judge Gibney commented that the resident-gatherer rule struck him as unconstitutional but said that plaintiffs should have filed earlier.

Since in most cases a party must be injured before filing a lawsuit, it is puzzling to a non-lawyer how a candidate can claim injury before being excluded from the ballot (or before losing).

Another problem with the time-frame argument in the Virginia case, however, is that the party rules used to keep Perry and (especially) Gingrich off the ballot are new. As the Republican Party of Virginia said in its official statement on the certification process,

“In October 2011, RPV formally adopted the certification procedures that were applied on December 23 . . . Candidates were officially informed of the 15,000 rule in October 2011, well in advance of the Dec. 22 submission deadline.”

 

A little local history

Recapping–as previously written, the use of a primary election in Virginia is itself relatively new. As one local blogger and political watcher points out, there was no Virginia Presidential Primary before 1988. Previously, both parties chose their presidential nominees, as in many other states, in a nominating convention. “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.” The rules for getting on the ballot were fairly loose: a candidate had to be “prominently discussed in the news media” or qualify for primary season matching funds. The first primary was won by George H. W. Bush for the Republicans and Jesse Jackson for the Democrats.

For whatever reason—possibly Jesse Jackson’s victory, the local informant suggests—Virginia went back to using conventions instead of primaries in 1992 and 1996. (The move also kept Independent Ross Perot from making much headway in the Birthplace of Presidents.) The Commonwealth brought back the primaries in 2000, but with strict rules, the same as now—except that in 2000 and 2008 they were not enforced. There was no GOP primary in 2004, because incumbent George W. Bush was the only GOP candidate on the ballot. In 2012 there is no Democratic primary in Virginia.

What brought about this sticking to the letter of the rules? The major difference 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,” too late to affect his election but with noticeable effect on the presidential primary. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli was so dismayed by the exclusion of almost all the Republican candidates from the primary ballot that he briefly considered trying to change the rule during the election year.

We are reliably informed, in short, that GOP contenders for the White House are being held to a standard previously unmet—not only the most restrictive of any state in the nation, but newly adopted (or enforced) only months before the election. If Obama or Tim Kaine or any other Democratic candidates had shifted procedural ground this way, it would be blazoned coast to coast.

Oddly, this historical fact also did not feature in the defendants’ filings to the appeals court. To the contrary, defendants argued:

“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.”

Unsurprisingly, the entire GOP state establishment supported Romney and the Board of Elections in the lawsuit, against plaintiffs Perry et al. Perry gained the support only of Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Michele Bachmann—before she dropped out of the presidential race—and briefly of Cuccinelli, along with the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that the rule that signature gatherers must be from Virginia is unconstitutional, violating the rights of speech and assembly.

 

By the way, Virginia law also recognizes only the Democratic and Republican parties as political parties. No third parties allowed. Furthermore, no write-ins are allowed in the primaries.

Ironies abound in the current situation. The well-funded Texas Governor Rick Perry, Virginia resident and U.S. history consultant Newt Gingrich, and three other Republicans failed to get on the ballot in ‘red-state’ Virginia. Perry did not get enough signatures. Gingrich collected more than 11,000 signatures, but over a thousand turned out to be fraudulently signed by one person. Candidates Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum did not even file to get on the ballot in Virginia. Thus only Romney and Paul remained eligible to compete, this in a year when—as ever—southern states are eager to make their mark on history. Florida even gave up half its delegates by moving up its primary date, against GOP national party rules.

Under the U.S. Constitution, rules for getting on the ballot are left to the states, and there is no national standard for ballot access. Legislation to limit how far states could on restricting access has been introduced repeatedly by Rep. Ron Paul, but without success.

The rationale for restrictions to 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. The biggest list of signatures is exempt from any checking at all. The defensive RPV statement shows that the RPV itself recognizes this exemption as questionable.

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 a college town from harvesting enough signatures to put, say, Ron Paul on the ballot with ease. Ironically, it did not bar Ron Paul, whose supporters are both dedicated and able to read. It just barred every other potential not-Romney candidate.

 

Ohio

With regard to Ohio, briefly it can be said that the GOP establishment has worked, behind the scenes, to keep things from getting even uglier in the state. Some of the same people who fabricated Terry Schiavo’s case as rightwing martyrdom are still out there, in the wake of the Chardon, Ohio, shootings.

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.

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 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.

Rick Perry doing in private what he does in public

Posted on by
Reply

That Rick Perry retirement pension

Rick Perry resignation

On top of more important questions, it really will be interesting to see whether Rick Perry can live this one down. The Texas Tribune reported Friday that Perry is drawing his state retirement pension as well as his governor’s salary. Filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the combined incomes mean Perry gets an annual $240,000 from Texas citizens, rather than just $150,000 as governor. Perry filed the FEC report yesterday.

Admittedly, Perry is an empty suit anyway. The Texas governorship is historically among the weakest in the nation. The state constitution has yet to be updated, partly because the process of a state constitutional convention and ratifying a new constitution has not been feasible. The city of Austin is a canyon of lobbyists, as befits a governor who is basically a walking set of pressure points. But Perry’s public career of mouthing fiscal pieties about budget and austerity, etc., makes his double-dipping noteworthy even among other GOP corporate shills running for the White House as fiscal puritans. What makes it worse if possible is that Perry has gone gunning for exactly this kind of double-dipping among Texas state employees who make far less, while working far more, than he.*

Perry in public

As widely reported, Perry has also repeatedly attacked government workers in general. Like the other GOP candidates selected by themselves for the White House, he has also worked steadfastly to undermine pensions, pension funds, pension guarantees, medical benefits, benefits for seniors, and retirement protection in general. Simultaneously, and again like most other GOPers, he has been stalwart in protecting large companies’ treatment of employees, however egregious, along with management’s ability to offshore jobs and taxable assets, to evade contracts through bankruptcy and other measures, and to avoid prosecution for fraud and civil lawsuits for incompetence, waste and lack of due diligence.

Donald Trump

Watching the GOP in the current election cycle was already a continuing indulgence in Schadenfreude. Anyone who cares about either mental health or human goodness has to be careful about witnessing too much of it. Pity the ‘political reporters’ who have to pretend that the bunk we’ve been hearing has any claim to credibility as public policy, any at all. But even in a field featuring Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Newt Gringrich and Herman Cain, Perry’s performance takes the cake. No mean feat.

Predictably, the most recent disclosure means that Perry is being accused of hypocrisy. Once again, calling this kind of thing ‘hypocrisy’ is not political analysis. It is just an insult to hypocrites. Perry is drawing all he can from a long-suffering public while calling on more poorly paid public employees to draw less. He has stayed in office in Texas as long as possible while calling for many thousands of public employees to be fired. He is drawing a large pension for work he is no longer doing—if he ever was–while calling on most people, poorer than he, to tighten their belts. Above all, he himself is driving up the cost of government, directly, in first person, and by choice, while railing against government cost and government ‘spending’.

This is not hypocrisy. It is imposture. It is like railing against ‘regulation’ (mine safety) and ‘government spending’ (courts to prosecute child abusers). It is rapaciousness masquerading as fiscal prudence. It serves the same purpose this imposture always serves: It removes public assets and public resources from the public, and diverts them into the hands of a grasping few. Rick Perry is just the non plus ultra, an individual sterling example but by no means alone. Perry, in short, is not actually doing in private what he opposes in public. He is doing in private—grasping from the public—what he does in public.

Rich tax cuts

As written before, this was the fiscal and monetary policy of the Bush administration, the centerpiece of the Bush years, almost unreported in the political press. It went so far as to include war as fiscal and monetary policy, it was and is reverse-Robin-Hood, and its consequences remain the mess for everyone else to clean up.

Note:

Gov. Perry’s income from the Texas state pension alone is now $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net, in retirement benefits–$92,376 per year gross, or an annual net income of $79,056.

For perspective, average per capita money income in the U.S. (previous twelve months, 2005-2009) is $27,041. From the U.S. census, median household income in 2009 was $50,221.

This information is yet another reason why the cardboard robber barons are always hot to trot to abolish the census.

*Full disclosure: my mother, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s, draws retirement as a longtime Texas state employee. Hers is considerably less than Perry’s, for considerably more work, far more worthwhile. Admittedly the comparison might be considered inexact, since she did not work for decades to sell out Texas resources and the public for political advancement.