Perry campaign’s suit to stop ballots rejected
By Norman Leahy | Thursday, December 29th, 2011 | Politics, VirginiaTexas Gov. Rick Perry’s request for an emergency motion to prevent the printing and distribution of ballots in Virginia has been rejected:
A federal judge in Richmond said today that he wouldn’t stop the printing before the next hearing in the case, scheduled for Jan. 13. He declined to rule on the merits of Perry’s challenge.
Perry, a Republican, filed an emergency motion yesterday seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent distribution of the ballots without his name. In a lawsuit filed Dec. 27 in federal court in Richmond, Perry claimed that the state’s requirement that petition circulators be eligible or registered qualified voters in Virginia violates his constitutional rights.
“This is probably a case that should have been filed beforehand, not when things went sour,” U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. said at a hearing in Richmond. He said that regardless of the merits of Perry’s claims, his campaign failed to gather the 10,000 signatures required to get on the primary ballot in Virginia.
“How can I put Mr. Perry on the ballot in light of the requirement?” Gibney asked Joseph M. Nixon, an attorney representing the Texas governor.
How, indeed.
The legal wrangling still isn’t over and the judge has given the other presidential campaigns until January sixth to intervene in the case. A hearing on Perry’s larger case regarding the rules set for signature gatherers is set for January 13th.
In another twist, Judge Gibney took a bit of a swing at Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:
He told E. Duncan Getchell Jr., the state solicitor general, to write a brief outlining why Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office does not have a conflict of interest.
Gibney referred to a statement made by Cuccinelli, following the failure of Perry and former house speaker Newt Gingrich to collect the necessary 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot, in which the attorney general urged that requirements for ballot access in Virginia be lowered.
That brief should prove interesting reading.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Post contributor.
Comments
16 Responses to "Perry campaign’s suit to stop ballots rejected"
?”It looks to me like it’s asking the federal government to get involved in state affairs,” he said. “Our state courts in Virginia are obligated to enforce federal law and they act quite promptly,” said the judge.
Does this judge then believe that Cuccinelli is not allowed to have a personal opinion simply because he is AG? How ridiculous!This is akin to saying that if Governor McDonnell expressed an opinion on a proposed piece of legislation, then he would have conflict of interest by signing or vetoing it. Cuccinelli is not even involved in Perry’s lawsuit beyond his official duty of defending state law. Does this mean he can’t perform his elected duty simply because he has expressed an opinion not even directly related to Perry’s suit? BTW, Great job on the post, Norm, i always enjoy yours and Shaun’s journalism!!
What, no mention of the RPV’s decision to once again require a primary voter to “sign an oath” before being “allowed” to “vote” in the presidential primary?
From RTD: “RICHMOND, Va. –
The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.
Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting.”
I hereby pledge and promise that my signature on that oath will mean just as much to me as Eric Cantor’s sworn oath as a Congressman to “support and defend the Constitution” means to him. Just exactly that much.
I still have my 2000 pledge form. I took it from the guy, thanked him, and walked out. It’s taped to my office wall to remind me constantly of just how pernicious the neocon movement really is. The thing you guys demand we sign this time is even worse. But rest assured, I take it in the spirit in which it is offered. Because I understand politics now, better than you might imagine.
I promise.
Obviously Perry believes in more Federal government and less States Rights. Is that what we want in our next President of the United States? I thought we already had that and want to replace him? Perry should have done his homework on what the State of Virginia required (he knew)and counted the cost before instead of suing after he didn’t meet the requirements.
I’m not impressed a Republican is suing his fellow Republicans because he didn’t pass the muster of support and organization. Isn’t the Republican party the party of “self responsibility”? Interesting.
Maybe we do need to change the election laws to become more inclusive. I really think that if a person can’t get 10,000 legitimate signatures in the State of Virginia, I question if they can be legitimate as a nationwide candidate.
“Kathy Mateer December 29, 2011 20:30 pm wrote:
I’m not impressed a Republican is suing his fellow Republicans because he didn’t pass the muster of support and organization. Isn’t the Republican party the party of “self responsibility”? ”
I’d merrily go along with all of this except you keep forgetting one very important fact in all of this:
The Republican Primary is paid for all Virginia tax papers, which hardly goes along with “self responsibility.”
And to whop it all off, the two political parties who created this scenario have the nerve to say who can and can’t vote at a publicly financed public election. Please, please, please, one of you, any of you, explain this. This is “self-responsibility, rules are rules, etc. IT’S THE LAW and YOU PASSEd it and now you wonder why people are upset with it?
I can’t wait for the well-reasoned and seasoned reply to state’s rights vs voter rights vs party politics and rules vs sucking off the public tit to do it.
Yes the primary is paid for by tax payers dollars. The rules were set and accepted. No whining, suing or throwing temper tantrums until AFTER they didn’t make the cut. I’m not happy I don’t have who I want on the ballot, but I blame them. Yeah, I think they should have done the work and now take personal responsibility.
Perry: “Oops… again…”
Kathleen says, “Yes the primary is paid for by tax payers dollars. The rules were set and accepted. No whining, suing or throwing temper tantrums until AFTER they didn’t make the cut.”
We agree the primary is paid for by taxpayers. But do we agree on what that actually MEANS?
“The rules were set and accepted.” No so sure I agree with that. Which rules, when and where?
Still, the bottom line remains that Virginia is now an asterik on Super Tuesday, and I hope everyone at RVP is happy about this. The editors here having done everything to blame it all on the Democrats after having had 10 years to change it, and now making up one lie after another about how the rules have been used in the past compared to this past October, well….it’s just really a big lemon-marange pie on their face.
My name is Kathy, not Kathleen, and the only ones in the RPV that are happy are the ones where their favorite candidate did the work, had the support and organization and got on the ballot. Many in the RPV are not happy at all.
No one is blaming the democrats Craig.
Virginia is not an asterisk in the primary. The ones who didn’t take the State of Virginia seriously as being an important swing State is now the asterisk in the primary.
I personally would like to see more candidates than just two on the primary. Hopefully more than two can quickly get it together and qualify as serious contenders in other states. They just didn’t care to do it in Virginia.
Kathy. My apologies on messing up your name. Disagree with your take on “blaming it on the Democrats” as I think it was Brian Shoneman who said just that many hate-Newt threads ago. He said they (the Dems) passed this law in 1999. Anyway, that was then, this is now.
We can disagree on whether or not that Virginia is now an asterik in this story. In that it’s ballot access laws knocked out two leading candidates is certainly more than an asterik but on the other, the only votes being cast that count are hardly representative of the Republican elecorate, as we certainly have seen Newt tank in the Iowa polls as a result. On the other hand, even better than asterik, one hopes, is the fine light of truth being shone upon the rickety and rigged voter ballot access laws in Virginia. Like ‘em or love ‘em, something is going to change here in the Old Dominion.
Craig, yes, the primary is paid for by the taxpayers – who get reimbursed by the state party, usually covering at least 90% of the cost of the primary.
So the republican primary is a private function, conducted by a private organization using private property? Is that what you’re insinuating?
To challenge a requirement one must normally object at initiation of the requirement, not after application of requirements. At this point, challenge restricted to application of rules, not formation of them.
This judge stupid to ask of kooch of his view when judge not say of who he vote. As long as they are laying it out there, why not all lay it out, except for Perry’s attorney who can just say he is either in it for money or the fool who could not collect enough signatures.
One more thing, I was considering voting for Perry, but if he cannot do what required to get on ballot, then I cannot vote for him and if he sues his way on, then he does not deserve my vote. Based on this, I believe that Romney is the one that will rescue the Presidency from Obama.
By the way, who are all the kooks supporting?
Define kook, William.
The kooks are Jim Parmele and his crowd.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.