Newtered?
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, February 6th, 2012 | Politics, VirginiaPolitico is reporting to its readers what Bearing Drift readers already knew a month ago: the Virginia primary is locked between Romney and Paul.
In the filings, Gingrich gave no explanation for throwing the in the towel on the legal battle for a spot on the March 6 ballot. However, recent rulings in the dispute have not gone his way. On Jan 13, U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney ruled that Gingrich and three other candidates who failed to make the ballot: John Huntsman, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum, waited too long to challenge Virginia’s procedures. Gibney said a Virginia requirement limiting petition circulators to residents of the state was probably unconstitutional, but there was not enough time to sort that out before the election. On Jan. 18, a three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld the thrust of the lower court’s ruling.
Gingrich could have sought to have the appeals court’s decision reviewed by the full bench of that court, or he could have asked the Supreme Court to step in. (Chief Justice John Roberts is assigned to handle emergency applications from the Fourth Circuit.) A lawyer for Gingrich did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment for this post.
Maybe Gingrich was feeling the pressure not to charge those windmills?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
10 Responses to "Newtered?"
I have asked several times here for an explanation of the delegate selection process in Virginia, to no avail. However, quite by accident today I found a wonderful site that explains the process in all fifty states. It is
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VA-R#0215
And explains as best it can be explained the byzantine process. Little did I know that all the action really starts well before the March 6th primary!
The gist of this that if any candidate gets of 50.001% of the vote in either a congressional district or statewide, he gets ALL of the delegates, respectively, an the eventual delegates to the national convention or bound to support that candidate at the convention at least on the first ballot, unless the candiate releases them.
Well, now it all starts to make a little more sense about how strictly and some would say covertly interpreted and enforced this year. There are only two candidates on the ballot, and ipso facto only one of them can have over 50.001% of the vote, unless it is an absolute tie.
Team Romney at all and I suspect the only drama now will be who gets to be a delegate and who gets to be an alternate to Miami.
BTW, that web site explains the rules for all 50 states, which is how I initially found it, looking for Missouri which is only slightly more twisted than Virginia. But they have people on their ballot I have never even heard of.
Also, I learned that not only is Missouri simply a beauty pageant (which I already knew), but so is Minnesota.
There is a reason why the state organization was ecstatic at the outcome of the petitioning, and you pegged the nail on the head as to why. Due to the inability to write in candidates, there will be a guarantee that someone gets 50%+1 votes in each of the 11 districts as well as overall. The only question that might be possible is intentionally disqualifying your ballot-that might still be counted as a “vote cast”, but not counted for anyone. If that turns out to be true, the Gingrich/Santorum people should physically write in their candidate’s name on any free space on the ballot, in an attempt to prevent either Romney or Paul from getting the 50%+1 votes needed to sweep the state.
Sir, I do not recall anyone being ecstatic about the candidates’ failure to get on the ballot. Rather, there was quite a bit of disappointment. An attempt to fashion a scheme now is a bit late, and unlikely. If the organizations were so lacking that they failed to comply with the simple legal requirements, it is doubtful that they now have the ability to conspire to subvert the process.
The candidates that did not qualify did not try.
@Joshua. Interesting posit. Does the law read “votes cast” and is that defined? Is writing a name “spoiling the ballot.”? Is just pulling a ballot and not voting for either of the candidates considered a “vote cast.?” Interesting questions. Would love to hear more on this train of thought.
@Tom. Boy, are you new around here?
No.
Tom. Good. Then you’ll know they were not “simple legal requirements” part of which have already been ruled unconstitutional, parts of which were party rules, and parts of which were changed in midstream. But since you are an old hand, you already know all that.
But back to the point, were your deaf when Perry and Gingrich were disallowed ballot access, and all the cacaphony right here on BD? It was sheer ecstasy on the part of most of the many (not all) of the Romneybot editors here.
@Joshua. Can’t wait to see the editors here spin tonight’s Romney disaster as “there is no problem with the base”…and I notice nobody refuted my analysis of that topic and my spreadsheet. These will be interesting new numbers to add to that.
Prediction: Camp Romney pulls out the knives on Santorum next
Virginia finally accomplished what Newt’s ex wives have been attempting to do for years.
I will disregard the condescending tone used here, and reply in a respectful manner. If 1000 comments on a blog assert that the ballot access requirements are onerous, that does not make it so. The legal requirements are simple. Parts of the law were not ruled to be unconstitutional. The judge made a comment that there are elements of the law that are “probably” unconstitutional, but did not rule on that. That is an important distinction. The State Central Committee did not change the rules midstream. They determined the counting procedures early in the process, and communicated the procedures to each campaign in writing and in person. They defined and communicated the process because they are being sued over how signatures were counted in the past. My perception that there was not a great deal of ecstasy over certain candidates’ failure to qualify is not based upon the most vociferous commenters on BD, or any other blog. It is based upon a broader observation.
The Gingrich campaign turned in petitions in boxes that looked as though they had been run over by a truck. The Perry campaign showed up with theirs crammed in a dirty old duffle bag. It was not a serious effort to comply. The Romney campaign self checked their work, and they had no doubt about their work product; they did what they were supposed to.
Rick Perry was in Richmond after he announced, and attracted 1100 people. His campaign could have collected 11% of the required total in one sitting, but instead collected 0. His campaign in Virginia was totally unserious. I contacted his campaign several times and offered help, and they did not even reply. Blame towards RPV, or the “Establishment”, or the law is misplaced.
Using language such as “Romneybot”, or “Mittens”, or “Paulian”, or “Obamination”, etc., trivializes the ideas that commenters would like to share. I believe it is a mistake. There is a big world out there beyond the blogosphere.
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.