Tim Boyer

Romney Will Lose If Nominated....Amen and Amen

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:55:00 +0000

Finally a Candidate for Pres. Tells the Truth About Romney's Record

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:21:00 +0000

About time!! Newt Gingrich commits himself to exposing Romney's record. Who better than Gingrich to do this!! This will be fun!

More Evidence Turns Up of Shenanigans or Amazing Ineptitude at RPV

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Here is the story

Paul Goldman Explains What Republican Leaders Are Carefully Avoiding

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:12:00 +0000

Of course I'll be ripped for quoting a democrat, but he is absolutely right on this issue.
His legal arguments are undeniably accurate, and Bolling will have a hard time explaining this away. In light of this info, which one would think Cuccinelli had to have already known, it is purely amazing that he decided not to pursue corrective legislation after all. Here is Goldman's article.

by Paul Goldman

"Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, head of the Romney for President campaign in Virginia, criticizes former Attorney General Tony Troy, former Attorney General Steve Rosenthal, myself, and hundreds of thousands of Virginians who believe in the rule of law. He says we want to "change the rules in the middle of the game" according to the Virginian Pilot.

Actually, it is Mr. Bolling who wants to change the rules in the middle of game.

In fact, Mr. Bolling not only wants to change the rules in the middle of the game, he insists on new rules which he would readily concede benefit his candidate for President.

Has he forgotten the Supreme Court case of Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186 (1996)?

As former Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. H. Bush, and George Bush - all Republicans have said in supporting the Voting Rights Act -, it is important for political parties to abide by the rule of law.

The Voting Rights Act - supported I thought by Mr. Bolling - is aimed at preventing the LG and his supporters, indeed any similar official or group backing any candidate in any political party, from changing the rules in the middle of the game.

FACT: In 1981, I sued the Democratic Party under the Voting Rights Act [VRA], and got a seminal ruling, In a nutshell it said in certain circumstances, rules or procedures adopted by a state party and impacting in a meaningful way on the potential outcome of their nomination process could not go into effect until such rules or procedures had been approved by the lawful authorities. Reagan-Bush-Bush realized this was the only way to insure a fair election and protect the rights of all voters.

Why? As Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 pointed out, it was important to make sure no one in political power could change the rules in the middle of the game to the detriment of the voters.

The lawful rules, as they pointed out, where the rules/procedures/laws in effect at the start of the election cycle at issue: today this means the 2012 the Republican and Democratic presidential primary processes which end with a vote this coming March. The candidates started running back in 2010 really.

As the Morse case - which the VA GOP lost I might remind Mr. Bolling - made clear, a primary election process falls under the Reagan-Bush-Bush rubric of not allowing the GOP or the DEMS to change the rules in the middle of the game. Thus the rules/procedures must abide by the VRA.

As we discovered yesterday in Andrew Cain's great piece in the Richmond Times Dispatch, the Republican Party of Virginia had a different rule/procedure for reviewing access to their presidential primary ballot in 2008. We know this from no less a source than the Chairman of the GOP at the time, John Hager, a former LG like Mr. Bolling.

As the Morse case makes clear, changing the rules in the middle of the game on which candidates get to compete in the primary - and thus whether Virginians supporting said candidate can effectively exercise their franchise come March - is a classic circumstance, a reason the VRA was backed by Reagan-Bush-Bush. .

Why? As the Morse case explains, the ability of GOP Chairman Pat Mullins and his staff to change the rules in the middle of the game is derived from state action, that is to say the passage of Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia. Under the U.S. and state constitution, the responsibility for conducting fair, and transparent elections, consistent with the Civil War Amendments and such principles as "equal protection", "due process" rests with the State Government of Virginia.

Thus, the GOP has no inherent right to hold a primary, much less have their Chairman - and this is of course true on the DEM side too - decide who is on the ballot and who isn't. This power only comes if delegated by the General Assembly, thus making them in essence agents of the state for this purpose. Thus the "state action" rubric.

The GA, in it's wisdom, decided to pass 24.2-545, which took the State Board of Elections [SBE] out of the loop : and delegated to the Chairman of the two major parties the responsibility of deciding which presidential primary hopefuls could earn a place on their respective primary ballots. Neither the Statute nor the SBE provides guidance on the proper way to review the signatures of voters collected by candidates and submitted for review in hopes of their making the ballot.

As the Supreme Court has said many times, such delegations of public power to a private group is fraught with danger. As Reagan-Bush-Bush made clear by support of the VRA, these grants of political power have to carefully reviewed whenever they try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

We can presume the state pre-cleared the statute in general: however, this doesn't end the lawful responsibility of either the party or the state to pre-clear any changes in how the party implements it's power under 24.2-545. The Morse case is clear on that: Any changes in party rules/procedures which have a practical impact on how the party exercises it's powers can't go into effect until okayed under the VRA.

In layman's terms: Whatever the rules at issue were in 2008, they are, to use Mr. Bolling's words, the "rule of the game" in 2012 unless the GOP has received the okay to change them under the VRA. .

THE BOLLING MIDDLE OF THE GAME RULE CHANGE # 1:

There is nothing in 24.2-545 which says the GOP Chairman had the right to automatically certify Mitt Romney to the March 2012 presidential primary ballot on the grounds his campaign submitted petitions with more than 15000 signatures. By the GOP's own admission, they never checked any of the former Bay State Governors petitions in the manner contemplated by the grant of state power in 24-2-545.
Moreover, not did Mr. Mullins follow the plain meaning of the statute in making the required "certification" of Mitt Romney to the state ballot, such certification under Mr. Mullins' name communicated to the State Board of Elections. As the SBE told me, that state agency has no power to review Mr. Mullins' certification or denial of certification: they just accept whatever he says, and they don't inquire about how he made it.

As Mr. Hager made plain in the newspaper yesterday, Mr. Mullins' changed the rules in the middle of the game, since the way he reviewed petitions in 2012 - Romney got a free pass but Gingrich, Paul and Perry got their petitions checked voter by voter - is not the way it was done in 2008.

Remember: The "rules of the "game" as Mr. Bolling calls them are what the party did in 2008 assuming as I am they got VRA okay for any changes. If they didn't - no way to know right now - the Virginia Primary mess just got a lot messier. But for right now, we have to assume the 2008 primary was lawful, so the rules use in 2008 must be the same as in 2012 unless lawful approval to make changes has been received. .

Question: Has the Reagan-Bush-Bush procedure been followed, or has Mr. Bolling/Mr. Mullins "change the rules in the middle of game" illegally?

Answer: The VA GOP and LG Bolling are saying they cleared everything since otherwise they know they are blowing a lot of smoke right. But did they? I have not seen any proof one way or the other. Have you? Doesn't Mr. Bolling or someone at the GOP, or the State Board of Elections have an obligation at this point to inform the public whether the VRA has been followed?

BOLLING RULE CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME # 2:

LG Bolling and VA GOP want to use what they call a "loyalty" oath as a pre-condition for voting in the presidential primary.

The GOP DIDN'T NOT USE such a loyalty oath in the 2008 presidential primary. So once again, the Supreme Court decision in the Morse case becomes crucial.
24.2-545 permits a "loyalty" oath, indeed the very wording of the one SBE just approved at the request of the VA GOP. Again, I will presume the statute itself was pre-cleared by the DOJ. But again, this doesn't end the inquiry.

Why? Several reasons. First, since this rule/procedure/election law is self-evidentially a change that can affect voting rights - it stops people from voting who refuse to sign the "loyalty" oath - the fact it wasn't used in the 2008 GOP presidential primary raises serious issues. The party did use one in 2000, but the wording of the oath was different. So this is A CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME ENDORSED BY MR. BOLLING WHO SAYS HE IS THE GUY AGAINST SUCH THINGS!

It is possible the DOJ pre-clearance of such specific wording might be interpreted as authority to use it at any time in the future. That's a tricky legal question above my pay grade.

However, even if the pre-clearance of the statute is considered the authority to enact at any time the specific working of the oath contained in the statute, there is the question of whether the SBE approval was given in accordance with 24.2-545. If the approval process differed from the one in the statute, then clearly there can be no "free pass" from the VRA.

The statute seems to say that the SBE has to approve such a "loyalty" oath no later than 90 days before the date of the primary. Their approval was made last December 28, which is less than 90 days from the date of the primary. However, the AG's office - legal advisor to the SBE - and the GOP are saying the 90 day time limit only applies to the date the GOP formally requested the SBE to approve the use of the "loyalty" oath at the polls. They read the statute as allowing the SBE to approve the request any date prior to the election.

Thus, even if the DOJ pre-cleared the use of the specific "loyalty" oath in the statute at any time in the future, this free pass depends upon their view of whether the 90 day time period also applies to SBE action.

The interpretation of the AG's office and the GOP - and of course the SBE - that the 90 day time bar only applies to the formal request for a "loyalty" oath - as opposed to the formal approval of it's use by the SBE - is open to serious question. I have had several top lawyers read the language and they disagree with the AG and GOP's view. Here is the relevant language of 24.2-545.

"If the party has determined that it will hold a presidential primary, each registered voter of the Commonwealth shall be given an opportunity to participate in the presidential primary of the political party, as defined in § 24.2-101, subject to requirements determined by the political party for participation in its presidential primary. The requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party's candidate when offering to vote in the primary. The requirements applicable to a party's primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board."

By the AG/GOP/SBE interpretation, the SBE could approve the "loyalty" oath two weeks before the primary, they say the 90 day time bar only applies to the GOP deciding to use such an oath, not the action by the SBE to approve it. . This makes no practical, not to mention, legal sense, under any of the normative rules we use to insure fair, transparent elections since it would allow the SBE to approve it say 2 weeks before the primary. .
Accordingly: A Voting Rights Act review of the "loyalty" oath as contemplated by Reagan-Bush-Bush seems in order to determine the meaning of 24.2-545 as it had been approved under the VRA.

CONCLUSION:
LG Bolling is the one supporting, indeed demanding, that the rules be changed in the middle of the game to favor his candidate for President: I get that as a matter of politics.
But as a matter of law, the standard isn't loyalty to a candidate but to the laws of the commonwealth and the country. As I say: Given the facts he and others in the GOP have presented to the public, there is no way for the public to know, one way or the other, as to whether the Reagan-Bush-Bush requirements of the VRA have been followed. Based on the best available evidence, Mr. Bolling is advocating -, as Reagan-Bush-Bush would point out - changing the rules in the middle of the game. Mr. Bolling says that's not true. When do the people get to know the truth? "

AMEN!

Great Article in Washington Times on the Foolishness of Nominating Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:50:00 +0000

Enjoy. They are absolutely correct. They contend that Republicans are so caught up in the desire to "defeat Obama", that we are actually looking at the wrong candidate for so doing. History teaches us that this tack does not work, but will we make the errors of the past hoping for a different result this time?

Robo Call Goes Out Urging Ballot Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:13:00 +0000

A friend called my attention to a robo call he received promoting legislation to grant "fair ballot access". It is not known how widely this call was dispersed, but here is the text of the call that he captured:

"Virginians have a crucial choice in the Republican presidential primary on March 6th. Unfortunately, due to arcane state law, only two of the six candidates have qualified for Virginia’s ballot. It is not fair for Virginia voters to be limited only to two candidates. Call Speaker Bill Howell at 804-698-1028, Majority Leader Kirk Cox at (804) 526-5135, and your areas state senator and delegate. Tell them you deserve the chance to support your candidate of choice.Time is critical. Legislation must pass this week or you will have only two choices in the primary. Please call your legislators and tell them to support fair ballot access legislation today."

I will attempt to find audio of the call (which is often very hard to do), and provide it to you. It seems this story is growing legs of its own, and we will be here to keep you updated as we receive info. At least it's fun times for bloggers!!

Rick Santorum Surge Continues in Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:40:00 +0000

A new poll out this morning has Santorum surging into a three-way tie with Romney and Paul for first place in Iowa. This jives nicely with other polls showing him with the momentum.

BREAKING......SANTORUM SURGE IN FINAL DAYS OF DES MOINES REGISTER POLL

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:20:00 +0000

"MOMENTUM'S NAME IS RICK SANTORUM"

More to come.....

Romney Unveils Virginia Leadership team.....Veritable Who's Who of Establishment Pols

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:51:00 +0000

Thanks to the WaPo Virginia Politics blog for the scoop. Here is the list of Virginia Republican leasers, who it would appear to me like what you see about Romney in the video below so much that they had to go to work for him! The establishment circles the wagons again.....

Mitt Romney’s Virginia Campaign Chairs:

State Chairman Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling

State Co-Chair Delegate Chris Peace

State Co-Chair Delegate Barbara Comstock

State Co-Chair Delegate Tag Greason

State Co-Chair Delegate Dave Albo

State Co-Chair Delegate Jackson Miller

State Co-Chair Delegate John Cosgrove

State Co-Chair Delegate-elect Mark Dudenhefer

Mitt Romney’s Virginia Steering Committee:

Tom Foley – 1st Congressional District Chairman

Jack Wilson – 4th Congressional District Chairman

Linwood Cobb – 7th Congressional District Chairman

Mike Ginsberg – 8th Congressional District Chairman

David O’Kelley – 2nd Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Jane Ladd – 3rd Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Bill Flanagan – 4th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Wayne Ozmore – 4th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Dolores Switzer – 5th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Fred Anderson – 6th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Marie Quinn – 7th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Adam Tolbert – 9th Congressional District State Central Committee Representative

Brian Plum – Republican Party of Virginia Treasurer

Brandy Dyke – State Central Committee Representative

Anna Lee – State Central Committee Representative

We can only suppose they support the following:

Watch Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits.

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:53:00 +0000

For those of you considering Romney as your pick for president, watch this video and then tell me which part of his record gives you confidence that he will reduce the size and scope of government in your life, protect the unborn or do anything else he now claims he will as the new conservative champion.(I know, I know, he's running for president and has had to change his positions.....for Pete's sake!)

RedState: RomneyCare Gave Planned Parenthood the Legal Authority to Appoint a Member to MA Health Board

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:43:00 +0000

From Erick Erickson this morning, "The law, in addition to providing healthcare coverage for the uninsured and forcing everyone to have insurance, expanded abortion services in the State of Massachusetts. It also required that one member of the MassHealth Payment Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts."

We all should read Erickson's entire article, as he expounds upon the pro-abortion forays of Romney AFTER he says he converted to a pro-life position. It is VERY CLEAR to any Republican primary voter that Romney is just more of the same that got us to where we are now in this country. But, I keep forgetting......he's the only one who can beat the guy currently in the White House who got half of his ideas from Romney in the first place. We know he can beat Obama, because the same MSM and Republican establishment that said Dole ('96) and McCain(2000 and 2008) would be the best general election candidates has said so.

Republicans never win presidential elections after governing and campaigning as moderates, yet every year the media and Republican establishment continue to insist that, yes, they can, even running polls to "verify" their contention, and we continue to fall into the trap, and we continue to lose elections.

Bob Marshall Asks GOP to Rescind Loyalty Oath Requirement

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:43:00 +0000

Marshall just released a statement to his email list announcing the request to rescind.
Here is part of his statement: “Loyalty oaths are detested by many good Republicans who solidly back our party’s principles and who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives,” Marshall said. “And there are other concerns.

“In November, Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell and Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli, both Republicans, supported an Independent for Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney over the Republican nominee. Does this make them suspect Republicans?

“How many conservative Democrats voted for Ronald Reagan in ‘Republican’ primaries in 1980? Would they have voted in a Republican primary that required a loyalty oath when Reagan was probably the only Republican they would vote for? I doubt it.

“Requiring Virginia election workers to enforce a Republican loyalty oath in a primary paid for by the general taxpayer is a markedly questionable use of tax money.

“Republicans I know want to defeat President Obama and his liberal Democrat supporters in Congress. I believe the great majority will vote for the Republican nominee over Obama. I question whether beating Barack Obama, which I am working hard to do, is furthered by requiring a loyalty oath in this presidential primary.”

I could not agree more, and I consider this latest move by the state GOP to be nothing more than an attempt to depress turn-out by Ron Paul supporters. It is highly likely, in the absence of a contested Democrat primary that Dems will turn out in droves to support Romney over Paul, as they have often done in Virginia Republican primaries for the more liberal of two candidates.

RPV's strategy here seems much more likely to influence the result of our primary than it is to assist in Party unity for the general election. I hardly think that attempting to keep Paul voters away from the primary, if indeed that is what is happening here, is the best way to motivate them to come out in the general election to support the campaign for whom they will believe they were shafted.

Marshall is once again showing conservative leadership for which very few in Virginia Republican politics have the courage.

Judge Says 'No' To Perry's Challenge to Virginia Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:11:00 +0000

Newsmax reports that a judge has declined the Perry camp's request to stop Virginia from printing ballots without his name on them. I have been unable to find any legitimacy to Perry's lawsuit, and am not terribly surprised by this ruling. It appears as though Perry just simply did not collect nearly enough valid signatures to get on the ballot, as has been widely believed all along.

New Twist In Ballot Access Case..McSweeney and Goldman Call for Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:50:00 +0000

Former RPV Chairman, Reagan Administration official, and high-powered attorney Pat McSweeney teams up with Paul Goldman to call for emergency changes in VA's ballot access laws.(thanks to Bearingdrift for the video)

BREAKING.....Was Virginia Statute Properly Satisfied Regarding Mitt Romney's Ballot Petitions?

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:24:00 +0000

I posted yesterday regarding what seemed to me to be a discrepancy in how RPV treated Romney's petitions in comparison to the handling of petitions for other campaigns. My premise was that IF Romney's petitions were not positively verified as being signed by registered voters in Virginia, then how would it be possible for RPV to positively validate to the Board of Elections that such was the case? It now appears that, according to my sources, that all campaigns ballot petitions, with the exception of Romney's were vetted by RPV using Virginia's registered voter database. If true, why were Romney's not treated with the same care?

I raised the question of how could RPV possibly know if Romney had qualified signatures of at least 10,000 registered voters on his petitions if his petitions were not vetted through the registered voter database.

RPV issued a statement in regard to some of these questions that have been raised.

The following portion of their statement reads,
"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.
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 experience.". Read the entire statement here.

RPV's statement above suggests to me that they adopted presumption of legality of the petitions, based upon nothing more than the candidate collect 15,000 signatures.
The Code requires that signatures be valid as qualified voters in Virginia, and that RPV certify them as such.

#1. RPV's own statement says clearly that they used 15,000 signatures as a presumption that VA statute had been properly satisfied. I don't read anywhere in the code that it gives a private organization the legal authority to presume legal satisfaction.

#2. RPV also correctly states that they have a profound legal obligation to ensure legal qualification, and yet they used their own arbitrary number of signatures collected, to presume that legal requirements were satisfied? Again, in my reading of the Code, nowhere does it give RPV the legal authority to make such a presumption. To be fair, it also does not specifically prohibit it from doing so, but it would stand to reason that the presumption would be that statutory authority would need to be granted in such a case.

#3. The fact that SBE recommends that 15,000 signatures be collected, and I think that is a very good idea to do so, SBE's recommendation is hardly enough to render unnecessary RPV's legal obligation to ensure that only legally collected legal signatures on legal petitions were certified to the SBE.

#4. While I certainly sympathize with the staff at RPV having the timing of Christmas week validation legislated upon them, their statement appears to me to be using that fact as a not-so-relevant excuse for why they admittedly applied their 15,000 rule.

#5. If, indeed, RPV did not do all due diligence in ensuring legal qualification of signatures, then it would appear to me that all reasoning for making the 15,000 signature rule in the first place is a moot.

#6. RPV states that the 15,000 rule was intended to serve as incentive for all candidates to gather enough signatures that all would qualify, and I totally understand and concur with the spirit of this assertion. Regardless the intent, RPV still has, in my opinion, the legal duty to ensure qualification no matter how many signatures above the legal threshold of 10,000 any given candidate may collect.

Finally, all this is NOT intended to be an accusation of RPV's actions, intent or motivation. I do not for a moment believe that Chairman Mullins would allow anything that he believed was untoward in any manner. Human Beings make mistakes and miss things from time to time, and I simply raise these questions, as it appears to me that some things have been missed or overlooked, and since the result of the alleged oversights clearly benefited one candidate for President by giving him a free ride, in my opinion, potentially not fulfilling the letter or spirit of the Code in this case (my opinion again).

If it should turn out at the end of the day that statute was not satisfied in regard to verifying the legal status of Romney's signatures, as all other candidates submitting 10,000 or more had to do, then does all the above result in Governor Romney missing the ballot as well?

BREAKING........Source Confirms Allegation of Lack of Proper Validation of Romney Ballot Signatures

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:13:00 +0000

A source has confirmed tonight an eyewitness account that Mitt Romney's petitions with signatures to get him on the presidential primary ballot in Virginia may not have been properly verified through the voter database to ensure validity; All other campaigns were properly subjected to such process in order to ensure the validity requirements of VA law were met. Only Romney's petitions, according to the source, were not verified against the voter database. The story we broke here this morning continues to grow, and we will have much more detail very soon. Stay tuned to this developing situation, as we continue to investigate if Governor Romney's road to the ballot was made easier than the other candidates.

Rick Santorum Surging in Iowa

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:15:00 +0000

Interesting poll showing Santorum surging majorly. This could be great timing for Santorum, who has spent nearly his entire campaign in Iowa. It will be interesting to see if this poll can be mirrored by other polls in the next few days. With polling showing the race very fluid even still, Santorum could potentially benefit from his hard work in Iowa.
Time will tell

Confusion Over Virginia's Ballot Access Laws Raises Interesting Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:36:00 +0000

It just keeps getting better and better here in good ol' Virginia! First only Romney and Ron Paul meet the statute requirements to get on Virginia's Super Tuesday primary ballot. Newt Gingrich then expresses strong concerns with the process by which Romney is nearly assured of a victory. Then, Rick Perry launches a lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the State Republican Party alleging, "Virginia's requirement for petition circulators to be either eligible or registered qualified voters in the state violates Plaintiff's freedoms of speech and association by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".

All I can say is 'wow!'. Questions were raised in my mind wondering how the governor of the largest state in the union, with a well-funded campaign, could fail to collect enough signatures to survive the validation process, while former candidates Huckabee, McCain, and Romney had no trouble in 2008. (see note at end of post for speculation). State law requires that candidates for president on Virginia's primary ballot must collect 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters to get them on the ballot; It further requires that those 10,000 must include at least 400 valid signatures from each of Virgina's 11 congressional districts.

Sources suggest to me there may be more to the alleged ballot fiasco than meets the eye.(Apparently Gingrich and Perry agree) A member of the RPV State Central Committee informed me that he was told that Romney's signatures, because there were over 15,000 collected, were not put through the same process of verification that the other campaigns were subjected to as per Virginia statute. (My call to RPV's executive director for his insight was not immediately returned, and as such, I have not been able to get RPV's side of the story on the matter)

Virginia statute § 24.2-545,sec.b. (Presidential primary) states the following: Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth".........."The sealed containers containing the petitions for a candidate may be opened only by the state chairman of the party of the candidate. The state chairman of the party shall, by the deadline set by the State Board, furnish to the State Board the names of all candidates who have satisfied the requirements of this section. Whenever only one candidate for a party's nomination for President of the United States has met the requirements to have his name on the ballot, he will be declared the winner and no presidential primary for that party will be held"....... Bear with me here!!

Sources indicate to me that RPV (Republican Party of Virginia) stipulates that campaigns collecting between 15-20,000 signatures will not be subject to the verification process that campaigns collecting less than 15,000 signatures must face. Sources also indicate that Gov. Romney collected over 16,000 signatures, according to Romney's Virginia Chairman Bill Bolling.

If true, then not only would Senator Santorum's charge that Virginia's process favors rich campaigns be true, but it would raise the question of how it can be known whether or not Gov. Romney actually did qualify for the ballot if his petitions were not verified by the Chairman. Indeed, logic itself would beg the question- IF the state party actually did not verify all Romney petitions per the requirement above, then would the Romney signatures even still be valid? Perry and Gingrich reportedly had enough invalid signatures that it reduced their totals below the 10,000/400 requirement. If, as my sources suggest, Romney's petitions-unlike Gingrich's, Perry's, and Paul's- were not sufficiently inspected by RPV per the requirements of the Code, how could it be known if his campaign had enough valid signatures to qualify?

Much remains to be learned in this interesting turn of events, but being the investigative sort that I am, may I present a suggestive, although perhaps only hypothetical chronology of events, some of which are as yet unsubstantiated.

At least four campaigns turned in enough signatures to get them on the ballot, assuming enough were verified as being registered voters in Virginia. Originally, all four campaigns supposedly made the ballot; A few hours later Perry and Gingrich are disqualified after more insufficient petition signatures are discovered (??). Ron Paul makes the final cut, after undergoing the same validation process that Perry and Gingrich were subjected to as per VA code, but having collected far more signatures. Romney then collects enough signatures that RPV decides, per the info given me from my source, that he doesn't need to go through the validation process, having collected over 15,000 signatures (remember VA Code makes no exceptions). Assuming this chronology is accurate after all the info is in, how could the Chairman have any idea of whether or not Governor Romney qualified for the ballot per the requirement of Virginia's Code, which stipulates that all signatures be valid, IF as my sources suggest, Romney petitions were not actually gone through one by one and verified?

There is no doubt much more than meets the eye, but it would seem reasonable for questions to be asked of RPV, as well as Romney's Virginia Chairman Bolling, as to whether Romney received preferential treatment- especially considering Bolling is Virginia's Lieutenant Governor- and if all code requirements were sufficiently satisfied. And further, if they were not, must Governor Romney join Perry and Gingrich in No Man's Land.

Imagine if, after all that, only Ron Paul was on the ballot on Super Tuesday.....like I said, ..WOW!
For the record, I would lean toward Attorney-General Cuccinelli's opinion that more candidates on the ballot is better than less. On the other side of the coin, if only Romney and Paul did legally qualify for the ballot, then the other candidates have only themselves to blame for not doing the work to ensure ballot access.

Virginia's law may need to be looked at for revision to something a little more modern and accessible. I am told that it has only recently been changed for the bar to be so high (10,000 sig's), but I have been unable to confirm that. But, that's a post for another day!

(note: we may also post soon about who has the most to gain and lose in VA Republican politics from a potential Romney presidency, and how the alleged ballot fiasco might play into that; stay tuned)

Government Forcing You to Purchase Is a Conservative Concept.....Mitt Romney

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:40:00 +0000

Yes, Mitt, of course! Now that you need conservatism redefined, why the heck not?! We all know that principle and constitutionalism are merely political positions to be changed at the will and whim of any given candidate for public office. So yes, federal mandates forcing us to purchase insurance, the bedrock foundation of both RomneyCare and ObamaCare -but I'm redundant- are now conservative! And all because Mitt Romney needs it to be in order to win the Republican nomination for President. I suppose a half-witted attempt to turn chicken excrement into chicken salad is an easier pill for Mitt to swallow than simply admitting he was wrong in Massachusetts. By his definition of conservatism, there is no reason for us to change from Obama to a Republican president. That makes so much sense.....

Erick Erickson on Romney's Unelectability

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:58:00 +0000

And we here at Tim Boyer say, "right on, Bro!" See Red State article here

Romney in 2010 On ObamaCare, "Repeal the Bad and keep the Good'

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:02:00 +0000

Seriously, Mitt? Keep the good? What, exactly in Obamacare is the good? Shouldn't surprise me, I guess, coming from the man whose brainchild Obamacare was.
Here's the link to the video

National Review Blogger Disagrees With Magazine's Glowing Recommendation Of Romney and Huntsman

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:35:00 +0000

A must-read for conservatives who might be tempted to settle.

Cuccinelli Holds Massive Lead Over Bolling In Early Polling

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:00 +0000

This news comes as little surprise to conservatives who have known the Cuccinelli phenomenon in the past. Cuccinelli has shown the ability to inspire, to educate voters and to lead in the conservative direction in which he and the majority of Virginians believe, all the while winning elections in very liberal Northern Virginia. Bolling has often failed to take bold positions on issues of Faith, Family and Freedom held dear by so many Southern voters, while Cuccinelli is well-known as one of the premier leaders of the national conservative movement, and particularly in Virginia. This poll may perhaps vindicate conservatives among the VAGOP who have long held that Cuccinelli would be a better candidate for governor than Mr. Bolling. His national recognition and standing, along with his lawsuit over the individual mandate in ObamaCare put him in better position to nationalize the Virginia 2013 governors race than Mr. Bolling currently enjoys. Should the U.S. Supreme Court eventually decide in Virginia's favor, Mr. Cuccinelli may indeed be nearly indestructible in 2013. It is also very telling that Mr. Bolling enjoys majority support only from Romney and Huntsman backers out of all the current Republican presidential candidates. This could well be another indication that it's not only conservatives who view Bolling as the non-conservative option in this race. Such a reputation often leads Republican candidates to defeat in Virginia state-wide elections, and if this PPP poll is any indication, the mood of the Virginia electorate does not bode well for Mr. Bolling.

Great Article on the Evolving Mitt by Major Garrett

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:57:00 +0000

Garrett exposes Romneys incredible flip-flops since he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994. For conservatives teetering on the edge of overlooking Romney's life-long (until seeking the White House) liberalism, this article is a must-read. A shout-out to Garrett for great journalism.

SHOCK.......Washington Post Doesn't Like Cuccinelli

noreply@blogger.com (Tim Boyer) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 01:19:00 +0000

The Washington Post is now the arbiter of what is right and wrong for Virginia Republicans to do! We know this because they make that very clear without actually saying so in this article ripping Ken Cuccinelli for staying in his current office even as he runs for Governor. They conveniently forget to mention that most of the other 50 states AG's do not resign to run for Gov. They equate following mere tradition with righteous behavior and breaking tradition with destructive behavior.....of course, because its Ken Cuccinelli doing it, and the WaPo is not known for being exactly unbiased in regard to Cuccinelli. They suggest that because some men before him chose a certain path, Cuccinelli is in the wrong for choosing a different, yet just as legal, and indeed principled path. Let it be known that the MSM attacks those whom they fear. They are not suggesting Bolling should resign as L.Gov to make his run for Governor. They do not suggest that he is diminishing or "politicizing" the office of L.gov by choosing stay in office. They are not attacking Bill Bolling..........