A Sea Of Red

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2012/jan/11/j ... r-1604453/

Well, all those years the rules were just fine...now they will be held unconstitutional this Friday in court.

I honestly wish this would have happened to Ron Paul, because we all know Virginia would brush it off.....I am losing all faith that people will do the "just" and "right" thing.

It's judicial activism. But it's still absolutetly disgusting what the GOP did to cram Mittens down our throats. But judicial activism is still wrong.

Wow!!!! Looks like they wont be added to the ballot. I was surprised by the result but happy nonetheless.

jmdickens wrote:Wow!!!! Looks like they wont be added to the ballot. I was surprised by the result but happy nonetheless.

+1

Hmm, why would two Paul and Romney supporters be happy with this decision

Because we favor the Romney/Paul 2012 ticket?

I agree that the decision should not be overturned, however it's clear that there is an effort the disenfranchise Republican voters by the GOP. At this point I'm leaning towards Paul (although given this decision I will obviously be voting for Paul), but while I don't find changing the rules absurd, the timing is highly suspect.

Write-in vote?

phoenix wrote:Write-in vote?

Not allowed to do that in primaries in VA.

jbock13 wrote:

phoenix wrote:Write-in vote?

Not allowed to do that in primaries in VA.

Tell that to Len Stevens on channel 13. Tonite he said at the end of the story "of course you'll still be able to write in the candidate of your choice."
Do a little research news people!

Why am I not surprised

I wonder if voters could have a legitimate lawsuit. One of the requirements is that each county must have at least 400 signatures. Why should that matter? 100% of voters in any one county could hate a candidate, but why should those voters have a say in whom I vote for?

Any lawyers in the house?

There is no lawsuit to be made of this. Virginia law allows parties to come up with any rules they would like for their elections and this falls under that rule.

(plus it helps Ron Paul so I don't want the law changed!)

I have no problem with the law being changed but lets NOT do it during the Presidential election cycle

alabama24 wrote:I wonder if voters could have a legitimate lawsuit. One of the requirements is that each county must have at least 400 signatures. Why should that matter? 100% of voters in any one county could hate a candidate, but why should those voters have a say in whom I vote for?

Any lawyers in the house?

I think it is actually 400 in each congressional district (11 total) but I understand your sentiment. But like skywalker said, it is up to the party how to run their primary. I don't know if there are certain general rules they must adhere to though.

Purple Haize wrote:I have no problem with the law being changed but lets NOT do it during the Presidential election cycle

Oh, and the Virginia GOP didn't do that?

The rule needs to be changed but change it after the election cycle and have it apply to the next cycle. But really if your campaign cant get organized enough to get 10,000 signatures then do you really need to be on the ballot this go round. I mean I got a simple email with the documents to go collect signatures from the Ron Paul campaign got some signatures then sent them. Its really not that hard.

skywalker5291 wrote:There is no lawsuit to be made of this. Virginia law allows parties to come up with any rules they would like for their elections and this falls under that rule.

Do you have a link somewhere that this is a "party" issue? (just curious - I don't know VA rules).

alabama24 wrote:

skywalker5291 wrote:There is no lawsuit to be made of this. Virginia law allows parties to come up with any rules they would like for their elections and this falls under that rule.

Do you have a link somewhere that this is a "party" issue? (just curious - I don't know VA rules).

I don't have time to look it up (sorry), but I can confirm what he said is true.

Also it is pretty much true in most if not all states. Caucuses are party run and do not involve state government regulation, but primaries are presided over by the State Board of Elections, such as general elections to prevent fraud.

Why is this an issue? Perry, Gingrich & Santorum weren't able to get the necessary signatures to be included on the ballot. They knew the rules. And if they aren't intelligent enough to know the rules / or have enough of a ground game to get 10,000 supporters, they then certainly aren't going to be qualified to run a successful campaign for President.

That being said, the fact that Virginia doesn't allow for a write-in candidate seems a bit odd to me.

Liberty4Life wrote:Why is this an issue? Perry, Gingrich & Santorum weren't able to get the necessary signatures to be included on the ballot. They knew the rules.

The rules are wrong.

alabama24 wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:Why is this an issue? Perry, Gingrich & Santorum weren't able to get the necessary signatures to be included on the ballot. They knew the rules.

The rules are wrong.

Im pretty sure everyone here agrees with you alabama that the rule is stupid. But the rule is the rule and should not be changed in the MIDDLE of an election season to accommodate some poorly run campaigns. It needs to be changed but it needs to apply to the next election cycle not this one. Its unfair to Romney and Paul who campaign and supporters did what was needed to get on the ballot to change the rule to let in people who didn't do what has been required for sometime now.

Also come Super Tuesday it may just be Romney and Paul so this could be a moot point.

Why are the rules wrong? Having minimum standards in place ensures that the lesser candidates are weeded out. You have to earn your way onto a ballot, lest you have one filled with jokes like Lyndon Larouche, Terry Jones, and the "Rent is Too dang High" Guy.

Look at new hampshires official ballot count. You literally have people voting Iowa State Senators for president. So that's why the rules are like they are.