On December 24, Newt Gingrich criticized Virginia’s ballot access law for presidential primary candidates. See this story. The Gingrich campaign initially seemed to believe that Gingrich could launch a write-in campaign, but Virginia election law bans write-ins in primaries, although the Virginia Constitution protects write-ins in general elections.
Gingrich could plausibly sue Virginia over its requirement that circulators cannot work in Virginia unless they live in Virginia. Lawsuits against residency requirements for circulators have won in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Some of these victories were against bans on out-of-state circulators, and some of them were against bans on out-of-district circulators.
Also on December 24, Professor Rick Hasen, an election law expert, commented that when a state ballot access law bars a majority of the leading contenders from the ballot, something is wrong with the law. The Republican Party now generally recognizes seven contenders for its nomination, and in Virginia, only two of them qualified.
Pingback: Today’s Links December 25, 2011 | Information Architecture Blog
Pingback: Gingrich camp assails Virginia’s “failed system” – CBS News | headlinenewsreport.org
Pingback: Gingrich camp assails Virginia’s “failed system” – CBS News | Tucson AZ News and Weather
Pingback: Gingrich camp assails Virginia’s “failed system” – CBS News | Football Goal
Pingback: Gingrich camp assails Virginia’s “failed system” – CBS News | tgfmPress
Pingback: Gingrich camp assails Virginia’s “failed system” – CBS News | Shield Financial Protection
Disorganized. And he wants to be POTUS.
No, Newt, it’s not the fault of the system. It’s your fault for not gather the signatures. You had the same amount of time as the other candidates, but your disorganized campaign didn’t think it was a high enough priority to get on the ballot. The VA election board even suggested that each campaign provide 15-20k signatures due to historical acceptance rates. Quit casting blame on others. The blame falls squarely on your shoulders, so take responsibility.
In the end Newt will still support keeping other parties and candidates off the ballot, just not his campaign.
#7 – yeah, reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with George sprawled out on the floor: “And you want to be my latex salesman?”
Pingback: Newt Gingrich, Quite Properly, Criticizes Virginia Ballot Access Laws – Ballot Access | Just Top News – Daily News Magazine
Gingrich could plausibly sue Virginia over its requirement that circulators cannot work in Virginia unless they live in Virginia.
This and the information that several states have placed judicial restrictions on statutes limiting out of state circulators has a very deep dark side.
Who would out of state circulatorrs be? In some cases they might be people who live in a multi-state metro area who cross state lines routinely en route to work, home again and to various cultural or entertainment activites.
But the out of state circulators could also be paid political operatives who travel around and petition for the highest paying candidate without regard to his policy stances or the national or public well being.
Without knowing whether the court decisions aggregated in the second paragraph made distinctions between these two classes of people it is impossible to know whether these courts acted with proper concern for the public interest or merely followed technically constrained readings of the peritnent statutes to serve the interest of big money.
In the age of Citizens United in which even SCOTUS is unable to distinguish the exercise of free speech and big money funded filibustering it is impossible to take statements like Richard Winger’s in support of Gingrich at face value.
It is not entirely a product of paranoia to question Mr. Winger’s superficiality and shallowness of research as indicative of a hidden agenda on the question of out of state circulators.
Gingrich may not have the money or orgamizational savvy to get paid out of state circulators into Virginia to collect signatures.
But it is clear that Gingrich lacks the savvy to understand Virginia’s clear and long standing ballot requirements.
Gingrich should not be allowed to compensate himself for his stupidity through a court action, as Mr. Winger suggests.
Richard Winger is wrong on the merits of this issue, whatever case he might be able make before an activist and interpretive politically motivated bench.
How many zillions of special laws for Prez nomination stuff in 2011-2012 — needing a super-computer to keep track of — with the nonstop robot party hack machinations ???
—–
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the U.S.A.
Abolish the Senate and Electoral College.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Put ALL of the past evil INSANE JUNK into the political graveyard — along with slavery and divine right of kings.
In other words, Newt Gingrich is going to turn to activist judges to overturn laws enacted by a duly elected legislature? To cover for the fact that he didn’t even know how to get on the ballot in Virginia, much less put in the effort to do so?
Pingback: Newt Gingrich, Quite Properly, Criticizes Virginia Ballot Access Laws – Ballot Access - Financial News | Financial News
I almost want to say it is a case of “poetic justice” for both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to have not met the signature requirements in Virginia. But in the spirit of Christmas, I will refrain. Still, I hope both the Gingrich and Perry campaigns will sue the election officials in Virginia and ask that filing fees (as is allowed for ballot access in many other states) be accepted in lieu of the petition signatures. If the courts were to agree with such argument, it could hopefully lead to sustaining the same argument that such option be permitted for getting a position on a general election ballot as an Independent or a 3rd party. I would encourage anyone reading this who has the ear of either the Gingrich or Perry camps to sugggest they use this approach to rectify their otherwise right to be on the ballot.
@12 What difference does it make who the circulator is? It shouldn’t even have to be disclosed who circulated the petition. A lamp post, an empty table, the mail, an underage “illegal” Salvadoran immigrant with ten felonies, or a dog with a placard can all circulate the petition. It helps if there is someone there to make sure the correct page gets signed (although there is really no good reason to separate signatures by towns and counties in our electronic age) and that all the requisite information is provided by the voter in the correct spaces.
What counts is the signatures themselves, not who circulated them.
And what in the world is wrong with traveling across state lines in support of a cause and/or to make a living? Everyone from construction workers to traveling salesmen, freedom riders for civil rights to migrant laborers, news reporters to preachers to college instructors to the mercenaries who helped the US win its independence from the UK has done so.
Campaigns pay lobbyists, printers, advertisers, consultants, suppliers of all manner of goods and services, and much of this commerce is across state lines.
What earthly reasons can you provide why a national campaign can have workers travel from state to state to gather signatures?
It’s an irrational position to say the very least.
EVERYONE should be able to petition in any state or country they want, and be paid at whatever rate they negotiate with the client(s) – it is as simple as that.
#12, petitioning is protected First Amendment activity. What would you think of a law that said a resident of Maryland is not permitted to speak freely about Virginia politics while that Maryland voter is physically present in Virginia?
To distinguish between free speech and election laws are different. You can yell at the top of your lungs to sign a petition for various reasons, however if it is regarding taking part of an election I understand the reasoning that only people of the jurisdiction then can circulate the petition. So if some guys was hawking people over to sign a petition, I understand that it is in the state’s interest to determine that the circulators are from that state. Also I believe Gingrich could have hired paid signature gatherers from of out state and matched them with loyal supporters at various locations. These paid guys could have hawked people to a table to sign the petition with the VA resident. This is done in many campaigns throughout the country and Gingrich must have had flimsy coordination.
Why do we always hear the words Rule Of Law. I guess even Newt can determine which laws he likes, in the election process.
To distinguish between free speech and election laws are different. You can yell at the top of your lungs to sign a petition for various reasons, however if it is regarding taking part of an election I understand the reasoning that only people of the jurisdiction then can circulate the petition. So if some guys was hawking people over to sign a petition, I understand that it is in the state’s interest to determine that the circulators are from that state.
Well, I do NOT understand this supposed “interest.” Care to explain?
Does the state care what printer the petition uses, or whether the mail truck crosses state lines if it is delivered by mail?
If the campaign hires an advertising agency to make commercials do they have to be from the jurisdiction, can the state compel this? If the state is contained within media markets centered in other states (for example NJ is served by NY and Philadelphia stations etc) can they be precluded from placing ads there?
What if they have out of staters distribute literature door to door, can that be banned?
Can the state ban traveling evangelists, or traveling civil rights workers?
And so on.
Face it, it is a restraint of interstate commerce and an interference in free speech.
I have every right to circulate a petition in any state just as I have the right to speak, worship, publish, gather with others etc.
Couldn’t of happened to a nicer guy.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the only Republican candidates that aren’t Xenophobic. Makes me want to live in Virginia.
While Newt is technically right, I doubt he would have complained if he was one of the 2 candidates who managed to get in the primary, so I find it hard to feel bad for him.
When a candidate who clearly enjoys a modicum of support cannot easily gain ballot access, the requirement should be presumed onerous. Thus, in 1980, John Anderson won one after another court decision. Many of those decisions concerned early filing deadlines. The same argument could, I think, be made regarding Virginia (and certain other states that have moved up their presidential primaries).
Each State is a SOVEREIGN nation-State.
1776 DOI
1777 Art. Confed
1783 U.S.A.- Brit Peace Treaty
1787 Const. Art. I, Sec. 10 and Art. VII
——-
SOVEREIGN Electors-Voters in each area involved.
EVERYBODY else is a political alien from another universe.
Try circulating a petition in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and see what happens.
——
Petition circulators are akin to notary publics.
Signing official petitions MEANS something — i.e. perjury for false signers.
Try circulating a petition in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and see what happens.
Yes, let’s aspire to be more like those countries….right?
Pingback: Political Roundup for December 26th, 2011...Red Racing Horses...
# 25 Due to the SCOTUS robot party hack morons the States are like Russia, etc. —
unequal ballot access laws and ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders especially.
Pingback: Va. unlikely to change law to allow Gingrich write-in – Richmond Times Dispatch | Just Top News – Daily News Magazine
Now Gingrich is blaming his failure on a paid petitioner who he claims committed signature fraud: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/gingrich-campaign-workers-signature-fraud-cost-slot-on-virginia-ballot