5 votes

Judge says Perry will likely prevail in Virginia ballot challenge

From TPM:

There’s an update on Rick Perry’s case to get on the Virginia primary ballot. A federal judge in Virginia issued an order Tuesday promising a decision soon and indicating that the court was likely to come down on Perry’s side (h/t Heritage):

...there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose.

As in all strict scrutiny cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitation on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirement.there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional.

The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose.

As in all strict scrutiny cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitation on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirement.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They will not be on ballot in Virginia

RICHMOND, Va. (WTVR) - Federal District Court Judge John Gibney ruled against Texas Governor Rick Perry and other Republican presidential candidates who sued in an effort to appear on the ballot for the Virginia Republican primary in March.

Judge Gibney announced the ruling Friday afternoon in Richmond, Virginia.

The suit was originally filed by Texas Governor Rick Perry.
Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Hunstman later joined the challenge.

GREAT NEWS! Now the question

So...are Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, and Gingrich electable???

Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

In The LORD Jesus Christ;
Dave

"where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty." 2 Cor. 3:17

http://www.lionandlambministry.com

Meh

It doesn't matter, Rick Perry won't be in the race by the time Virginia rolls around.

SO if the federal just says put Perry on the ballot in VA

would Illinois have to do the same for Paul?

How can they let him on

And still be fair to those who took the time and effort to comply with their rules?

Who cares

If any of those chodes are left by then they will still ahve minimal effect.

Please write to Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli...

I posted this on his Facebook page:
“U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney ordered the State Board of Elections to direct local electoral boards to refrain from mailing out absentee ballots until after he makes a ruling Friday on the candidates’ bid to be included on the March 6 ballot.”
By what authority does an unelected Federal magistrate have a right to interfere and abrogate our Virginia law, especially Ex Post Facto? This will impede our troops overseas from voting via absentee ballot. Will the Federal government compensate the Commonwealth for its intrusion into our affairs to potentially comply with this edict?
Please stand up to this unconstitutional hindrance with our election process. Please notify / serve the unauthorized magistrate with a “Cease and desist” order. The voters, citizens of the Commonwealth and the rest of the country would applaud your action which could help propel you to national prominence.
I can promise you and many others will be so excited to continue and expand our support from your, just and constitutionally lawful adherence to our republican way of life.
Bless you and your family. Thank you for your thoughtful considerations.

Sincerely,
Craig of Falls Church

… A follow up…
If our law is overturned, besides compensation to our state, what are the consequences? Will you, I or anybody else be allowed on the ballot at that point? What precedents will this set for Virginia and the other states; will election laws be thrown out and imposed by the Federal judiciary in every local?
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Craig of Falls Church

deacon's picture

question

if fed law does not trump states laws,what then gives them
authority over states issues?
he either upheld state law or he didn't.isn't it that simple?

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

deacon's picture

my opinion

judges prattle to bore their readers
on and on with their endless barrage
of empty terms and words,all so everyone sees how smart they are,when the only thing thejudge had to say was yes or no,sort of this post here.i could have stopped typing
but i did'nt,i kept going and going.with this endless
post when all i would have had to do is say
judges are boring
see now don't you think i am so smart ;)
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depression

I think Perry could win as well

The law is too vague and doesn't even mention requirements for Presidency. It just mentions the other federal offices and state offices. The another law says they can set the nomination process for those offices and again nothing for president.

I'm going to call crap for another reason.

If the rules were so unconstitutional and unfair, these concerns should have been raised BEFORE these people couldn't meet the requirements, and after...uh...well...all the people that didn't have a problem with them in the last election cycle made it without too much of an issue...?

As far as I'm concerned, it's like they're seeking legal recourse for breaking a contract - they accepted the terms, they couldn't meet them, and now they want an out. We can't help it that they're obviously sub-par candidates based on their performance and lack of any real enthusiasm so far.

Lame, lame, lame. If there were any legal issue with the requirements, they should have long-since been addressed. I wish sore loser rule concepts extended to more areas than they do at times...

exactly.

exactly.

What you aren't looking at is these same rules serve to keep

3rd party candidates and independent candidates off the ballot as well. The signature requirement itself isn't all that bad. It's the requirement that the people collecting signatures have to be residents of the same district/state that is the problem.

Who cares where the petitioners collectors come from? It is the right of the petitioners (signers) that is at issue in the first place. As long as they are registered voters within the district/state, and the time-frame for collecting the signatures is reasonable, (some states it is not) then that candidate should be on the ballot.

On top of all this mess, do you realize that there is also a rule there that if you turn in OVER a certain amount of signatures they DO NOT VERIFY THEM?

Yes, read that again, I didn't say that backwards. Essentially, in Virginia, you can commit fraud on ballot petitions as long as you do it to the extent that you have MORE than the minimum number. Then you get a free pass. In fact, ALL of your signatures could be fraudulent. Romney just so happened to exceed this "free pass" threshold.

Dr. Paul had to have his signatures verified.

Fair points, samadamscw

Thanks for your input on this.

I really do need to look into the +15k/no verification needed thing. It utterly baffles me as - in that case - why wouldn't everyone just fake them up?

Take care.

Moot Point

There will be no Perry come the Virginia primary...

I welcome such a decision. If it strikes down this arcane law

all the better.

In the end, it might actually help Paul to draw support from Romney.

right

The more neo-cons to split their voter base (and keep Romney from consolidating those voters) the better.

This federal judge is WRONG,

This federal judge is WRONG, The Fed can't dictate to the states about requirement to be on the ballot unless it is unfair from one candidate to the other, or, that it is an unreasonable requirement, the fact that Ron Paul and Romney each reached the required signatures means that the requirement is not unfair in any way or unreasonable.

So does Perry have 10000

So does Perry have 10000 signatures collected by non residents because if not the whole lawsuit doesn't matter.

I agree.

His signature count should have been turned in and frozen on the deadline date.
If he is using this time to get more signatures, then that is fraud.