How Voters Can Make Virginia GOP Primary Irrelevant
Posted: Friday, January 13, 2012
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
Based on today's ruling by a federal judge, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be the only two candidates to appear on the Virginia GOP presidential primary ballot on March 6, also known as Super Tuesday. They are the only who qualified under Virginia’s rigid requirements. In addition, Virginia law does not allow write-in candidates in primaries. Rick Perry had filed a federal lawsuit to get on the ballot and was later joined in his suit by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. However, the judge ruled today that they waited too late to file their suit, and dismissed it.
However, since courts are apparently not going to provide any relief, the voters should step in and make Virginia’s 2012 primary irrelevant. Any voter who supports Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, or Huntsman should vote for Ron Paul in protest. Despite what his legions of devotees might say, Paul has no serious chance to become the nominee. If enough backers of those other candidates join Paul’s supporters in voting for him, he would likely win the primary. This would keep the majority of the delegates away from frontrunner Mitt Romney and diminish Virginia’s say in selecting a nominee.
This Article has been viewed 264 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)What about State's Rights? I thought Libertarians and Conservatives were all about State's Rights. I don't understand on what grounds you believe the courts have the right to step in. There has to be an applicable law in question in order for the courts to step in.
Surely states have the right to decide their own election laws as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution, right?Bruce, my problem is with the fact that Virginia does not allow write-ins. That seems to me like a First Amendment issue. I should be able to write in whomever I want, in any election. Otherwise, my freedom of speech is violated. I believe the courts will eventually make this ruling. Being pro-First Amendment is a very Libertarian, don't you think?Ok. That makes sense. I didn't understand that was your point, and yes it is consistent with Libertarianism.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.