Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

The process is that you can file signatures and then come back to file more as long as you file them before the deadline. She filed her initial round in March, and as the elections office was counting them she collected more, and then as she brought the additional signatures, they refused to accept them because they ruled she had qualified.

It is typical for candidates to file as early as they can with as many signatures as they have to secure prominent ballot placement. Then they continue collecting signatures just in case it's needed.

So she had three months to make sure the initial signatures she’d gathered were properly documented before filing them and failed to do so? That is sloppy as hell.

You are allowed to file initial signatures and then come back with additional signatures if you don't meet the threshold. She did that but they refused to accept her additional signatures because they ruled she already qualified.

DP. I don't really understand this. There are posts saying this is common, standard, to keep submitting signatures including extra buffer signatures since some may be invalidated. So presumably at least some other candidates continued to submit signatures - but only this particular candidate's additional signatures were refused?

In March, Marcia filed the required number of signatures. It takes a couple days usually for the office to validate them.

Marcia continued to collect signatures.

When Marcia came back to file her additional signatures also in March, the office refused to accept them because they ruled she had already qualified. They should have accepted the additional signatures.

The June deadline passes.

In August, GOP sues to invalidate a page of signatures. In October, after early voting has already begun, this right-wing Judge invalidated a page of signatures which made the registrar remove her from the ballot because they didn't have enough signatures on file.

This. Thank you for posting this in a clear, easy to understand manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

The process is that you can file signatures and then come back to file more as long as you file them before the deadline. She filed her initial round in March, and as the elections office was counting them she collected more, and then as she brought the additional signatures, they refused to accept them because they ruled she had qualified.

It is typical for candidates to file as early as they can with as many signatures as they have to secure prominent ballot placement. Then they continue collecting signatures just in case it's needed.

So she had three months to make sure the initial signatures she’d gathered were properly documented before filing them and failed to do so? That is sloppy as hell.

You are allowed to file initial signatures and then come back with additional signatures if you don't meet the threshold. She did that but they refused to accept her additional signatures because they ruled she already qualified.

DP. I don't really understand this. There are posts saying this is common, standard, to keep submitting signatures including extra buffer signatures since some may be invalidated. So presumably at least some other candidates continued to submit signatures - but only this particular candidate's additional signatures were refused?

In March, Marcia filed the required number of signatures. It takes a couple days usually for the office to validate them.

Marcia continued to collect signatures.

When Marcia came back to file her additional signatures also in March, the office refused to accept them because they ruled she had already qualified. They should have accepted the additional signatures.

The June deadline passes.

In August, GOP sues to invalidate a page of signatures. In October, after early voting has already begun, this right-wing Judge invalidated a page of signatures which made the registrar remove her from the ballot because they didn't have enough signatures on file.

Why are you such a broken record?

The facts here aren’t in dispute. The issue is that she didn’t check before filing misleading paperwork. She was sloppy and got taken off the ballot as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

The process is that you can file signatures and then come back to file more as long as you file them before the deadline. She filed her initial round in March, and as the elections office was counting them she collected more, and then as she brought the additional signatures, they refused to accept them because they ruled she had qualified.

It is typical for candidates to file as early as they can with as many signatures as they have to secure prominent ballot placement. Then they continue collecting signatures just in case it's needed.

So she had three months to make sure the initial signatures she’d gathered were properly documented before filing them and failed to do so? That is sloppy as hell.

You are allowed to file initial signatures and then come back with additional signatures if you don't meet the threshold. She did that but they refused to accept her additional signatures because they ruled she already qualified.

DP. I don't really understand this. There are posts saying this is common, standard, to keep submitting signatures including extra buffer signatures since some may be invalidated. So presumably at least some other candidates continued to submit signatures - but only this particular candidate's additional signatures were refused?

In March, Marcia filed the required number of signatures. It takes a couple days usually for the office to validate them.

Marcia continued to collect signatures.

When Marcia came back to file her additional signatures also in March, the office refused to accept them because they ruled she had already qualified. They should have accepted the additional signatures.

The June deadline passes.

In August, GOP sues to invalidate a page of signatures. In October, after early voting has already begun, this right-wing Judge invalidated a page of signatures which made the registrar remove her from the ballot because they didn't have enough signatures on file.

Why are you such a broken record?

The facts here aren’t in dispute. The issue is that she didn’t check before filing misleading paperwork. She was sloppy and got taken off the ballot as a result.

So now our options are a Harvard Educated father of three, and a write in candidate who can’t count pass ten without having to take off her shoes.

Methinks a crisis has been averted.

[Anonymous]

She is back on the ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

The process is that you can file signatures and then come back to file more as long as you file them before the deadline. She filed her initial round in March, and as the elections office was counting them she collected more, and then as she brought the additional signatures, they refused to accept them because they ruled she had qualified.

It is typical for candidates to file as early as they can with as many signatures as they have to secure prominent ballot placement. Then they continue collecting signatures just in case it's needed.

So she had three months to make sure the initial signatures she’d gathered were properly documented before filing them and failed to do so? That is sloppy as hell.

You are allowed to file initial signatures and then come back with additional signatures if you don't meet the threshold. She did that but they refused to accept her additional signatures because they ruled she already qualified.

DP. I don't really understand this. There are posts saying this is common, standard, to keep submitting signatures including extra buffer signatures since some may be invalidated. So presumably at least some other candidates continued to submit signatures - but only this particular candidate's additional signatures were refused?

In March, Marcia filed the required number of signatures. It takes a couple days usually for the office to validate them.

Marcia continued to collect signatures.

When Marcia came back to file her additional signatures also in March, the office refused to accept them because they ruled she had already qualified. They should have accepted the additional signatures.

The June deadline passes.

In August, GOP sues to invalidate a page of signatures. In October, after early voting has already begun, this right-wing Judge invalidated a page of signatures which made the registrar remove her from the ballot because they didn't have enough signatures on file.

Why are you such a broken record?

The facts here aren’t in dispute. The issue is that she didn’t check before filing misleading paperwork. She was sloppy and got taken off the ballot as a result.

That is not the issue. The issue is the allegation that she didn’t file the correct number of signatures which simply isn’t true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is back on the ballot

That’s good! Wonder what happens to the write-ins? It’s probably not too many at least since this remedy came quickly.

[Anonymous]

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/fairfax-co-school-board-candidate-likely-back-on-ballot-after-judges-ruling-marcia-st-john-cunning/65-bac6bc0b-e9ca-46d1-aed2-5b9f9e8836c4?fbclid=IwAR3a0ZD3uHilHRoelQC54W8iZR-Ej_xgQpYp_OYbR3XUPlDoi0sCu-qB648_aem_AURSyYpCpWhdezCFF1GnAy-TIT92ovGAckNGKEaGMAokV7llvn8i-CGK-aPdSqEM6PQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is back on the ballot

👏👏👏👏👏

[Anonymous]

Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

She did everything correctly. This whole thing was the fault of the registrar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

She did everything correctly. This whole thing was the fault of the registrar.

Sure. No one else got tripped up by the registrar. Only her, and her buddy. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

She did everything correctly. This whole thing was the fault of the registrar.

Sure. No one else got tripped up by the registrar. Only her, and her buddy. Hmm.

The Democrats running and serving on the School Board are always willing to throw county employees (here, a registrar) under the bus to excuse their own incompetence. Why should this time be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

She did everything correctly. This whole thing was the fault of the registrar.

Sure. No one else got tripped up by the registrar. Only her, and her buddy. Hmm.

Nobody else had lawsuits filed. The GOP only targeted her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either way it’s good that folks were put on notice that she’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

She did everything correctly. This whole thing was the fault of the registrar.

Sure. No one else got tripped up by the registrar. Only her, and her buddy. Hmm.

The Democrats running and serving on the School Board are always willing to throw county employees (here, a registrar) under the bus to excuse their own incompetence. Why should this time be any different?

The Judge threw him under the bus and ruled he was wrong.

[Anonymous]

What makes her stand out ?