Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't live in that district but just took a look at Pinkney's website and he looks pretty good. It's unfortunate that St John Cunning was disqualified but it's a blessing for the school district in disguise.

I do live in this district and you can have him. I will be writing in St John Cunning. This is ridiculous.

You prefer someone who can't follow the rules over someone campaigning on school safety, supporting teachers in the classroom, and academics?

Pinckney is so cowardly that he didn’t answer the Post’s questionnaire.

[Anonymous]

If Marcia's whiny supporters think she's the better candidate - and she's not, but that's a different issue - they should stop posting here and start canvassing to ask folks to write in her name in November. The campaign rules are what they are, and the Ds absolutely would have gone to court to challenge any GOP-endorsed candidate who didn't comply with the requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The legality of removing a candidate from a ballot after early voting has begun, thereby disenfranchising those voters, seems like a question for the state supreme court or a federal court not for a local circuit court judge. Hopefully this is being appealed

What a dumb take. Don't try to pretend to be a lawyer, you aren't even close.

Has a candidate ever been removed from a ballot in Virginia after voting has begun?

These things happen routinely in all states.

Here is a recent case in South Carolina, disqualified after voting has begun and with the name on the ballot:

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/local/street-squad/irmo/irmo-town-council-candidate-george-frazier-disqualified-over-moving-error-election/101-1833b96e-ba38-47b5-8ba4-210d7ba9850d

And more generally:

https://www.pogo.org/reports/routine-disqualification-every-state-has-kept-ineligible-candidates-off-the-ballot-and-trump-could-be-next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't live in that district but just took a look at Pinkney's website and he looks pretty good. It's unfortunate that St John Cunning was disqualified but it's a blessing for the school district in disguise.

I do live in this district and you can have him. I will be writing in St John Cunning. This is ridiculous.

You prefer someone who can't follow the rules over someone campaigning on school safety, supporting teachers in the classroom, and academics?

Pinckney is so cowardly that he didn’t answer the Post’s questionnaire.

Maybe he was aware the Post didn't endorse a single GOP-endorsed candidate for SB in 2019. At some point you stop playing ball with people just looking to attack you.

[Anonymous]

Clearly not that Cunning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disenfranchised voters need to sue. Hopefully someone will help them do that fast enough to address this.

Sue who? Sue St John Cunning?

Bizarre.

A state court took her off. The only option would be to appeal the state court ruling or to find a federal cause of action to sue the registrar

A right-wing judge who worked for the NRA!!!

[Anonymous]

I am mainly a Dem voter and if she didn’t cross her Is and cross her Ts, which resulted in invalid signatures based on the rules then so be it.

I don’t know why she didn’t insist on submitting more than the required amount to at least provide a buffer just in case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am mainly a Dem voter and if she didn’t cross her Is and cross her Ts, which resulted in invalid signatures based on the rules then so be it.

I don’t know why she didn’t insist on submitting more than the required amount to at least provide a buffer just in case.

My understanding is that when the #OpenFCPS group submitted recall petitions of multiple school board members several years ago, they submitted substantially more signatures than were required under the relevant law precisely in order to provide a buffer and avoid getting the petitions tossed for not having enough valid signatures.

The matters got thrown out on other grounds (namely, the assigned Democratic prosecutors refused to take up the petitions, which led the judges involved to determine that they had no alternative but to dismiss the petitions), and no Democrat complained about an abuse of process then.

Bottom line is that each party always wants the courts to do their bidding, cries fowl when they don't get what they want, and thinks the courts are great if they get what they want.

[Anonymous]

“Fowl” 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Fowl” 😂

OK, that is funny. Disqualify the post. You're still off the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Fowl” 😂

OK, that is funny. Disqualify the post. You're still off the ballot.

Nope, I was never on the ballot. 🐓

[Anonymous]

This is the biggest "boo hoo" of the week. It's glorious to see the local Ds have a meltdown when they get held to complying with the election laws, after the non-stop kvetching about the sordid efforts by Trump and his cronies to circumvent election laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is likely a good thing. If she did the minimum, didn’t ensure she enough valid signatures and addresses on her forms, a lot is to blame on her. Why didn’t do the little extra such as go for 250 valid signatures just in case some are invalidated.

She stopped collecting signatures because they told her she qualified.

Yeah, the bare minimum, 125. If she can’t get this right, what level of incompetence would she bring to the board?

The process is to submit 125 as soon as you get them, and then you keep collecting in case they aren’t accepted. They were accepted and they said she qualified. So she stopped collecting to focus on campaigning.

For school board you have to file early to secure dominant ballot order. That’s why she filed as soon as she got 125.

Everyone else managed to qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please let us never have a full D school board again. It has been disastrous for my kids’ education. (A full R school board would be just as disastrous.)

We need to stop voting on party lines.

If we could get an even split that would be great. They might manage to make the main thing, the main thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am mainly a Dem voter and if she didn’t cross her Is and cross her Ts, which resulted in invalid signatures based on the rules then so be it.

I don’t know why she didn’t insist on submitting more than the required amount to at least provide a buffer just in case.

For partisan offices, candidates submit more signatures than is required, usually at least double the amount or more. That's because they have three months to collect signatures before filing for the office begins.

But for the school board, filing opens in January and the first candidate to file the correct number of signatures is given placement at the top of the ballot. This is why there is a rush for candidates to file first.

They are allowed to file their signatures and if they don't have enough, they can come back and file more as long as it's before the June deadline.

Marcia filed her signatures in March (months before the June deadline) and then the office of elections said she had the required number and qualified, making her done with the paperwork. So she focused on talking to voters instead of getting more signatures.

Objectively, she did everything right. Yes, she messed up one page (which happens more often than you think especially for first time candidates), but the Office of Elections determined that wasn't a problem. If they had determined it was a problem, she would've had 3 months to fix it since she filed so far ahead of the deadline. She is now being removed due to the mistake of the Office of Elections.