Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But still, why didn't she submit a buffer?

Part of her district encompasses West Springfield now, which contains a lot of transient population who are not Virginia residents.

One would think it would be standard practice in that part of Fairfax County, even for a novice, to always submit a page or so of extra signatures in case you inadvertently got signatures from out of state residents.

[Anonymous]

Voted today at a site where not many in her district would be expected to show up to vote. Still, big sign on the door as entering that St.John-Cunning was disqualified as a candidate by state department of elections pursuant to some law.

Was surprised by how prominent this sign was - really almost made her look like a cheater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But still, why didn't she submit a buffer?

Part of her district encompasses West Springfield now, which contains a lot of transient population who are not Virginia residents.

One would think it would be standard practice in that part of Fairfax County, even for a novice, to always submit a page or so of extra signatures in case you inadvertently got signatures from out of state residents.

I’m sure her intention was that if she didn’t have enough in her initial filing, she would go back and submit more.

But the office of elections ruled that she had a sufficient number and was a qualified candidate, so there is no point to collecting more signatures and then driving to the government center to submit them when you have been certified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But still, why didn't she submit a buffer?

Part of her district encompasses West Springfield now, which contains a lot of transient population who are not Virginia residents.

One would think it would be standard practice in that part of Fairfax County, even for a novice, to always submit a page or so of extra signatures in case you inadvertently got signatures from out of state residents.

I’m sure her intention was that if she didn’t have enough in her initial filing, she would go back and submit more.

But the office of elections ruled that she had a sufficient number and was a qualified candidate, so there is no point to collecting more signatures and then driving to the government center to submit them when you have been certified.

She really needs to stop blaming others for her mistakes. She was disqualified on entirely legal and appropriate grounds.

[Anonymous]

I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But still, why didn't she submit a buffer?

Part of her district encompasses West Springfield now, which contains a lot of transient population who are not Virginia residents.

One would think it would be standard practice in that part of Fairfax County, even for a novice, to always submit a page or so of extra signatures in case you inadvertently got signatures from out of state residents.

I’m sure her intention was that if she didn’t have enough in her initial filing, she would go back and submit more.

But the office of elections ruled that she had a sufficient number and was a qualified candidate, so there is no point to collecting more signatures and then driving to the government center to submit them when you have been certified.

She really needs to stop blaming others for her mistakes. She was disqualified on entirely legal and appropriate grounds.

This isn't legal. Good thing they're appealing.

I voted for her last week and you are trying to throw my vote in the trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

Good for you. I voted weeks ago and will be disenfranchised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But still, why didn't she submit a buffer?

Part of her district encompasses West Springfield now, which contains a lot of transient population who are not Virginia residents.

One would think it would be standard practice in that part of Fairfax County, even for a novice, to always submit a page or so of extra signatures in case you inadvertently got signatures from out of state residents.

I’m sure her intention was that if she didn’t have enough in her initial filing, she would go back and submit more.

But the office of elections ruled that she had a sufficient number and was a qualified candidate, so there is no point to collecting more signatures and then driving to the government center to submit them when you have been certified.

She really needs to stop blaming others for her mistakes. She was disqualified on entirely legal and appropriate grounds.

This isn't legal. Good thing they're appealing.

I voted for her last week and you are trying to throw my vote in the trash.

Your vote will be trashed bc the only way to legally count a vote for her is if it’s written in.

FWIW, can we at least pretend that it’s not gonna kill you to have ONE non-Democrat serving on the fcps school board???

[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

State court ruling simply looked at the election law and upheld the law. That’s all.
The registrar messed up. But it was sloppy on the part of her campaign not to be thorough enough to cover potential error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this is embedded in the School Board threads, but this seems like a big thing:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/candidatenotice

Evidently 6 signatures on her campaign petition were invalid.

So, it looks like the School Board may be 11-1 after all. The remaining candidate, Pinckney, is GOP-endorsed.

Total BS. The Office of Elections told her she qualified so she stopped collecting signatures. Then a right-wing NRA judge comes in and throws out a page months after her signatures were filed and after THOUSANDS of people have already voted for her.

Is it only a “right wing NRA judge” when he makes a ruling you disagree with?
Or do you categorize all judges based on whether they take your political viewpoint?
If the same judge had ruled differently, would you have been more benevolent in your description? perhaps “a surprisingly reasonable conservative judge”?…
Just wondering…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

State court ruling simply looked at the election law and upheld the law. That’s all.
The registrar messed up. But it was sloppy on the part of her campaign not to be thorough enough to cover potential error.

It's her job to do the registrar's job? Don't think so.

Also the law is ambiguous to omissions of an address on petitions.

[Anonymous]

3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

Yeeeah, except the West Springfield Precinct, the one that moved to Franconia District, tends to run 60/40 blue. And Franconia District as a whole tends to run very blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

Yeeeah, except the West Springfield Precinct, the one that moved to Franconia District, tends to run 60/40 blue. And Franconia District as a whole tends to run very blue.

Okay, so maybe 1800 democratic voters.

This might be a very good thing for the Franconia district.

After years of democrat representation, their school quality has steadily fallen. It seems like Franconia's consistently democratic representation on the school board has been very ineffective at advocating for the Franconia district schools and interests.

Keep doing the same thing means you are going to keep getting the same results.

Having a new perspective and voice for Franconia, especially since on paper he appears to be far more qualified than she is, and clearly far more attentive to details in real life, is likely going to end up shaking things up for Franconia and actually giving them a voice and advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

Good for you. I voted weeks ago and will be disenfranchised.

That’s not what disenfranchised means. By your own admission, you were given the right to vote.