Anonymous
11/01/2023 15:11
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
The ruling today was that the registrar violated Marcia's rights when they refused to accept her additional signatures.
Looks like she will be back on the ballot but specifics must be worked out.
Now the question is what happens to the write-in votes for her.
Looks like she will be back on the ballot but specifics must be worked out.
Now the question is what happens to the write-in votes for her.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 15:11
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
It's hard to take you seriously when you write stuff like that. The judge acted properly. Not sure what other facts are important, and not sure that you would know or admit them.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 15:09
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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?
Is she alleging that election officials have something against her personally?
No, just that the information given to her was incorrect and that she shouldn't be penalized for it. She was told everything was fine, so she stopped getting signatures.
Not exactly true. She continued to collect signatures and tried to file them, but they refused to accept them.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 15:09
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 14:56
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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?
Is she alleging that election officials have something against her personally?
No, just that the information given to her was incorrect and that she shouldn't be penalized for it. She was told everything was fine, so she stopped getting signatures.
Yeah, when you rely on the word of a clerk at the DMV or another bureaucrat in an office and they inadvertently and incorrectly steer you wrong, that's your fault, not theirs.
Maybe the election world is different?
Anonymous
11/01/2023 14:54
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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?
Is she alleging that election officials have something against her personally?
No, just that the information given to her was incorrect and that she shouldn't be penalized for it. She was told everything was fine, so she stopped getting signatures.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 14:39
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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?
Is she alleging that election officials have something against her personally?
Anonymous
11/01/2023 14:30
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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?
Anonymous
11/01/2023 14:23
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 13:18
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
What’s sloppy is your comprehension. Are you the same poster or a different poster who can’t read. She DID turn in additional signatures in the appropriate time! But she was told by the Board of Elections that everything was good to go.
You seem to be the one with very poor reading comprehension skills. Clearly the problem was with what she voluntarily but erroneously chose to submit before the filing deadline.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about if you think you have to file all petitions at once. You are allowed to file petitions as you collect them.
Per the candidate bulletin: “Candidates running for the general election may file petition pages more than once.”
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/media/candidatesandpacs/2023-candidate-bulletins/2023-11-07_Gen_Bulletin_Local_Offices.pdf
Anonymous
11/01/2023 13:15
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
Ruling coming today at 2 pm
Anonymous
11/01/2023 08:06
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
What’s sloppy is your comprehension. Are you the same poster or a different poster who can’t read. She DID turn in additional signatures in the appropriate time! But she was told by the Board of Elections that everything was good to go.
You seem to be the one with very poor reading comprehension skills. Clearly the problem was with what she voluntarily but erroneously chose to submit before the filing deadline.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 06:43
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
What’s sloppy is your comprehension. Are you the same poster or a different poster who can’t read. She DID turn in additional signatures in the appropriate time! But she was told by the Board of Elections that everything was good to go.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 06:36
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
Anonymous
11/01/2023 06:05
Subject: Re:Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified
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.
Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.
Please re-read what I said. She did have the additional signatures in March (before the June 20th deadline), but they refused to accept them.
It's too late now.
She sounds like such a sore loser. No way do I want her anywhere near the school board at this point.
You sound like you have poor reading comprehension skills. No way would I want you anywhere near children, jobs that require reading or a voting booth.