Editorial:
“His ballot
so marked
.
.
.
”
Will they hold
themselves accountable to a proper
reading of the law?
Joseph A. Glean · The
Mount Vernon Statesman · Sunday,
November 25, 2012
 |
|
A
response to the Virginia State
Board of Elections, written by Joseph A.
“Joe” Glean, former candidate
for the Virginia General Assemby
(2011) and former state
chairman of Virginia For Alan
Keyes (2008). |
Short URL: http://tinyurl.com/c7smkco
____________________________________
ALEXANDRIA, VA · By
law, the ballot used in Virginia’s
presidential election has been carefully
configured so that each vote rendered at
the ballot-box may be cast either for a
‘choice of candidates,’ or for
the ‘political party’ running
those candidates.
With the ballot having been configured as
such, the electorate is rightly enabled
(with irrefutable clarity) to signal its
approval of a particular ‘choice of
candidates,’ or a particular
‘political party.’
When it comes to the actual counting and
proper assignment of these votes,
however, the law expressly prohibits
them from being counted on behalf of
anyone, except the individual
electors themselves.
 |
Virginia
Code § 24.2-644B (excerpt)
“The qualified voter at
a presidential election shall
mark the square preceding the
names and party designation for
his choice of candidates for
President and Vice President. His ballot so
marked shall be
counted as if he had marked
squares preceding the names of
the individual electors affiliated with
his choice for President and Vice
President.”
Virginia
Code § 24.2-644C (excerpt)
“A write-in vote cast for
candidates for President and Vice
President, or for a candidate for
President only, shall be
counted for the individual
electors listed on the
declaration of intent as pledged
to those candidates.” |
|
That
is why, in Virginia, it is improper
(and grossly misleading) for any
candidate or any political party to
“claim” a popular vote victory
in a presidential election, because such
claims are plainly inadmissible under
Virginia law.
By what right, then, is the Virginia
State Board of Elections endowed to
render such a claim? By
none, whatsoever! And
yet the following statement, which is
demonstratively false, was delivered to
our campaign on Wednesday, November 21,
2012:
|
|
“ . . . it is clear with the
Democratic [sic]
Party’s unofficial margin
of victory that your attempts to
win Virginia’s popular vote
for President and Vice President
have failed.”
—
Virginia
State Board of Elections |
|
In
this comment, we sense an improper
reading of the Virginia Code.
And from this statement, although the
official results will not be announced
publicly until Monday, November 26, 2012,
our feeling is that preparations have
already been made to divest
Virginia’s thirteen electors of
their lawful, rightful victory and
falsely re-assign it to Democrat party.
No doubt, this is to ensure that the true
winners of Virginia’s general
election [the
Frye/White electors]
are given only one choice at the
electoral college — the party choice
— to the exclusion of all other
considerations.
It is not too late, however, for the
Board to visibly hold itself
accountable to a proper, in depth reading
of the law, by simply following this
useful statutory provision:
|
Virginia
Code § 2.2-505 (excerpt)
“The Attorney General shall
give his advice and render official
advisory opinions in writing . . . when requested in
writing so to do by . . . the head of a
state department, division,
bureau, institution or board . . . [provided that] . . . the question dealt
with is directly related to the
discharge of the duties of the
official requesting the
opinion.” |
|
In
the meantime, our campaign continues to
contend that it has successfully
completed the work of liberating
Virginia’s thirteen electors.
And so far as our opinion is concerned,
all that remains left for the Virginia
State Board of Elections to do (at this
point) is issue a public proclamation
announcing to the electors that their
release from the yoke of political
oppression has been adequately secured by
our campaign.
Informing them, as well, that they are
now free to reject every moral hazard
being imposed on our nation by the
political parties, and instead temper
their vote on Monday, December 17, 2012,
in accordance to the dictates of
conscience.
Joseph
A. Glean,
“Advocate for Equal
Consideration”
^
BACK
TO TOP ^
Campaign Website: http://www.mountvernonstatesman.com/
|
