Saturday, March 18, 2006
Leach challenger fails to get on Dem Ballot
It seems that "would-be challenger" (as the Des Moines Register calls him) David Loebsack failed to collect enough petition signatures to get on the Democrat Primary Ballot to challenge Congressman Jim Leach in the 2nd Congressional District.
The Democrats apparently will still be able to nominate him at their District Convention, but if I were a delegate to the convention, I think I might be asking myself what other careless mistakes are coming down the road. And moreover, would we really want to elect someone to represent us in Washington who doesn't appear to pay adequate attention to important details?
In his defense, our "would-be challenger" came awfully close -- he only needed ten more signatures and the rules are a bit complex. According to the Secretary of State, candidates were required to turn in at least a total of 1,716 signatures, and at least half of the counties in the district (8) had to to have a minimum number of signatures. Our "would-be challenger" barely made the total minimum number by turning in 1,756 signatures (only 40 more than needed), but he only had six counties of the sixteen in the district where he was able to meet the minimum number of required signatures -- he was three short in Louisa County and seven short in Muscatine County.
And evidentally, all this was only discovered minutes before the 5 pm filing deadline on Friday, since the papers were turned in with only four hours to spare for the Secretary of State to process. (Note to Self: if you ever run for office, be sure to turn in plenty of extra signatures, practice your counting, and turn them in a couple days early to leave yourself time ... just in case)
Incidentally, this seems to be a recurring problem for Democrats. In Ohio, another Democratic Candidate for a very competitive open House seat failed to get on the ballot. Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC may want to host a refresher course on the election laws -- it's pretty tough to win votes when you're not even on the ballot.
The Democrats apparently will still be able to nominate him at their District Convention, but if I were a delegate to the convention, I think I might be asking myself what other careless mistakes are coming down the road. And moreover, would we really want to elect someone to represent us in Washington who doesn't appear to pay adequate attention to important details?
In his defense, our "would-be challenger" came awfully close -- he only needed ten more signatures and the rules are a bit complex. According to the Secretary of State, candidates were required to turn in at least a total of 1,716 signatures, and at least half of the counties in the district (8) had to to have a minimum number of signatures. Our "would-be challenger" barely made the total minimum number by turning in 1,756 signatures (only 40 more than needed), but he only had six counties of the sixteen in the district where he was able to meet the minimum number of required signatures -- he was three short in Louisa County and seven short in Muscatine County.
And evidentally, all this was only discovered minutes before the 5 pm filing deadline on Friday, since the papers were turned in with only four hours to spare for the Secretary of State to process. (Note to Self: if you ever run for office, be sure to turn in plenty of extra signatures, practice your counting, and turn them in a couple days early to leave yourself time ... just in case)
Incidentally, this seems to be a recurring problem for Democrats. In Ohio, another Democratic Candidate for a very competitive open House seat failed to get on the ballot. Rahm Emanuel at the DCCC may want to host a refresher course on the election laws -- it's pretty tough to win votes when you're not even on the ballot.
