U.S. District Court Judge, John Gibney, Jr. ruled today that the equitable doctrine of laches (layman’s definition: You snooze, you lose) applies to Rick Perry’s complaint for injunctive relief (wherein he sought to have his name included on the primary ballot) and he, along with interpleaders Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman, will not be allowed to participate in the Virginia primary on March 6, 2012.
The plaintiffs are candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Under Virginia law, they failed to obtain the required number of petition signatures to place their names on the ballot for the Republican primary election. Now, they ask the Court for a preliminary injunction ordering that they be listed on the ballot. The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s rules limiting who can circulate candidate petitions and requiring 10,000 signatures violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The equitable doctrine of laches bars the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. They knew the rules in Virginia many months ago; the limitations on circulators affected them soon as they began circulating petitions. The plaintiffs could have challenged the Virginia law at that time. Instead, they waited until after the time to gather petitions had ended and they had lost the battle to be on the ballot; then, on the eve of the printing of the absentee ballots, they decided to challenge Virginia’s laws. In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained the rules were unfair. (emphasis added).
One may review the entire opinion (pdf) here.
Crazy things are happening in Virginia, including the requirement that all voters sign a “Loyalty Oath” before being allowed to vote in this upcoming primary.
“I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”
And now it would appear as if the people of Virginia who sign that Oath have only two individuals to select from: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Newt is probably feeling just horrible that he can’t be on the ballot in his “home” state. But never fear, it does not end here. Judge Gibney openly addressed the obvious: An appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is not only likely but was probably written before the ink dried on Judge Gibney’s opinion.
