Image 01 Image 03

VA Republicans Sue to Remove Terry McAuliffe From Governor Ballot Over Failure to Sign Candidacy Declaration

VA Republicans Sue to Remove Terry McAuliffe From Governor Ballot Over Failure to Sign Candidacy Declaration

“Terry McAuliffe’s clear violation of the law severely jeopardizes the integrity of our elections in Virginia”

Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe failed to sign the appropriate paperwork to run for governor. Now the Virginia GOP is suing to get him removed from the ballot.

It will be hilarious to watch the reaction from the left if this works.

Luke Rosiak reports at the Daily Wire:

Dem Candidate For Virginia Governor Forgot To Sign Form Making Him A Valid Candidate, Complaint Says

Terry McAuliffe has spent decades in the public eye, previously served as governor of Virginia, and is now locked in a dead-heat race to retake the governor’s mansion.

But his ambitions could be derailed in the form of the most unlikely setback imaginable: The former Clinton moneyman allegedly forgot to sign his “statement of candidacy” form, potentially making him ineligible, according to a legal challenge filed Thursday by the Republican Party of Virginia.

Worse, the form includes two signatures from witnesses attesting that they saw him sign it — something that would seem to be impossible since he did not sign it.

Here’s a statement from the Virginia GOP:

Virginia GOP Files Lawsuit Seeking McAuliffe Disqualification

The Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) today announced it has filed a legal action against the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Virginia Department of Elections seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based upon the invalid Declaration of Candidacy filed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe that would result in McAuliffe’s disqualification from appearing on any general election ballot.

The complaint contends that Terry McAuliffe, a politician of nearly 50 years, filed a Declaration of Candidacy with the SBE without his required signature in violation of Virginia Code § 24.2-520. However, the Declaration does include signatures from two individuals claiming that they witnessed McAuliffe sign the Declaration despite his signature appearing nowhere on the face of the document. As a result, McAuliffe’s Declaration should have been rejected by the SBE and Department of Elections.

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, and Terry McAuliffe’s clear violation of the law severely jeopardizes the integrity of our elections in Virginia,” said Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Rich Anderson. “For decades, Terry has used his political connections and proximity to power to avoid consequences for his reckless behavior and disregard for people and laws, but no amount of political favors and back-slapping can refute the fact that McAuliffe is a fraudulent candidate and cannot be Virginia’s next governor.”

McAuliffe recently said he wants to “make life difficult” for the unvaccinated.

Now his candidacy is being made difficult.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Should the witnesses be prosecuted for perjury?

    Morning Sunshine in reply to Milhouse. | August 27, 2021 at 11:34 am

    Old gangster movies taught me to “never witness nuttin”

    JLSpeidel in reply to Milhouse. | August 27, 2021 at 11:45 am

    Those are signed NOTARY statements.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to JLSpeidel. | August 27, 2021 at 2:40 pm

      No they are not signed notary statement(s) as a licensed notary public did not sign the document. The document was signed by “two witnesses” but not a notary public. (Which is all that was needed as either two witnesses OR a notary public’s attestation are required on the document.)

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | August 27, 2021 at 1:18 pm

    Only if they are Republicans.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | August 27, 2021 at 2:37 pm

    Should the witnesses be prosecuted for perjury?

    I’m not sure the “witnesses” can be prosecuted for perjury as there is no, “By sigining this document you declare on penalty of perjury yadda yadda yadda.” statement associated with the signatures. Just that they “acknowledge the document” was signed by the candidate.

    puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | August 28, 2021 at 2:14 am

    I shall simply point out that signature not under oath and proven false is stricken under the common law. So if a document is required to be witnessed, and the signatures of witnesses are shown to have witnessed another signing or to have witnessed no signing at all , then the underlying declaration or testament is subject to statutory reform. Usually a negation, but sometimes otherwise.

“McAuliffe recently said he wants to “make life difficult” for the unvaccinated. Now his candidacy is being made difficult.”

What’s difficult about signing your name?

They will find a court to justify keeping him on the ballot, remember Frank Lautenberg?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to slagothar. | August 27, 2021 at 1:20 pm

    They will just let him cure the problem. A republican of course would not be allowed such a privilege. And would be under investigation as to why they are under the influence of Russians.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to slagothar. | August 27, 2021 at 9:41 pm

    I’m pretty sure that the national GOPe will file an amicus brief to allow McAuliffe to run just to be “nice”.

    Subotai Bahadur

Morning Sunshine | August 27, 2021 at 11:34 am

Old gangster movies taught me to “never witness nuttin”

E Howard Hunt | August 27, 2021 at 11:34 am

I can definitely picture this guy blowing dope at a kinky sex club along with Gavin Newsom and Hunter Biden.

The three of them are right out of central casting as salesmen at a used car lot.

How dare you talk about my future Governor is such terms /s.

He was known as the bag man for the Clintons so he would be bringing the cash to the party for the blow and chicks.

I was peripherally involved is a similar kerfuffle in RI back in the 80s. A candidate for governor, Peter VanDamm, asked me to get a copy of the voter registration card of another candidate, Bruce Sundlun. I went to the Providence city hall (Sundlund’s residence was in Providence) and secured a copy of the registration. What we found was that his signature on the registration (“B. G. Sundlund”) did not match his signature on his candidacy paperts (“Bruce G. Sundlund”), a violation that should have disallowed his candidacy. (Peter was clued to look at Sundlund’s voter registration because another candidate had recently been removed from the ballot for the same reason. She was a Dem, but was interfering with the chances of the party’s preferred candidate, so they saw to it she was removed.)

Peter then complained to the election commission (or whatever the proper oversight body was called) and pointed out the discrepancy and demanded Sundlund’s removal, as state law required the signatures to match. (Sundlun was the Dem’s favored candidate, and in RI at that time, that meant he was going to be governor.) The commission examined the situation and determined that Sundlun would remain on the ballot.

A week later, Peter asked me to get another copy of Sundlun’s voter registration card. I did so. We found that someone had altered the card (in violation of state law – altering a public record) by writing in “ruce” after the “B”. Naturally, nothing was done about this, in spite of complaints. Again, if I recall correctly, there was zero media coverage of these shenanigans.

    Ben Kent in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 27, 2021 at 12:42 pm

    Nice “democracy” you got there in Rhode Island.

    The kind that would make the folks in Venezuela proud.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ben Kent. | August 29, 2021 at 8:13 am

      RI has a reputation for graft and corruption that goes back to before the revolution. Even its residents call it “Little Groady.”

      The Constitution’s “gold and silver” requirement is there because of a RI scammer. Roger Sherman, delegate to the convention who was responsible for the hard currency requirement, had contracted to do work for a Rhode Islander for a fixed sum. After the work was completed, the Rhode Islander paid him in Rhode Island notes, the face value of which satisfied the debt, but the market value of which, being far below the face value, robbed Sherman of a fair exchange. Mr. Sherman thought his contribution to the Constitution would prevent such scamming, but with our Federal Reserve it is now conducted on an industrial scale.

    DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 29, 2021 at 8:15 am

    I see I was inconsistent in the spelling of the candidate’s (and now late former governor of RI) name, Bruce Sundlun.

A simple examination of the facts show that Terry McAuliffe is incapable of making a ‘mark’ on these forms, since the lack of a ‘mark’ is evidenced by the witnesses.

The Friendly Grizzly | August 27, 2021 at 12:32 pm


What Will Hawaiian Judges Do?

Gonna be hard to spin this as mere technicality. The media will try to assist but when you have two folks who signed off attesting to the accuracy of the declaration of candidacy which is incomplete because the supposed candidate didn’t sign his own declaration ….

Life is hard for elites when the rules for the little people get violently inserted where the sun don’t shine. More of this please. Forget to dot an I or cross a T? Tough. Maybe next time you will pay attention to the vast array of laws, ordinances, regulations and edicts the rest of us face daily.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to CommoChief. | August 27, 2021 at 1:36 pm

    Honestly – nothing will happen. They will allow him to cure the discrepancy. If necessary, he will produce another copy of the form, this time filled out correctly, and back dated and the Virginia state government will say, “Oops – sorry, we entered the incorrect form into the record. Our bad!” In any event, all be be forgiven for McAuliffe and the notaries.

    However, there shall be a criminal investigation on how the Republicans gained a copy of this form. It’s public record, you say? Well, maybe, but did the Republicans fill out all the correct paperwork with all the correct signatures to get a copy of this public document? We need to get to the bottom of this burning question and need to investigate how the Republicans got the form, and all potential crimes these Republicans may have committed in the last 50 years.

    Maybe they can hold the Republican candidate in solitary confinement until he talks.

    Anyway, I am sure Google, Facebook, and Twitter have already factchecked the situation and determined that this is a conspiracy against McAuliffe and that he intended to sign it, which is just as good as an actual signature, and so in fact did sign it, and all mention on the internet contrary shall be deleted, as well as the accounts of anyone who posts something contrary to this incontrovertible fact., while those cancelled persons also lose there jobs because, well, they have different opinions and are dangerous to the public order, so they should be glad this is all we shall do to them, but keep complaining and, well, it’s unfortunate, but sometimes bad things happen to people, God forbid.

    That’s my prediction on how this turns out.

      CommoChief in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | August 27, 2021 at 5:19 pm


      Probably, yet even CA kept Newsom’s party affiliation off the recall ballot for a similar filing error. Admittedly there was some bad blood there but even a CA Judge supported the move. Not binding on VA but at least informative to the CT.

    Obama used this type of thing to rid himself of potential opponents.

In view of other cases, the most likely result seems to be a decision that objection is waived as untimely. A court probably rules that technical objection to candidacy at the primary stage has to be made in some manner before the primary, or if immediately following the primary, then only by the second place finisher. At this point, I would expect a laches/estoppel ruling against the complaint.

filiusdextris | August 27, 2021 at 1:43 pm

Clearly he used disappearing ink!

The law cited requires a written declaration and witness signatures or a notarization . There is space on the form for the candidate’s signature but I don’t see that anything that definitely requires the signature for the filing to be valid. In other words it is the “declaration of candidate” that must be “acknowledged’ or “attested to,” not the signature.

The Virginia republican party is a clown show and this will go nowhere.

    Think38 in reply to Rabel. | August 27, 2021 at 3:13 pm

    Here’s the statute:

    § 24.2-520. Declaration of candidacy required.
    A candidate for nomination by primary for any office shall be required to file a written declaration of candidacy on a form prescribed by the State Board. The declaration shall include the name of the political party of which the candidate is a member, a designation of the office for which he is a candidate, and a statement that, if defeated in the primary, his name is not to be printed on the ballots for that office in the succeeding general election. The declaration shall be acknowledged before some officer who has the authority to take acknowledgments to deeds, or attested by two witnesses who are qualified voters of the election district.

    The form has the witnesses saying the form was “subscribed and sworn” before them. Subscribe means to sign. Moreover, the wording of the form is meaningless unless the person signs it. “I … hereby declare…” If the person doesn’t sign, did they declare anything? If the form wasn’t signed, how was the signature witnessed (since it must be witnesses or notarized).

      Rabel in reply to Think38. | August 27, 2021 at 3:35 pm

      You’re right. But I still say it’s going nowhere.

        Think38 in reply to Rabel. | August 27, 2021 at 5:04 pm

        He can play the Democrat card. Never mind that the Democrats used these techniques in 2020 to get as many fringe candidates off the Presidential ballot as they could.

    henrybowman in reply to Rabel. | August 27, 2021 at 5:30 pm

    Unlike Democrat clowns, Republican clowns seem to have no problem signing their names.

Statutory paperwork be rayciss.

    Ben Kent in reply to henrybowman. | August 27, 2021 at 3:31 pm

    Terry McAuliffe is an old white guy. They don’t get any slack in the new Woke world.

    Ironic that Biden, McAullife and other old white men run a party that promotes the neo-racist, anti-white agenda.

      Ben Kent in reply to Ben Kent. | August 27, 2021 at 3:50 pm

      Sorry, forgot to also mention – anti-male and anti-baby-boomer generation.

      Racist, sexist and ageist, the Trifecta of bias – courtesy of wokesters who consider themselves so tolerant and sensitive – but have lost the ability to employ logic and reasoning and therefore have zero self-awareness that their actions actually set America back 75 years.

    Think38 in reply to henrybowman. | August 27, 2021 at 3:42 pm

    White guys usually don’t get to play that card. Unless they are sufficiently woke. McAuliffe might have been at one point, but not so sure today.

“Terry McAuliffe’s clear violation of the law severely jeopardizes the integrity of our elections in Virginia”

Slight disagreement with this statement.

Terry McAuliffe severely jeopardizes the integrity of elections in Virginia.

And elsewhere.

Ohio Historian | August 27, 2021 at 4:14 pm

Watch. Larry Elder will get thrown out in CA because he didn’t file all the right paperwork, but McAwful will be retained because he didn’t.

He can play the Democrat card. Never mind that the Democrats used these techniques in 2020 to get as many fringe candidates off the Presidential ballot as they could.

Based on previous judgments from liberal judges, that laws will be ignored in order to favor Democrats. Just like when Jon Corzine dropped out of the NJ Senate race after the deadline and a judge decided the Dems could have someone else put on the ballot. Laws only apply to the law-abiding. Not to Democrats.