I corrected the article that you mentioned. Hopefully these fine ladies and gentlemen if not Tom Kopko will redress the theft of the nomination by Gill’s overvoting minions.

Because sometimes there is a bigger issue at stake.

I think it is highly unlikely that Gill will be overturned as party nominee. However, that doesn’t mean that the process was clean and honest — there are things that took place in the convention that need to see the light of day. People need to know what happened. And they need to know that a lot of it was not legal. And that there ARE eyes watching from now on. LCRC seems to have learned that little lesson without having to go thru this exercise.

I left out the end quote on the first post. That whole post is a quote, with the exception of my intro paragraph.

Loudoun also sent out these nifty cards on which delegates were to RSVP. Again, possible Voting Rights Act violation. That is not a part of the approved process. RPV put the hammer down on that too. It doesn’t not matter whether LCRC’s “intent” was noble or not - it is a deviation from approved procedure, and therefore prohibited.

As I understand it, there was a PWC delegate called and questioned about his/her pledge to support Republicans - and then subsequently disqualified. That is violation of the Voting Rights Act. Our approved procedure does not entail calling people up and interrogating them about their allegiances. If the committee questioned this person’s sincerity, the only recourse would be to follow the rules and require the pledge to be stated in open meeting. If the person in question then refused to do that, then he/she could and should be disqualified.

“Section 5 of the Act requires preclearance of changes in “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.” Section 14 defines the terms “vote” or “voting” to include “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this subchapter, or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(1) (1988 ed.).

Although a narrow reading of the text of the Voting Rights Act might have confined the coverage of §5 to changes in election practices that limit individual voters’ access to the ballot in jurisdictions having authority to register voters, …, the Court has squarely rejected that construction. Shortly after the statute was passed, the Court thoroughly reviewed its legislative history and found that Congress intended §5 to have “the broadest possible scope” reaching “any state enactment which altered the election law of a covered State in even a minor way.” … We expressly held that “§5, like the constitutional provisions it is designed to implement, applies to all entities having power over any aspect of the electoral process within designated jurisdictions, not only to counties or to whatever units of state government perform the function of registering voters.”…

We have consistently construed the Act to require preclearance of any change in procedures or practices that may bear on the “effectiveness” of a vote cast in “any primary, special, or general election.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(c)(1). Rules concerning candidacy requirements and qualifications, we have held, fall into this category because of their potential to “undermine the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect [particular] candidates.” … Changes in the composition of the electorate that votes for a particular office–that is, situations that raise the specter of vote dilution–also belong to this class because they could “nullify [voters’] ability to elect the candidate of their choice just as would prohibiting some of them from voting.” 393 U. S., at 569. This nexus between the changed practice and its impact on voting in the general election has been a recurring theme in our cases interpreting the Act. See Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 397 (1991) (”Any abridgment of the opportunity of members of a protected class to participate in the political process inevitably impairs their ability to influence the outcome of an election”). In its reenactments and extensions of the Act, moreover, Congress has endorsed these broad constructions of §5. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 97-417, pp. 6-7, and n. 8 (1982).

—–
Delegate qualifications are in fact more closely tied to the voting process than practices that may cause vote dilution, whose coverage under §5 we have repeatedly upheld. Virginia, like most States, has effectively divided its election into two stages, the first consisting of the selection of party candidates and the second being the general election itself. See United States v. Classic, 313 U. S., at 316. Exclusion from the earlier stage, as two appellants in this case experienced, does not merely curtail their voting power, but abridges their right to vote itself. To the excluded voter who cannot cast a vote for his or her candidate, it is all the same whether the party conducts its nomination by a primary or by a convention open to all party members except those kept out by the filing fee. Each is an “integral part of the election machinery.” Id., at 318.

—–
The text of §2 also makes apparent the Act’s intended coverage of nonprimary nomination methods. Section 2, which bans any “voting qualification or prerequisite” that discriminates on account of race or color, considers a violation to have occurred if “the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of [groups protected by the Act] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). Under the broad sweep of this language, exclusion from a nominating convention would qualify as a violation. Section 2 “adopts the functional view of `political process’ ” and applies to “any phase of the electoral process.” S. Rep. 97-417, p. 30, and n. 120 (1982).

I hope Julie kept copies of the entire package of evidence. A LOT of editing can happen in 48 hours and, given Kopko’s previous performances, “trustworthy” is not in either his character or job description.

Your 10:34 comment is absolutely incorrect.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that party contests are governed by the Voting Rights Act.

And in Virginia that is a very tight standard. Every process and procedure must be in writing and must be precleared.

Deviation from approved procedure can be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

Fedup, how would I go about filing papers in Federal Court and PWC Circuit Court? Do I need an attorney to do it? $$$?

Please advise.

Barbara Cummings here posted and said that she saw someone from another precinct vote in Chinn after having a discussion with Faisal Gill’s son.

So, if someone’s civil rights were violated because of the way Kopko ran the nominating process, there is a case. There also must be at least one delegate who would have a civil claim against Kopko. Then the voting documents and his records on his financial arrangements with Gill’s campaign could finally see the light of day through a civil case.

If I had been a delegate in any one of the 3 precincts in question, I would have the papers filed in both Federal Court and PWC Circuit Court already.