Virginia state office candidates begin submitting signatures to qualify for the ballot
RICHMOND — To qualify for the ballot, candidates for Virginia state office must submit at least 10,000 signatures, including at least 400 of qualified voters from each Congressional district.
Monday marked the first day of ballot signature filing, and a flurry of candidates and campaign staff lugged boxes of signatures to the Virginia Department of Elections. Some staff had been there since 8 a.m., and by noon, people milled around as they waited for the office's single copier to print a receipt with the total number of signatures.
The act of submitting the signatures itself doesn't automatically mean candidates have qualified for the primary ballot. The signatures still need to be reviewed by the parties to make sure they're valid. Candidates will often bring in well over the required number of petitions, because some will almost certainly be thrown out for being insufficiently or improperly filled out.
Still, there are advantages to being first. Assuming they meet the threshold of 10,000 legitimate signatures, candidates who submitted their signatures Monday before noon will have their name appear first on the ballot. Candidates running for the same office who submitted Monday are considered to be 'simultaneous filers,' and they will be entered into a drawing to determine who will appear first.
Virginia Politics | Republicans Amanda Chase and Dave LaRock enter Virginia governor's race
Virginia Politics | Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears launches run for governor in Virginia Beach
Virginia Politics | Spanberger makes her case for governor to Hampton Roads voters
The state offices of governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general are on the ballot this year, as are all 100 House of Delegates seats and some local offices such as sheriff and commonwealth's attorney. The primary is June 17, but early voting begins May 2.
Current Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears is one of several Republicans running for governor this year. She submitted nearly 20,000 signatures, according to her campaign.
'I want to thank the tens of thousands of Virginians who want to keep common sense in the Commonwealth,' said Earle-Sears in a statement. 'With their support, we will win this race. Today just reaffirms that we have got what it takes to make that happen. I am committed to leading our Commonwealth with integrity, vision, and a steadfast dedication to the values that make Virginia exceptional.'
Former Virginia legislators Amanda Chase and Dave LaRock have also announced their intent to run, but have not yet submitted the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot. They have until April 3 to meet the requirement.
Meanwhile, former U.S. Rep. and Democratic candidate for governor Abigail Spanberger submitted more than 40,000 signatures, according to her campaign.
'Virginians deserve a Governor who is not afraid to stand up for them — someone who is not afraid to protect their fundamental freedoms, protect their jobs, protect our public schools, and protect the long-term stability of the Commonwealth's economy,' she said in a statement. 'Thank you to every Virginian who participated in our civic process and demonstrated the strength of our campaign to build a stronger Virginia.'
Candidates in a crowded field for lieutenant governor also submitted signatures Monday. On the Democratic side, State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, Prince William County School Board chair Babur Lateef, attorney Victor Salgado, State Sen. Aaron Rouse and former Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney all said they submitted at least 10,000 signatures. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors member Pat Herrity, a Republican candidate for the office, also submitted signatures Monday. John Reid, a conservative radio host and Republican candidate for lieutenant governor submitted a partial filing, though a spokesperson for his campaign said he has the 10,000 signatures and will be submitting additional signatures in the next two weeks.
Democrats Shannon Taylor, Henrico County's commonwealth's attorney, and Jay Jones, a former state delegate from Norfolk, submitted signatures for the attorney general's race. Republican and current Attorney General Jason Miyares also submitted signatures.
Kate Seltzer, 757-713-7881, kate.seltzer@virginiamedia.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans tee up tweaks to Trump megabill
House Republican leaders on Tuesday teed up changes to the 'big, beautiful bill' of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that are slated to come up for a vote of the full chamber this week. The tweaks come after the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the sprawling package and identified provisions that do not comply with the upper chamber's procedural requirements for using the budget reconciliation process, which allows Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster and approve the legislation by simple majority. Leaving the language in the bill risks losing the ability to pass the bill under budget reconciliation. The parliamentarian's process is known as the 'Byrd bath.' One House Republican described the House tweaks as preventing 'fatalities' from remaining in the bill when it hits the Senate. 'There are a small number, I mean, could count them on one hand, of fatalities that have been identified by the parliamentarian,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'Of course we can't transmit the bill with fatalities so those fatalities will be cured through a rule this week.' While the lower chamber is planning to strip those terms from the bill, party leaders are not giving up on the policy: House Minority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Senate Republicans will fight for the provisions when the bill hits the floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're gonna try it again on the Senate floor,' Scalise told reporters. 'We disagree with the parliamentarian… but you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' The full House will vote on approving those changes this week, with the adjustments tacked on to a 'rule' resolution — a procedural measure that governs debate for legislation. The rule making the fixes to the megabill will also tee up the terms of debate for unrelated legislation to claw back $9.4 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. It advanced out of the Rules Committee on a party-line, 8-4 vote Tuesday evening. Rule resolutions are typically passed along party lines and are tests of party loyalty, but Republicans sometimes buck leadership and vote against the procedural rules in protest of process or policy. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — one of two House Republicans who voted no on the bill when it passed the Hoise last month — voiced his disapproval of making the changes to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' via a rule in a post on X. 'Nancy Pelosi once said the House needed to vote for a bill to find out what was in it. Today @SpeakerJohnson said 'hold my beer.' He just announced he's using the Rules Committee to change the text of the Big Beautiful Bill a week after we voted on it!' Massie said. While House Republicans have already passed the bill in the lower chamber they have not officially transmitted it to the Senate — enabling them to make the fixes via the rule mechanism. Republicans are using the special budget reconciliation to push the megabill through Congress while avoiding the Senate's 60-vote cloture rule, enabling them to pass the bill on party lines without support from Democrats. The tweaks in the House come as party leaders are holding out hope that they can enact the package by July 4, which was their self-imposed deadline. Trump, however, opened the door to the process blowing past that timeline, saying 'if takes a little longer, that's okay.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact-check: Trump's speech at Fort Bragg contained lies and conspiracy theories about LA
As Los Angeles braced for the arrival of new federal troops, Donald Trump on Tuesday reiterated a slew of falsehoods and misleading statements about the tensions in the US's second-largest city. In an address to troops at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina, Trump spread conspiracy theories, maligned California's Democratic leaders and misleadingly portrayed protesters as part of a 'foreign invasion'. The comments came as the city of angels prepared for the arrival of hundreds of new troops tasked with protecting immigration enforcement officials, after protests against immigration raids kicked off on Friday. The initial deployment of 300 national guard troops, federalized by Trump over the objections of California leaders, is expected to quickly expand to 4,000. An additional 700 marines began arriving on Tuesday. Here are some of Trump's claims, fact-checked. In his deeply partisan speech at Fort Bragg, Trump made the baseless claim that the protests against immigration raids in LA are being led by paid 'rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion'. The comments echoed accusations by top Trump adviser and speechwriter Stephen Miller, who on Sunday wrote on social media that 'foreign nationals, waving foreign flags' were 'rioting', and an unfounded allegation by Kristi Noem, Donald Trump's homeland security secretary, who earlier this week accused Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum of 'encouraging violent protests'. Sheinbaum on Tuesday said the allegation is 'absolutely false'. Some protesters in recent days have waved the flags of Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador – as well as flags that combine the banners of those nations with the US flag – in a show of ethnic pride and solidarity with immigrants in their community now targeted by immigration officials. Trump also referenced a viral conspiracy theory that pallets of bricks were left out for protesters to hurl at police officers in LA. 'They came in with bricks,' Trump said. This claim was made repeatedly in 2020, during the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. In June 2020, the week after Floyd was murdered, the Trump White House boosted the viral conspiracy theory by releasing a compilation of video clips posted on social media by people who believed, wrongly, that piles of bricks they came across had been planted there by 'Antifa and professional anarchists' to inspire violence at protests. Related: How can Trump use the national guard on US soil? Within hours, after reporters showed that those clips had been of piles of bricks from construction projects that were in process before the protests started, the White House deleted the video from its official social media accounts, without apology or explanation, but only after it had been viewed more than a million times on Twitter alone. Trump also claimed California's Democratic elected officials paid protesters to attack federal officers, something for which there is no evidence at all. 'In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they're incompetent and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists. They're engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law, and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders,' the president said without reference to reality. That conspiracy theory was later repeated as fact in a social media post from the department of homeland security with the text: 'California politicians must call off their rioting mob.'
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns Show Caption Hide Caption See how Los Angeles protests intensified over one weekend What started as a small protest over immigration raids on Friday ballooned into large demonstrations throughout the weekend. Here's what happened. President Donald Trump is sending the military into American streets in provocative ways, with a deployment to quell protests and a massive military parade, projecting power and celebrating troops while raising alarms among critics. Trump has long talked about wielding the military more aggressively for domestic purposes. He clashed with military leaders who resisted some of his requests during his first administration. Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday. 'I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority,' said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president. Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a 'dictator.' Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order. Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as 'lawless' and said, 'President Trump believes in law and order.' "If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office. In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback. After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats – signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as 'dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional.' Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as 'scary.' Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports. With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider. During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who 'we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism. 'I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants.' Mulling the Insurrection Act Some Legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment. 'It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically. Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say. 'The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad… something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it,' said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects 'a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs,' Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said. 'If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties,' Goitein added. 'It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself.' Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King. Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences. 'It could be corrosive,' Banks said. Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted. 'Can't you just shoot them' Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as 'probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief.' During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd – an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police – Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote. 'Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something,' Trump said, according to Esper. 'I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction,' Esper wrote. 'I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome.' Esper wrote that Trump eventually 'backed down.' His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military. Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were 'not what the United States does – it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do,' according to Esper. The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade." 'There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it,' Bolton said. Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force." "It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change."
