Not that this is a big surprise or anything, but Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is ending another year as AG just as he's behaved his entire term in office: in a hyper-political and ultra-partisan manner that has been, and continues to be, a disgrace to his office.

In the current case, Cuccinelli has inserted himself into an intra-Republican-party dispute (over access to the Republican presidential primary ballot here in the Commonwealth), one that he certainly has a right to have an opinion on as a private citizen, but also that he would be wise - if wisdom were one of his virtues, which it clearly is not - to keep a low profile on, at least in his role as AG.

I also find it fascinating and ironic that all of a sudden this staunch "conservative" has become a big fan of an activist judiciary, and/or of a legislature telling the state party how to run its own affairs. On this topic, even as the AG's office works to defend Virginia in court, the AG himself keeps talking and talking about it, expressing his view "our system is deficient" (he suddenly came to this realization a few days ago, apparently), that "Virginia owes her citizens a better process," and that "We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly."

Of course, it might just be poor political judgment on Cuccinelli's part to mouth off on a subject that he's in the middle of litigating, but that in and of itself does not appear to be a legal problem. It is, however, another kind of problem, insofar as Cuccinelli's supposed to be acting professionally, in his capacity as the Attorney General of Virginia, but is simultaneously demonstrating (yet again) that he's far too partisan to effectively do that very thing.

[...]

UPDATE #2: Doug Mataconis explains why what Cuccinelli wants to do here is almost certainly not going to work.

In order for a law to become effective immediately upon signature by the Governor, it would have to be passed by supermajorities in both houses of General Assembly, not just any supermajority, but a 4/5ths supermajority...the State Board of Elections has already said that the ballots for the March 6th primary will be printed by January 9th, two days before the legislature convenes. Additionally, as a matter of law, absentee and military ballots must be ready to be mailed no later than January 21, 2012, ten days after the legislature convenes. Absent what would essentially amounts to unanimous consent, as well as an agreement to skip the normal committee process, it would be next to impossible for the legislature to pass a law and the Governor to sign it in time for the SBOE to be able to do the job it is required to do under the law.

Either Ken Cuccinelli doesn't know any of this, in which case he's incompetent, or he knows it full well and is simply posturing politically. My guess is the latter, but I certainly wouldn't rule out the former.

So, as you probably know by now, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has rejected the attempts of four Republican't candidates - Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum - to use liberal judicial activism sue to get their way on the Virginia Republican't primary ballot. That's not surprising, but the reasoning of the court is interesting. Click here for the complete ruling. A few key points:

1. The plaintiffs definitely have legal standing to sue, so the case is fine on that ground.
2. According to the court, Virginia's residency requirement for petition gatherers is likely to be declared unconstitutional, so the plaintiffs are on strong ground there.
3. The 10,000-signature requirement is found not to be a legal problem. According to the court, "No one can seriously argue that the rule is unduly burdensome." The plaintiffs would fail on that argument.
4. The court definitely finds that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm from not being able to appear on Virginia's Republican primary ballot.
5. The public interest "weighs heavily in favor of the plaintiffs," as voters should have the "ability to cast a ballot for the candidate of her choice."
6. However, despite several strong arguments for the plaintiffs, their case was thrown out. Why? Because of something I'd never heard of previously: the "equitable doctrine of laches." This doctrine holds that if a plaintiff has "slept on its rights" by waiting too long to seek relief. As the court writes:

The plaintiffs could have challenged the Virginia law [many months ago]. Instead, they waited until after the time to gather petitions had ended and they had lost the political battle to be on the ballot; then, on the eve of the printing of absentee ballots, they decided to challenge Virginia's laws. In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair.

In other words: Perry, Gingrich, Hunstman and Santorum are sore losers, emphasis on the word "losers." They failed to get on the ballot, then suddenly decided Virginia's rules were unfair, then came crying for some judicial activism (which they usually decry) on their behalf. For all of that heaping bowl of FAIL, according to the court, Perry/Gingrich/et al. deserve 50 "laches" with a wet noodle. Actually, the court didn't say that, but I thought it was a fun play on words, so what the heck. :)