There will be a presidential primary election in Virginia March 6, but not all of the candidates will be on it. Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be on the ballot, pending any grand legal challenges from other candidates.

Under existing Virginia law, a candidate must have received 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each of our Congressional districts. And while stricter than many states, this does not seem like that high a hurdle to reach for candidates claiming to speak for people nationwide. Failure to meet the goal seems damning for those claiming the organizational skill to run the country.

Even so, the fact that two candidates – Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry – were disqualified after review of the signatures may mean that the process itself needs review. However, that review should come in the cold light of day after the furor of the current political process has moved down the calendar. Laws designed to address a specific situation have a habit of mucking up the works of the political system as a whole.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli initially came out in favor of an immediate call to change the law. He later withdrew the proposal after being reminded that he would be responsible for defending the commonwealth in the lawsuits from those candidates seeking to be added to the ballot.

The uproar over the signatures and the names on Virginia’s primary ballot are signs that many Republican voters aren’t yet sold on any particular candidate. If one pays attention to polls, this doesn’t seem to be unique to the commonwealth.

Virginia has seldom been a lynchpin in the national nomination strategy, given that it occurs so far downstream of the major votes. Chances are that by March, one candidate will have enough momentum and electoral votes to take the nomination. But if not, the bad feelings over Virginia primary voters not having a full selection are likely to grow.

It seems likely that someone will try to put forth legislation to change the requirements in the upcoming General Assembly session. We should be cautious of such an attempt. Would lowering the bar in future elections make the contest more fair or simply open the contest up to anyone looking for a microphone and media exposure?

And a preview of 2013
This is not the only reversal Cuccinelli has announced in the past few weeks. In 2008, Cuccinelli was in a competitive three-way race for the Attorney General nomination against former federal prosecutor John Brownlee and Arlington lawyer Dave Foster. Foster drew criticism for declining to guarantee that he would not seek to challenge Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling for governor in 2013. Both Brownlee and Cuccinelli said that they had no intention of running for governor in four years.

Convention voters at the time took this very seriously as Lt. Governor Bolling had graciously stepped aside in favor of then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell. Coming off the 2008 Barack Obama victory in Virginia, the state GOP was taking nothing for granted and breathed a sigh of relief over avoiding a potentially ugly McDonnell-Bolling nomination contest. Support for Bolling was political capital at the time.

But three years is a long time, and Cuccinelli has now announced his intention to run for the gubernatorial nomination against Bolling next year. Gaining popularity among Tea Party and far-right conservatives (not that Bolling is a moderate), Cuccinelli feels it’s his year.

The idea of an anointing rather than an issue-based, hard-fought primary never sits well with us and a Bolling-Cuccinelli matchup will certainly provide two strong options for Republican voters. Even so, one of the positive traits Cuccinelli possesses is his intellectual consistency on the issues. Should he continue to run for governor, he’ll need to address this turnaround straight on rather that saying he refuses to “stifle” himself.