Illinois Ballot Access Laws On Trial
Not exactly, but Friday at 9:30 am Lee vs. Keith (Illinois State Board of Elections) (05-4355) goes before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the number of signatures independent candidates need for the General Assembly (which are the most in the world not to mention the US) and challenging the deadline for independent candidates (the earliest in the US). Let's hope sound logic and evidence prevails.
It's remarkably sad how Lisa Madigan and her office are arguing in favor of some of the worst ballot access requirements in the US and the world for independents. If you like reading 100+ pages of legal briefs, go for it. It looks to me like the plaintiff attorney is ripping Madigan's arguments to shreds, but I'm more than biased. We'll see.
Plaintiff Filing - 370kb
Defense Reply- 160kb
Plaintiff Rebuttal - 140kb
There are a lot of arguments going back and forth in the briefs that are interesting, but a few issues stand out for me.
Both sides cite the Stevenson case from 1986, when Adlai Stevenson III won the Democratic primary but didn't want to be on the same ticket as the two LaRouche Democrats that won the primary for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State. (Yes, LaRouche is a self-proclaimed Democrat and ran for President in Illinois' primary as a Democrat in 2004) Stevenson then wanted to run as an independent, but the deadline had already passed since independents must file the same day for the General Election as the Rs and Ds must file for the Primary. The courts said no to Stevenson running as an independent, so he ended up forming the Solidarity Party to run for Governor.
Madigan's office says Stevenson is the precedence for the early deadline for independents in Illinois. The Plaintiff says, Stevenson was a unique circumstance and that the ruling acknowledged it was unique. Stevenson's problem was not created by the deadline, his problem was created by his own political party's primary.
From Madigan's office, we get this doosey (page 18 of the pdf)."The Supreme Court has held that “the States’ interest permits them to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two-party system,” and that the Constitution allows States “to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two-party system.” Timmons, 520 U.S. at 367. If States may favor the two major parties over minor parties and independents, then they certainly may take the lesser step of favoring major and minor parties over independents."
Yes, right here in America, where we have a state Constitution that says "All elections shall be free and equal", we have Attorney General Lisa Madigan thumbing her nose at democratic elections and our state Constitution by arguing if government can favor the two power parties and discriminate against minor parties, you can therefor discriminate even worse against independents. The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past in their rulings regarding "other" candidates, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean Lisa Madigan should use those rulings to defend political discrimination in our ballot access laws.
Madigan's office also argues that Illinois requirements are no worse than Georgia's. But they fail to recognize some key differences between Georgia and Illinois. Georgia requires signatures from 5% of registered voters in aperiod of 180 days. Illinois requires signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast for that office is the last election in the period of 90 days.
In this Lee case, it was based on 2002 election returns with less than 60% turnout. If it were based on 2004 election returns, the 10% of votes cast would exceed 5% of registered voters in many State Senate and State Representative districts in Illinois. In Illinois, if you sign an independent petition you are forbidden from voting in the primary. That is not the case in Georgia and it reduces the potential for signatures in Illinois. In Illinois, you may not sign an independent petition and another candidate's petition for the same office, which you can in Georgia. Looking at the overall picture, no one can argue Georgia's requirements are harder than Illinois' for the General Assembly. The Georgia requirements cited are actually for US House.
The Plaintiff argues that no independent candidate has been able to get on the ballot in 25 years, but Madigan's office argues that a few were on the ballot in 1980. Current requirements were put in place in 1979. They don't state, however, whether those candidates met all the requirements or if they just snuck by without being challenged. I don't know if they met the requirements or not, but suspect they just weren't challenged.
Madigan's office also strongly argues that Lee did not have to run as an independent and had the option of running as a "new party" candidate with the lower signature requirements and later filing deadline. The Plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court has recognized the difference between independents and new parties and that forcing an independent to form a new political party is contrary to First Amendment rights of association.
The Plaintiff argues the Supreme Court has ruled against filing deadlines 229 days prior to the general election, which is less than Illinois' dealine of 323 days prior to the general election. Madigan's office argues that was for a Presidential race (Anderson in 1980) and shouldn't apply to the states' offices. The Court has also ruled against deadlines 218 and 270 days before the general election.
What are Illinois' requirements for independents wanting to run the General Assembly?
First their filing deadline is the same day the Rs and Ds file for the primary, which is in the middle of December the year preceding the general election. They have 90 days to collect signatures.
Independents must gather valid signatures from 10% to 16% of the number of votes cast in the previous election for that district. In 2006, the average for State Rep. was 4,534 valid signatures. Rs and Ds need 500 or 0 if they are slated. It was 300 until Michael Madigan and the Dems decided to make it harder for challengers in the primary starting this year.
For State Senate the average was 6,220. Rs and Ds need 1,000 or 0 if they are slated. It was 600 until this year.
The deadline for independents is the earliest of any state in the US. The signature requirements are the highest of any state in the US, and, according to Ballot Access News Editor Richard Winger;
"Outside of Illinois, no other jurisdiction in the world requires petitions for parties or candidates in excess of 5% of the number of registered voters."The implications of Lee vs. Keith may seem trivial and unimportant to most, but consider the following information before siding with Lisa Madigan, her father, and most everyone in the General Assembly.
In a New York Times interview, Iranian president Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, very credibly defended Iran's elections by pointing out the imperfections right here in America.
Question: The criticism that I hear both from the inside and outside the country is that Iran has a veneer of democracy but the tools are not there so that everybody can use it. Will there ever be a democracy in Iran where all ideologies are allowed to compete openly?Iran is far from democracy, but Illinois hardly allows all ideologies to compete freely. Putin in Russia has also cited restrictive ballot access laws in America when President Bush scolded Putin about Putin recently making it harder to get on the ballot in Russia.
Answer: We think it is the opposite and there is only a veneer of democracy in the Untied States and we have a real democracy. Election laws are so complicated in your country that people have no choice but to vote for one of the candidates who are with one of the two parties. The electoral system in U.S. has put the election out of the control of people and independent groups.
Question: Throughout your presidency and that of President Khatami there has been a constant tension between the reformists and conservatives. Mr. Khatami was unable to put through many of the reforms in terms of freedom of speech and other civil rights. I know you had similar problems during your administration. What would you do differently to allow those kinds of reforms to move forward?
Answer: Isn't there tension in the United States between the two major political parties? No other viable candidate can get anywhere except for the one who is with one of these two parties. The tension between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush was more than the tension in Iran. People of the U.S. have no choice but to choose between one of these two candidates. And, In Britain, which is one of your allies, there is constant tension between the conservatives and the labor party. They drag one another to court. I think it is more decent in Iran than in any other country.
What implications will Illinois laws have in Afghanistan and Iraq 10 or 20 years down the road? What good would all those purple fingers in Iraq be if the majority Shiite parties made it almost impossible for minority Sunni, Kurd, and Christian prospective candidates to run for office? Five years from now the majority Shiite parties could make it 30 times harder for competition to get on the ballot and accurately say that they are in line with a U.S. state like Illinois.
Even if The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't see the importance of free and equal elections or the sense of truly democratic elections where ideas can freely compete, the General Assembly should immediately change our worst in the US and world ballot access laws as soon as possible. Certainly they should change them before they again have to change the deadline in Illinois for Republicans to be on the ballot for President in 2008, like they did in 2004.
In one case, we have the Illinois Democrats going along with changing the deadline for President Bush to be on the ballot in Illinois for 2004 by moving it to less than 65 days before the General Election, but here we have Illinois Democrats saying a deadline of 323 days before the general election is perfectly fine. Give us a break and change the name to Anti-Democratic Party already.
If you can't trust your Leaders to hold free and equal elections, what can you trust them with?
Sorry for the length, but if there was a Read More category I would've used it.
11 comments:
Illinois is one of the WORST ballot access states in the country. The 25,000 signature requirement is a JOKE a sick joke.
Lawyers like Mike Kasper and James Nally are like oppressors of minorities and the unconnected in destroying constitutional rights.
If you believe a law is bad, you go to the legislature to change it, not the courts. You go to the courts if you believe a law is unconstitutional. If the AG's office believes a law is constitutional, she has no choice but to defend it in court, since she doesn't legislate; it's not her job to decide if the legislature did a wise thing, only a legal thing.
The elections law ARE unconstitutional. 25,0000 signatures to get on the ballot for Mayor??!!!! There is a constitutional right to ballot access. All of these technicalities and politically connected shark lawyers trying to hurt people and knock them off the ballot. DISGUSTING.
Mr. Schnorf, here you have a case where the State Attorney General is defending the actions that her father has rammed through the state legislature. Therefore, her actions (or inactions as the case may be) are legitimate subjects for public scrutiny.
In the meantime, everyone has seemed to overlooked the most outrageous of the examples regarding the petition requirements for independents and third party candidates. That would be for would-be candidates for judgeships, particularly the Resident Circuit Judge seats in small Downstate counties.
Here is an example. This fall there is a judicial race for the 4th Circuit Resident Circuit Judgeship in tiny Jasper County (2000 Census population 10,117). If an attorney wanted to run for that post as either an independent or a third-party candidate, that candidate would need 25,000 valid petition signatures, or about two and a half times the total population of that county! That is not a requirement; it is an outright ban, one that is blatantly discriminatory.
I hope the 7th Circuit strikes down these obscene requirements and sends our legislative leaders a clear message.
RANDALL SHERMAN
Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government
If the election laws are unconstitutional, why has no court declared them so? By the way, are you sure those ballot access requirements were "rammed through" while Mike Madigan was Speaker? I think they go back at least 20 years.
anon - Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has uphelp the 25,000 valid signature requirement for statewide races. That one will have to be changed with legislation.
Steve - no court has ever upheld a petition signature requirement of more than 5% of registered voters, which Illinois has. No court has ever upheld a petition deadline of 323 days before the general election, which Illinois has. Madigan's office is trying to keep laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional time and time again.
Years of efforts have been made to try to get the GA to change our election laws. I've personally faxed, mailed, phoned, hand delivered, and talked to every GA member multiple times about our ballot access laws the past 5 years. Bills have been introduced but Michael Madigan won't let them go anywhere.
HB758 in the last session would have set new party and independent signature requirements at double what the Rs and Ds need. That went nowhere but then MMadigan decided to up the requirements for Rs and Ds in the primary and gets it done without debate. There was no problem with primary requirements before, no one was calling for reform there, ballots weren't cluttered with primary candidates, and no legislation had ever been introduced to change those requirements. So shy did Madigan throw that into the Illinois HAVA legislation? The only sense it makes is for further incumbent protection or just in case HB758 went somewhere.
The man is evilly anti-democratic, especially when you know he changed the deadline to less than 65 days for President Bush who ignored the deadline in the books, and refuses to even talk about the 323 day deadline for independents.
Lisa Madigan took an oath to uphold the Illinois Constitution that says "All elections shall be free and equal". In this brief she argues major parties can be favored over minor parties and favored even more over indepedents. That is certainly fair game for public scrutiny and criticism. There is no law forbidding Madigan's office from walking into the court and saying, 'the plaintiff is right Judge, these laws are unconstitutional". That probably would have saved her office some budget money and resources to use on political hiring scandals.
And you know, some don't care much at all what the Courts have ruled in the past, because it becomes a common sense issue of what is morally just and right. Things true leaders are supposed to notice and do something about. Illinois has the worse election laws IN THE WORLD. How much more obvious can it get? Afterall, slavery and women not being able to vote were Constitutional at one time, and we had politicians sucessfully maintaining and prolonging the sick status quo on those issues just like Lisa Madigan is doing now.
anon - the Chicago city requirement was changed last year from 25,000 to 12,500 valid signatures. Still the highest of any major city in the world, but they felt some pressure to reduce it and did it. I don't believe any other major US city has a requirement more than 2,500 and most are 1,000 or less.
The legacy of corruption in Illinois can certainly be tied to our election laws. We have R and D politicians that use their power in government to do things to protect their incumbency and help their campaigns. At the least, they sit by and watch others do it without raising a voice or lifting a finger. Election laws are just one area that includes using state employees on campaigns, state resources on campaigns, state money for feel good praise the incumbent pork, hiring campaign workers to government jobs, and the list goes on.
I don't think there's been a better time to recognize the need for more political competition than right now. It's too bad Lisa Madigan doesn't recognize what any true and worthwhile leader would. The same goes for everyone in the GA, except Boland, Froehlich, and Franks who put their names on HB758.
Randall - I had no idea about the judges, but I can't say I'm a bit surprised. Are those the new judge positions where they didn't bother to address the petition requirements for "Others"? I remember reading something about that in the 2006 Campaign Guide. Sounds like someone should file one signature and challenge it. If you can send me any more info on this and the deadline hasn't passed already, I just may be able to find someone to challenge this law too. Illinois Democrats certainly don't care and won't do anything about it until they are forced to.
Steve - the election laws I'm referring to for independents have been ruled unconstitutional (eventually) every time they've been challenged in the US. Illinois' for the GA have never been challenged. When I found that out, I helped plan this lawsuit. The rules for independents were put in place in 1979 when we changed from 3 member districts.
The election laws for judges Randall is referring to, I think, are for the new judge positions put in place last year, and yes MMadigan rammed that through. They didn't bother to look at, or just ignored the election laws for "other" candidates for those positions.
My point is, the laws to which you object must still be constitutional in Illinois, no court in Illinois having overturned them. That would almost necessarily mean such laws have not been overturned by a federal appellate court in any other jusrisdiction within our appellate district, or that decision would probably be binding on Illinois. Ergo, the law is constitutional in Illinois until overturned by some court of competent jusrisdiction binding on Illinois. The AG enforces laws, not makes them. She is in court upholding a law that was properly passed by the GA and approved by a Governor, which is her constitutional responsibility. Can't you see the anarchy that would occur if elected officials only had to uphold laws they agreed with or thought were wise. So, I wish you would stop saying the law in Illinois is unconstitutional; unless there's some piece of information you're not sharing with us, it's not! If it were you wouldn't be where you are in the current case. You would be in court asking the court to enforce an already binding decision.
Steve - I'm not a lawyer so I can't say I follow exactly what your point is. Seems like semantics to me. Many laws are later struck down as unconstitutional, and I'm comfortable calling them unconstitutional before a ruling is made.
Illinois' signature requirements for independents had never been challenged in Illinois courts before. However, the US Supreme Court has always struck down requirements of more than 5% of registered voters. That is the only "line in the sand" we have as precedence. Some districts require more than 5% some don't. There is not an identical case that the US Supreme Court has ruled on, but the fact that some districts are more than 5% falls within Supreme Court precedent. I believe since there isn't an identical case, there isn't a binding decision to enforce so this is based on precedence. Now when/if this ruling is decided in our favor, then a lawsuit would go forward trying to enforce the binding decision.
Illinois is using the Stevenson ruling to try to confuse previous US Supreme Court precedence. Stevenson didn't further his case becuase he didn't have time to wait for a ruling before the election. The judges in that ruling even said that ruling should not be used as precedence for the independent deadlines and that other plaintiffs likely would have a better argument.
According to previous US Supreme Court rulings, our ballot access laws for independents, which are the WORST IN THE WORLD, are unconstitutional, regardless if there has been an identical case or not.
"Can't you see the anarchy that would occur if elected officials only had to uphold laws they agreed with or thought were wise."
You mean like the deadline in election law for Presidential candidates to be listed on the ballot in Illinois that Bush ignored in 2004 and the RNC is ignoring again for 2008? Or maybe you mean Shakman and Rutan laws that have been ignored by elected officials right and left in Illinois? Yes, it appears at the elected official level in Illinois we have anarchy where politicians too often get away with whatever they want to maintain power regardless of the laws or common sense morals. They've been getting away with the worst in the world ballot access laws to protect their power for far too long and it's about time someone called them on it. I don't believe Lisa Madigan's oath to uphold the Illinois Constitution said anything like "but only if there is already a binding decision" or "but bad legislation takes precedence over the Constitution".
"All elections shall be free and equal"
Article III. Section 3
Lisa Madigan is arguing that because courts let them make it unequal for minor parties it is then acceptable to make it even more unequal for independent candidates. Seems to me like legislators and courts have created the anarchy, not regular citizens who know what the meaning of the words free and equal are.
Like with the Thompson building, Lisa Madigan could have issued an opinion that these election laws are unconstitutional. She didn't try to defend that legislation, so the argument she has to defend legislation is pretty moot in my opinion.
Call it constitutional until the ruling if you must, but I'm not going to since I know what free and equal means. Regardless of that label, these worst in the world ballot access laws are a disgrace and anyone trying to defend them is not an ethical leader that can be trusted.
If you like multiple parties so much, move to England or some other country with a parliamentary system.
You are changing nothing here, and I am reminded of the term, "The rage of the drowning man."
Classic unintelligent response. If you don't like it leave. If there were more people like you anonymous, we wouldn't have to move to England, we'd still be ruled by her.
The reality is that things won't change quickly enough for us to have free access anytime soon. If you want to help get another choice this fall, help the Greens get on the ballot by signing the petition, or print one out at www.ilgp.org. The Illinois Green Party is running a full slate of candidates for the statewide offices. Regardless of whether you'll vote Green or not, you can help us get another choice on the ballot.
The Greens, so far, have gotten the 25,000 signatures necessary. What is really aggravating is that the Democrats will most likely challenge those signatures, because they do not want people to have another choice this fall. So we're trying to get 45,000 signatures - and we have less than two weeks left!
I also have to say that it is disappointing how many times I hear someone tell me "we don't need any more choices" or "i like the two parties we have, thanks." I don't think the legislature will change the law anytime soon so long as their constituents are saying that.
Post a Comment