"David Lee of Heyworth is a winner."
I've known that since I met David, but it's nice to see the Bloomington Pantagraph start out an editorial with those words.
But this editorial's suggestion for a solution doesn't go nearly far enough.
Article III., Section 3. "All elections shall be free and equal."
If the Democrats and Republicans want unequal election laws then they should have to amend the state constitution that they swore to defend and uphold. Anything short of equal ballot access laws is a violation of the spirit, if not the intent, of our state constitution.
Illinois has been holding illegal elections that violate our 1st and 14th Amendment rights for 26 years now. I would love to find out exactly who still in the General Assembly voted for these unconstitutional election laws. I'm betting Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. both did since they were around when the laws were put in place.
It's funny how many Illinois Democrats are demanding President Bush be impeached for violating the US Constitution, yet I haven't heard one word out of them about their own leaders' violation of the US Constitution. Obviously, they are more interested in politics than they are in the principles of our Constitution. So I'll speak up for them.
Michael Madigan, Emil Jones Jr., and anyone else who has voted for, supported, and refused to reform our illegal election laws should resign immediately for violating all Illinois voters' right to democratic elections.
This isn't the trivial matter that all the apologists will have you believe. Our US Constitution is the core of our republic and truly democratic elections are absolutely essential to choosing our government representatives.
I've been saying this for years now and will continue to until it sinks in. If you can't trust your leaders to hold free and equal elections what can you trust them with?
That answer is being offered everyday in news stories about government corruption, patronage, bribes, kick backs, ghost payrolling, and all the other abuses. Illinois simply can not trust our leaders.
These leaders like Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. do not believe in the principles of democracy or the rule of law offered by both our State and US constitutions. A person willing to ignore and even openly violate such core principles of our country will be willing to abuse us in other ways, or at least look the other way while it happens. The news proves me right.
Did you know 4 Democrats on the State Board of Elections had to be ordered by a court to perform their statutory duties in placing Joe Parnarauskis on the ballot for State Senate last week? A judge had to order them to do their job as spelled out plainly in our election laws. They cared more about "protecting" a Democrat State Senate candidate than they did about the rule of law.
They need to resign or be removed immediately for failing to follow the rule of law. We can not trust the Democrats on the State Board of Elections and they are no longer qualified to do their jobs. It's that simple.
Democracy may not be a "sexy" issue for the media to report on or for the voters to care much about, but how our representatives handle their sworn duties should be of the utmost importance. So today I'm demanding that the rule of law be respected.
Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. should immediately resign. Governor Blagojevich should immediately remove the Democrats on the State Board of Elections. All State Representatives should refuse to support Michael Madigan for Speaker of the House, and all State Senators should refuse to support Emil Jones Jr. for Senate President. None of these so-called leaders can be trusted to defend and uphold our State and US constitutions. And I implore all voters to stop voting for leaders we can not trust to do even the most basic thing as to hold free and equal elections. If they are willing to cheat democracy, they are willing to cheat you.
David Lee of Heyworth is a winner.Yet, Lisa Madigan's office did just that in Lee v. Keith. They argued and argued and argued that unfree, unequal, and unfair elections are perfectly fine to protect the corrupt nature of both power parties in Illinois. Thank you 7th Circuit for seeing through Lisa Madigan's anti-democratic rhetoric and her dad's unconstitutional rules.
But his triumph is not just a personal one. It is a victory for all voters wanting more choice on Election Day.
Lee never got the chance to run for the Illinois Senate as an independent in 2004. But he won in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the state’s burdensome ballot laws.
The state shouldn’t waste time or money fighting the appellate court ruling.
Instead, state officials should devote their time to revising Illinois law to give independents a realistic chance to get on the ballot and give voters a wider choice on Election Day.
How could lawyers for the state argue with a straight face that the state’s requirements are not burdensome when not a single independent candidate has been able to meet the burden in 25 years?
But this editorial's suggestion for a solution doesn't go nearly far enough.
At a minimum, put the filing deadline back to 92 days before the November general election, as it was before 1975, and roll back the signature requirement to 5 percent of the votes cast in the most recent general election, as it was before 1979. Remove any penalties for people who sign an independent candidate’s petition."At a minimum" does deserve some credit, but I wish the writer had read the Illinois Constitution for guidance on what would be the right choice in changing our unconstitutional election laws.
Such requirements would protect against frivolous candidacies and excessive factionalism without creating insurmountable barriers.
Article III., Section 3. "All elections shall be free and equal."
If the Democrats and Republicans want unequal election laws then they should have to amend the state constitution that they swore to defend and uphold. Anything short of equal ballot access laws is a violation of the spirit, if not the intent, of our state constitution.
Illinois has been holding illegal elections that violate our 1st and 14th Amendment rights for 26 years now. I would love to find out exactly who still in the General Assembly voted for these unconstitutional election laws. I'm betting Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. both did since they were around when the laws were put in place.
It's funny how many Illinois Democrats are demanding President Bush be impeached for violating the US Constitution, yet I haven't heard one word out of them about their own leaders' violation of the US Constitution. Obviously, they are more interested in politics than they are in the principles of our Constitution. So I'll speak up for them.
Michael Madigan, Emil Jones Jr., and anyone else who has voted for, supported, and refused to reform our illegal election laws should resign immediately for violating all Illinois voters' right to democratic elections.
This isn't the trivial matter that all the apologists will have you believe. Our US Constitution is the core of our republic and truly democratic elections are absolutely essential to choosing our government representatives.
I've been saying this for years now and will continue to until it sinks in. If you can't trust your leaders to hold free and equal elections what can you trust them with?
That answer is being offered everyday in news stories about government corruption, patronage, bribes, kick backs, ghost payrolling, and all the other abuses. Illinois simply can not trust our leaders.
These leaders like Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. do not believe in the principles of democracy or the rule of law offered by both our State and US constitutions. A person willing to ignore and even openly violate such core principles of our country will be willing to abuse us in other ways, or at least look the other way while it happens. The news proves me right.
Did you know 4 Democrats on the State Board of Elections had to be ordered by a court to perform their statutory duties in placing Joe Parnarauskis on the ballot for State Senate last week? A judge had to order them to do their job as spelled out plainly in our election laws. They cared more about "protecting" a Democrat State Senate candidate than they did about the rule of law.
They need to resign or be removed immediately for failing to follow the rule of law. We can not trust the Democrats on the State Board of Elections and they are no longer qualified to do their jobs. It's that simple.
Democracy may not be a "sexy" issue for the media to report on or for the voters to care much about, but how our representatives handle their sworn duties should be of the utmost importance. So today I'm demanding that the rule of law be respected.
Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. should immediately resign. Governor Blagojevich should immediately remove the Democrats on the State Board of Elections. All State Representatives should refuse to support Michael Madigan for Speaker of the House, and all State Senators should refuse to support Emil Jones Jr. for Senate President. None of these so-called leaders can be trusted to defend and uphold our State and US constitutions. And I implore all voters to stop voting for leaders we can not trust to do even the most basic thing as to hold free and equal elections. If they are willing to cheat democracy, they are willing to cheat you.
26 comments:
Good plan.
Let's also impeach those people who tried to push through abortion restrictions that are clearly unconstitutional.
Let's lock up the South Dakota state legislature and the governor.
What an interesting idea you've got there. Vote for something that fails to pass constitutional muster 20 years later? Lock them up.
Nice solution.
more of that republican wineing come grow up only for 26 yrs did they have the chance to chanage things and they dont they had to years of their own to do it and they had little jimmy egar in ther for them.
Lock them up never came out of my fingers, skeeter. Typical move for someone without reason or logic to back them up. Make something up. Try another defense to apologize for their actions and inaction. They surely won't apologize to us for it.
Jeff,
You are the one who raised impeachment.
You ought to read your own writing.
Skeeter, are you serious now or being silly on purpose. You should read it again. I didn't call for or even suggest anyone should be impeached either. I pointed out that several Illinois Democrats raised the impeachment process concerning Bush and the Constitution, but have nothing to say about this. Try again, skeeter.
LL,
I always thought that you were dumb as a rock, but the last post really proved it.
Try and follow the debate.
Trigg suggested that anybody in the legislature who voted for unconstitutional legislation should be impeached.
I then questioned whether he meant any unconstitutional legislation, or just unconstitutional legislation that he didn't like.
Then you, LL, blundered right into proving my point.
Breathing all those chemicals is costing you too many brain cells, LL.
"Trigg suggested that anybody in the legislature who voted for unconstitutional legislation should be impeached."
No I didn't. More like skeeter made this up in his own head grasping at straws to defend indefensible behavior.
"I then questioned whether he meant any unconstitutional legislation, or just unconstitutional legislation that he didn't like."
No you didn't. You tried to make a cute remark about putting South Dakota in jail that had no relevance to anything I wrote. And apparently your own brain cells are still all mixed up trying to make sense of your comments.
What is it skeeter, Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. are your heroes and you are having a hard time accepting they are horrible leaders that shouldn't have any power? Funny how you can't comment at all on the actual issue being discussed and resort to making things up then personal attacks. Try again skeeter.
A couple or three points:
1) I'm pretty certain Trigg is singling out Democrats because they're the ones in power; but plenty Republicans made the same votes.
2) The push to impeach Bush is not mainstream, even in the Democratic Party. It's much more of a rhetorical devise, born of frustration -- a lot like Trigg's post, imo.
3) I'm guessing Trigg would like to see independents with the same low filing requirements as established party candidates. Serious question: if we do this, how does the state avoid ridiculous situations like the 100+ candidates for California governor during their recall of Gray Davis?
LL,
Face facts. You are in fact dumb as a rock.
Embrace it.
It is who you are.
Trigg:
Are you suggesting that your impeachment comments were just an odd digression?
Enlighten us, Trigg.
What was the point of the impeachment comment?
Were you just rambling, or did you have a point?
For 3) I'll ask how the state is avoiding 100+ candidates in the primaries right now? The established party requirement is already high enough to prevent 100+ candidates on the ballot in Illinois. If it wasn't high enough, wouldn't we already have had that problem?
California's recall election had some unusual requirements very different from ours. They only needed 65 signatures (and some money) to get on the ballot for Governor. Ours is 5,000 for established parties. And by being on the ballot, they were included in a candidates guide that was mailed to every registered voter in California, which was a huge extra incentive to "run" for Governor. They could put just about whatever they wanted in that candidate's guide, and most of them used the candidate guide as free advertising for their businesses or careers. That's just not going to happen in Illinois.
I'll also point out that while the California ballot was "cluttered" it did not follow that voters became confused about how or who to vote for. So the myth of voter confusion was pretty much disproven in that election. How ballots are designed has more to do with "confusion" than the number of candidates on the ballot.
Current established party requirements are more than enough to prevent 100+ candidates. If it wasn't enough, we'd already have that problem.
The real problem we currently have is lack of choice. In 2004, 50% of the General Assembly races were unopposed. I believe it will be about 40% unopposed this year. In 2002, 40% were unopposed including more than half of State Senate races.
Looking further at how gerrymandering affects how close the opposed races are, and you'd see very very few are within 55-45.
Our problem is lack of political competition, not too much of it.
States with a lot easier requirements than Illinois don't have the 100+ problem either. Your example was an extreme exception probably because of the candidate guide being mailed to every registered voter. I believe Tennessee requires 10 signatures for independents and they have never had that problem.
Good question but I believe you can see now that it's nothing we need to worry about. We need to worry about lack of candidates, not too many.
And yes I'm picking on Dems because they have the power. Moreso because they have been abusing that power a lot more than Reps in recent elections. I am appalled at what the 4 Dems on the SBOE tried to do to Joe P for State Senate. And their efforts to kick the Greens off was horribly anti-democratic. They deserve every word of this scolding.
skeeter, so you go from making up things that I said to finally not knowing what I meant? I believe that's an admission on your part. About time.
The point is pretty much exactly how I wrote it skeeter. Democrats in our GA believe Bush's violation of the Constitution deserves impeachment, but they have not one word to say about their own involvement of the violation of our Constitution. That makes them not trustworthy, which is mentioned several other times, and without a doubt hypocritical as it pertains to defending and upholding our Constitutions. It fits right in with everything else I said.
Are you also on the impeach Bush bandwagon, skeeter, but have no problem with Democrats ignoring and willfully violating the Constitution in order to keep political competition off the ballots with anti-democratic rules and practices? I'd say that's probably the bigger problem than me including that paragraph. It's ok to admit you are a hypocrite skeeter, we all are at some point.
Wanting to investigate the President for potentially leading America into an illegal war makes the DEMOCRATS untrustworthy?
Is up down?
By the way -- you may want to take another look at the proposed resolution before you ramble on anymore about impeachment. The resolution asks for an investigation. Either you never read the resolution or you just didn't care to tell the truth.
Which is it, Trigg? Are you ignorant or are you a liar?
Moreover, you have yet to address the point.
Do you believe that any lawmaker who supports unconsitutional legislation should be required to resign?
Or do you just apply that to Democrats?
By the way, when you talk about lack of competition, you should point the finger directly at the ILGOP.
Keyes?
Jim Ryan?
JACK?
Stu Imholz?
Other states don't have much of a problem with competition, but other states have two functioning political parties.
Let's all work together to rebuild the ILGOP, and then we can worry about third parties.
skeeter, much more has been said about the impeachment than just the proposed resolution. Press releases, stump speeches, public statements, interview explanations, talk show conversations. Are you ignorant or a liar?
Do I believe people who have banned independents from running for the GA should resign? Yes. Who have ignored previous US Supreme Court election law rulings? Yes. Who have been ordered to do their statutory job by the courts to put a candidate on the ballot? Yes. Who have violated their oath of office? Yes they should willingly resign or be resigned. That's the point. And I've called for Judy Baar Topinka to resign and be further investigated, so Republicans qualify as well.
Duh. If you think the ILGOP isn't providing good candidates that's the perfect reason why we need more choices.
"Other states don't have much of a problem with competition, but other states have two functioning political parties." - And you're calling me ignorant?
Sure, maybe we should bring back the Whigs since they were here first. Abraham Lincoln should have been kept off the ballot since he was an "other" candidate. Brilliant skeeter. Give it up. So you'd love to have one party rule wouldn't you? Figures.
LL,
Jim Ryan lost. He was a hack who sent innocent men to death row for his own political purposes. No wonder you would embrace him.
You arguments are weak and you run when challenged.
Any time you care to explain why we should allow smokey restaurants but not smokey mines, I'm listening.
Don't blame me for your lack of scholarship.
If I make you sick, see a therapist.
Trigg,
Are you calling for the resignation of each rep who voted for the failed tort reform bill pushed through by Republicans?
Are you asking for the resignation of each member of the South Dakota state legislature who voted for the abortion restrictions?
Simple questions, Trigg. Yes or no.
Skeeter, are you calling for one party rule like in Cuba and Saddam's Iraq? Are you saying it is ok to ban independent candidates from running for Illinois GA? Simple questions, yes or no?
Play your childish games all you like, I'm done attempting logic with you. Your questions have nothing to do with harming actual voters and candidates by effectively banning competition. "All elections shall be free and equal." Whats the exact quote in the Constitutions pertaining to tort reform and abortion? Thought so.
Trigg,
Done with logic? Shouldn't you try logic before you abandon it?
You have called for resignations from one party who supported unconstitutional legislation, but have not called for resignations from the other party.
That shows me that you really care about bashing Democrats and not about supporting our Constitution.
You could at least do the intellectually honest thing and admit it.
By the way, please provided the exact quote of the Consitution that refers to number of signatures for independents or third party candidates.
Thought so.
In the alternative, are you now calling for resignations where:
1. A court has declared legislation unconstitutional; AND
2. You agree with the court?
"You have called for resignations from one party who supported unconstitutional legislation, but have not called for resignations from the other party."
Not true at all, which is why I shouldn't even bother with you when all you can do is make up false statements and try to attribute them. I called for George Ryan to resign, Judy Baar Topinka, Lee Daniels, Pate Philip, and said Bush and Cheney shouldn't be allowed on the ballot off the top of my head. Probably many more. I put candidates on the ballot to run against Republicans and Democrats. Duh! So I'm a Republican shill. Right. You are just lost.
"By the way, please provided the exact quote of the Consitution that refers to number of signatures for independents or third party candidates.
Thought so."
I did. "All elections shall be free and equal". Egual being the same, identical, no difference, and whatever real definition of equal you want to use.
"In the alternative, are you now calling for resignations where:
1. A court has declared legislation unconstitutional; AND
2. You agree with the court?"
"In the alternative" blah blah blah, whatever. If you can't read exactly what I wrote that I am calling for without making up things I didn't say, that's your problem.
Are you now saying I didn't demand anyone be put in jail or impeached as you originally accused me of but were proven to have made it up all on your own?
Here it is again just for you.
Michael Madigan, Emil Jones Jr., and anyone else who has voted for, supported, and refused to reform our illegal election laws should resign immediately for violating all Illinois voters' right to democratic elections.
Michael Madigan and Emil Jones Jr. should immediately resign. Governor Blagojevich should immediately remove the Democrats on the State Board of Elections. All State Representatives should refuse to support Michael Madigan for Speaker of the House, and all State Senators should refuse to support Emil Jones Jr. for Senate President. None of these so-called leaders can be trusted to defend and uphold our State and US constitutions. And I implore all voters to stop voting for leaders we can not trust to do even the most basic thing as to hold free and equal elections. If they are willing to cheat democracy, they are willing to cheat you.
Skeeter, are you calling for one party rule like in Cuba and Saddam's Iraq? Are you saying it is ok to ban independent candidates from running for Illinois GA? Simple questions, yes or no?
Whats the exact quote in the Constitutions pertaining to tort reform and abortion? Thought so.
Thanks for the response, Trigg.
I don't agree with your conclusion that the 100+ candidates for Governor in California did not distort the election process there. After all, they elected Schwarzenegger ;) Seriously, I think that election was a joke that I would not like to see played out here.
As for your point that candidates could flood the ballot in a primary: fair enough. But I suspect we would see even more non-serious filings if we lowered the threshhold for independents too far. Besides, we've already seen what can happen when yahoos get on the ballot; remember Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart (? on her name) (the LaRouche fanatics who won the Democratic nominations for Secretary of State and Lt. Governor in the 1980s).
Having said that, I think I generally agree with you that lack of choice in elections is a real problem. However, much of that is, imo, the result of gerrymandering disctricts and demographic changes that result in less political diversity in any given geographic area. Part of the reason also has to do with elimination of 3-member House districts.
There's a good discussion to be had about this, but not on this comment thread. So, carry on the rest of you guys.
V
Trigg:
1. The fact that I couldn't figure out what in the world you were trying to say is an insult to you and not to me.
2. The constitutional language you cited does not include a single word about signatures. Try again, admit you are dealing with penumbras, or just hang it up and admit that you are a hack.
In any case, we are still left with the same issues. You have yet to call for the abortion or tort reform resignations, despite the fact that the statutes either have been or clearly will be, declared unconstitutional.
Do the right thing. Admit defeat.
Is there some point you are trying to make skeeter? Some statement? Are you trying to accomplish anything other than having to back off of all of the things you like to make up? Defeat to what, I did say lock them up or impeach them? You have absolutely no point. What are trying to say, Democrats that are anti-democratic are ok in your book? Democrats that dismantle democratic elections have done nothing wrong? What's your point? Equal is equal even if you want to ignore it.
V, your LaRouche example is an interesting one indeed. 1986. That happened in the Democratic primary and we still have the exact same rules today for that, so lowering them for independents wouldn't prevent it. It hasn't been much of a problem before or since then.
In fact, I'd contend that current laws encourage people like the LaRouchies to run in R and D primaries because it is soo much easier to get on the ballot. If it's the same, they may be more likely to run under their own banner or as independents. Probably not the LaRouchies since they swear they are the "real" Democrats and seem to prefer stealth candidacies, but the point in still valid. Also of mention is that Adlai Stevenson wanted to run as an independent, but couldn't because of current laws.
On California, my contention is that voters were not confused because of the number of candidates on the ballot. That's reasoning SCOTUS has used to give states the power to try to limit the number of candidates. I believe Arnold still got more than 50% of the vote and the top three candidates still got more than 95% of all votes. Voters weren't confused trying to find the candidate they wanted to vote for was my angle. I agree that election was a joke.
I also agree that gerrymandering is a big problem and certainly a bigger problem nationwide.
I think we can hardly use rare examples like California or 1986 LaRouche to base our ballot access standards on. The better example to use is our own elections the past 20+ years. No independent candidates for the GA. None. 1992 - 20% GA races unopposed. 1994, 1996 - 30% GA races unopposed. 1998, 2000 - 50% GA races unopposed. 2002, 2006 - about 40% GA races unopposed. 2004 - 50% GA races unopposed.
Our problem is lack of competition and we don't need to worry about the Califronia example because it is completely different than our requirements and we don't have to worry about the LaRouche example because the rules are exactly the same now as they were then. Got any more, preferably from Illinois GA races, which the ruling specifically addresses?
Trigg:
There are different number of voters in state legislative districts in Illinois.
As such, the state elections are not "equal."
It is time for you to call for the resignation of the entire state legislature.
Skeeter,
you lose a big part of whatever credibility you might have by calling Jim Ryan a hack. Anyone who knows him knows that he isn't.
Steve,
Tell Rolando Cruz what a fine gentleman Jim Ryan is.
If you knowingly and purposefully sent innocents to death row, the nicest thing I can call you is a hack.
Post a Comment