|
This just in… US appeals court strikes down IL ballot access laws *** Updated x1 ***
Monday, Sep 18, 2006 The case in question had to do with an independent legislative candidate. The Court’s website appears to be running very slowly today, but I’ll upload the opinion in a minute. [OK, it’s uploaded now. Here’s the pdf file.] In combination, the ballot access requirements for independent legislative candidates in Illinois—the early filing deadline, the 10% signature requirement, and the additional statutory restriction that disqualifies anyone who signs an independent candidate’s nominating petition from voting in the primary—operate to unconstitutionally burden the freedom of political association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Katie, bar the door. *** UPDATE *** The AP story is now online. Lee had wanted to run for the Senate in the 44th legislative district in 2004 but believed that he would never have been able to get enough signatures on his nominating petitions under state ballot-access laws.
- Posted by Rich Miller
|
 |
|
|
- Gregor - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:19 pm:
Yay, next up, open primaries, statewide!
Well, a guy can dream…
- Bubs - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:23 pm:
The frozen ice sheet known as the Rigged Illinois Political Structure takes another big hit.
The cracks are beginning to run everywhere, and True Democracy is beginning to rise to the surface.
- Greg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:25 pm:
A little competition will do the state some good…
- NW burbs - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:26 pm:
Not to take away from the fact Illinois does have the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation (I won’t say “in the world” because we don’t shoot people to keep them off the ballot)… but…
How is it that folks from left and right (Rich Whitney - Green; Scott Bludorn - Libertarian; etc) were able to put in the legwork to get themselves on the ballot?
The ban on signing a petition and voting in a primary seems most onerous — primary ballots are for more than one office, whereas petitions are not.
That said, Illinois’ ballot petitioning laws make little sense. For municipal ballots, requirements can be anywhere from 50 names to 1500 for seemingly equalivent positions (library board, school board, park board…).
- VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:39 pm:
It is about time that someone states the obvious. There is no reason to deny voters access to our ballots.
The whole, “we know best” attitude coming from state officials and their minions is elitist and undemocratic.
If democracy is good enough for Iraq, then it should be good enough for Illinois.
- winco - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:40 pm:
It is so rare and weird when a court tells a government that it has to open itself up to the people. Beautiful
- Jeff Trigg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:49 pm:
:)
NWBurbs, indepedents for the GA had to get twice as many sigs as “other” parties (and they need at least ten times more than Rs and Ds) and do it in the winter 11 months before the election. The requirements for independents are not the same as they are for the candidates in your example.
I don’t know of any country with an election law that allows shooting political opponents, so yes, Illinois does have the worst ballot access laws of any democratic jurisdiction IN THE WHOLE WORLD. But not for much longer unless Michael Madigan wants to keep on disobeying the US Constitution.
- Garp - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 3:57 pm:
As the signature pettitions begin circulating tomorrow for the Chicago Mayoral, does this ruling mean that voters can sign for more than one candidate without having one of their signatures thrown out? If so, maybe I don’t have to work so hard the next 2 days.
- NW burbs - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 4:08 pm:
Jeff,
The list of countries whose leadership shoots opponents is long. But you’re distracting from the point.
–
I find it interesting that the AP notes the court didn’t make suggest new standards.
To do so would be the legislating-from-the-bench which so many conservatives abhor (unless it favors their interests, then it’s ok).
- Jeff Trigg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 4:28 pm:
NW Burbs, actually it was you who was distracting from the point of election laws by trying to say murder is somehow part of election laws, but fine I’ll re-up my argument.
Even countries where politicians KILL their opponents have less severe ballot access requirements than in Illinois. So what does that say about our two power parties in Illinois, and especially the current Democrat leadership that has ignored all calls for them to change our unconstitutional election statutes? Even cold-blooded killers have enough respect for democratic elections to not have worse laws than Illinois?
- Bridget Dooley - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 4:35 pm:
How many signatures would he have been required to get? I don’t see any numbers anywhere.
- Bridget Dooley - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 4:37 pm:
Oh, 7000, nevermind. Yeah, that’s a tad gratuitous.
- HoosierDaddy - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 4:47 pm:
The thing is, that by not even TRYING to get the required signatures, he’s opened himself up the a “lack of standing” argument on appeal. I don’t know if that was raised in the original court case or not, but I’d be surprised if it was not.
I do agree that the signature requirement is ridiculous, but I think the guy would have had a better argument if he had tried and failed…
- Reddbyrd - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 5:41 pm:
Next thing some judge will rule that citizens must vote, then the haters and hand wringers will really go nuts
Pingback Democracy — well, at least full ballot access — may come to Illinois » Peoria Pundit - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 5:48 pm:
[…] Sweet Christmas in September! Rich Miller tells us that a U.S. Court has ruled that Illinois’ restrictive ballot access rules are unconstitutional: In combination, the ballot access requirements for independent legislative candidates in Illinois—the early filing deadline, the 10% signature requirement, and the additional statutory restriction that disqualifies anyone who signs an independent candidate’s nominating petition from voting in the primary—operate to unconstitutionally burden the freedom of political association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. […]
- Jeff Trigg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 6:51 pm:
Hoosier. Good observation. Yes it was raised in the District Court but they didn’t dismiss it based of lack of standing. Lee did try to file candidacy papers (just a few signatures) at the filing deadline for “new” parties and the ISBE refused to take them. I’ve got it on video.
The December before the election deadline was also challenged (and ruled unconstitutional) and he certainly did have standing because he tried to file at the later deadline. I believe his standing comes from the fact he was legally eligible to run for office from that district, but I wasn’t at the lower-level court hearing.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 7:40 pm:
If the ballot access argument carries the day, the most obvious remedy would be to lower the petition signature requirement for independents to the level required of the 2 major parties. Instead, what is to prevent the legislature from setting the bar high but equal? That way, the party machinery can still get the sig’s with some extra work, while independent candidacies will still have the same high hurdle to climb.
- Jeff Trigg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 8:03 pm:
This ruling doesn’t say they have to set the bar equal. (Our State Constitution does, but that’s another case for another day.) They will be forced to lower them for independents at some point. I’d suggest something like HB758 from last session.
But you are correct that Madigan could raise the sig requirement for the Rs and Ds again. He just raised them for this election cycle. Reps from 300 to 500 and Senate from 600 to 1,000 I believe. I’d imagine if he raised them to 5% of total votes, like “new” parties need, after a couple election cycles the half of the GA that doesn’t have any opponents would get fed up with it and lower it.
But is it really that big of a deal if there are 4 or 5 candidates on the ballot? It happens in R and D primaries all the time without “voter confusion” and “ballot clutter”.
These laws are not looking after the “State’s interests”, they are protecting the Rs and Ds, and it’s wrong. And higher requirements for the Rs and Ds is only helping to protect incumbents from primary opponents. Half-a$$ democracy shouldn’t cut it.
- Jeff Trigg - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 8:06 pm:
By the way, I’d LOVE to see our US House members have to get 5% of the last vote (15,000 valid signatures - 30,000 raw sigs) in 90 days to run for re-election. Too bad that hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional yet.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 10:08 pm:
But is it really that big of a deal if there are 4 or 5 candidates on the ballot? It happens in R and D primaries all the time without “voter confusion†and “ballot clutterâ€.
Apparently, it’s “the marketplace of ideas” when several names appear for an office in a partisan primary, but “ballot clutter” when several names appear for an office in a general election.
- Cal Skinner - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 10:09 pm:
Six Degrees of Separation-
That sounds like the bill that I and Loren Beth Gash introduced in the mid-1990’s.
Of course, since then the number of signatures for a power party candidate to get on the ballot has doubled, hasn’t it? Or did it just go up from 300 to 500? (I wonder if Mike had this case in mind when he rasied that number.)
- respectful - Monday, Sep 18, 06 @ 10:16 pm:
It’s instructive that it takes a federal court to order an end to the most restrictive ballot access laws in any democratic republic. Can’t expect the General Assembly to lower such a flagrant barrier to ballot access by itself.
- muon - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 12:14 am:
I’m a partisan voter, but I’m happy to see this ruling. Most posts seem to focus on the signature count, and certainly its way too high by any other state’s standards. However, as I read it, the ruling looks at the time intervals as well as the signature count. Doesn’t this mean that the collection period or filing date could be moved as well as adjusting the signature requirment?
- the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 7:20 am:
I haven’t read the full decision yet, but it’s interesting that the court spotlighted the prohibition on voting in a primary if the voter signed an independent petition. This prohibition has, to the best of my knowledge, never been enforced. Moreover, it’s unenforceable under the current scheme: election judges do not have access to ballot petitions to make a ruling that a voter is not eligible.
I don’t think the decision turned on this point — nor should it. It’s simply another way that the Election Code doesn’t conform to the real world of voting and electioneering.
- fedup dem - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 9:36 am:
Remember folks, just two more years until you can force a new State Constitutional Convention, which could mandate fair ballot access laws, a sane primary election date, and numerous other reforms. (
- Conservative Republican - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:18 am:
Since the ball is back in the court of the Illinois legislature (assuming the decision is affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court if the State seeks further review), it is way to early for “progressives” to celebrate this decision. And when the ball is back in their court, the GA will carefully (maybe) follow the guidelines under this decision that suggest the a 5% requirement might pass muster. That’s still a pretty hefty signature requirement.
In the end, such a change will barely affect our state’s politics in general. The major parties will dominate matters for the foreseeable future. The most likely effects will be (1) the occasional “independent” state representative from districts where constituents are unhappy with both parties and the latter are incapable of matching the desires of the district, and (2) the possibility of a third major candidate in a Gubernatorial or Senatorial race where folks are dissatisfied with the party nominees. For example, come to think about it, if this were the law one year ago, Oberweiss could have run as an independent after the primary, given the low popularity of both Blago and Judy, and made the race quite interesting. However, such an independent candidate would have slim chances of actually winning and would more likely serve as a spoiler against one of the two major party candidates.
- Truthful James - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 10:22 am:
There is most general agreement on this thread. Now it is up to the General Assemply to write the new, less restrictive laws.
Hopefully, but not with a great deal of confidence that the moats surrounding incumbency castles will be drained.
- Truthful James - Tuesday, Sep 19, 06 @ 11:44 am:
There is another effect which crossed my mind. It would appear that the two largest parties might abandon the stiff ideological rectitude and open up the tent to include parties which might otherwise qualify themselves for slates.
The Conservative wing of the Republican Party on its own would be the third largest party in the State. Presently held in thrall, its emergence as a separate political force might well force the IllGOP to open wider. Similarlym the green party would have an effect on the Democrats if votes were siphoned off on a regular basis.