* 4:39 pm - At last check, the court battle over the wording of the constitutional convention referendum question is still going on. They’ve been at it for three hours. The judge in the case has told both sides he will rule on a motion to dismiss at 4:40 pm this afternoon, so check back.
They’ve gone back and forth on the various issues all afternoon, so there could be more rulings fairly soon if the suit isn’t dismissed.
The plaintiffs (Chicago Bar Association, Lt. Gov. Quinn, etc.) have proposed a remedy that would involve printing a paper ballot that would just have the con-con question on it, in addition to the already printed ballots.
* 5:04 pm - Text message from a reporter friend on the scene…
Cook County judge just ruled the con-con ballot language unconstitutional, and orders a notice of revised language.
* 5:10 pm - More from that same reporter friend on the scene [paraphrased to avoid too many brackets]…
The judge ordered said a paper notice should be handed out at the polls advising voters to ignore the language on the ballot itself. Also, the same polling place notice shall provide voters with the newly revised language. The judge says the same notices should also be mailed to voters.
This seems reasonable, and could actually work in favor of con-con supporters because it provides them a reminder at the polls that the question is on the ballot.
* 5:18 pm - From Pat Quinn’s office…
The judge placed a stay on Cook County from sending out any more absentee ballots. Chicago had already stopped sending out the ballots when they received notice of the case.
The judge also ordered everyone back Friday morning at 9 to discuss language proposals.
* 5:37 pm - So, here’s essentially what happened as far as I can tell…
Local election authorities claimed it was simply too late to print all new ballots in time for the November election, not to mention early voting and the absentee ballots which have already been mailed. So, the judge in the case couldn’t really toss out the existing ballots and order new ones printed.
Instead, the judge ordered said he wanted voters to be given a flier at the polling place which tells them to ignore the ballot question as originally written and instead use the new language on that flier as their guide. The new ballot question language will be decided at a Friday morning court hearing. [Strike was made for a clarification. The plaintiffs have not yet formally accepted this remedy and may ask for a different remedy.]
No word yet on any appeals.
As a reminder, here’s the ballot question language that was tossed out today…
In 1988 the electors rejected the call for a constitutional convention, with 75 percent voting against calling a convention and 25 percent voting in favor of calling a convention.
* 6:04 pm - The AP now has a story up…
A judge has ordered Illinois election officials to temporarily stop mailing absentee ballots and create a flyer to hand to voters on Election Day because of “misleading” and “inaccurate” language on the ballot.
Circuit Court Judge Nathaniel R. Howse Junior ruled Wednesday the flyers should explain how the language, which deals with a referendum on a constitutional convention in Illinois, is biased. He ordered lawyers to return Friday to discuss specific ballot changes. [emphasis added]
So, not only are voters to be given a new question at the polling place (and via the mail) and advised to ignore the question on the original ballot, but they are also to be told how the original question is so biased. Interesting.
I’m expecting the judge’s order soon.
* 6:48 pm - From the attorney general’s office, which represented the defense and asked that the case be dismissed today…
We will decide our next step after we review this with our client.
In other words, no decision yet on an appeal.
* Also, Lt. Gov. Quinn and I just had a brief phone conversation (the Sox fan is at Cub Field, so I couldn’t bear speaking with him for long)…
“It went pretty well, I thought… We’re a lot better off right now than we were this morning.”
* And this is from Bruno Behrend and John Bambenek, co-founders of the Illinois Citizens Coalition…
“Today’s ruling in Cook County Court that calls on the Illinois Secretary of State and the Illinois State Board of Elections to implement revised language into the November ballots – specifically, rewording the question for the Constitutional Convention – is a victory for Illinois voters. As the Illinois Citizens Coalition, we maintain that our primary goal this Fall is to show Illinoisans why it is necessary to open a Constitutional Convention. We have a huge mountain to climb – just today a court of law identified faulty language on the ballot as related to the Con-Con question and conveniently no entity was identified as being responsible for that faulty language. That point alone shows that the foundation in Illinois is broken and that the powers that be are willing to compromise the ability of voters to have a free and fair election. Too few have too many powers and the only way to fix the system is to rebuild its foundation. We sincerely thank Lt. Governor Pat Quinn and the Chicago Bar Association in helping us advance this matter and we look forward to November when Illinois voters vote yes!”
* 7:18 pm - From the Sun-Times…
A referendum on the Nov. 4 ballot asking whether Illinois should hold a constitutional convention is “downright misleading and false,” a Cook County judge said today. […]
“I believe the language is not accurate [and] interferes with the rights of voters,” said the judge, who stopped short of ordering a statewide reprint of all ballots that include the so-called “Con-Con” question.
Instead, he ordered lawyers to come up with a new version by Friday morning and offered a suggestion: printing the new question on separate paper that carries an official government seal and distributing that at polling places on election day.
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 4:56 pm:
Important note, it was Bruno Behrend that filed this first. CBA joined 3 days later and Quinn after that. Bruno deserves credit for spearheading this.
- Levois - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 5:28 pm:
So does this mean election authorities don’t have to change the actual language on the ballot but just to provide notice that there is a new question on the ballot?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 5:29 pm:
=== but just to provide notice that there is a new question on the ballot?====
They have to give voters notice to ignore the current question, then provide them with the new language.
- Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 5:45 pm:
Nice how the people flogging the cost of a con-con are already driving up the expenses.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 5:53 pm:
You got your villains wrong. The fault lies with those who drafted an unconstitutional question, passed it through the General Assembly then certified it for the ballot.
- Levois - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 6:20 pm:
I hope the answer as to why the question was biased was because the question was designed to create a desired result.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 6:22 pm:
So the forces of evil win again by keeping their tainted question on the ballot.
What a country
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 6:28 pm:
Since voting has already started, it’s tough to reprint ballots. This ain’t a bad decision.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 6:33 pm:
Did Fritchey say who insisted on the original language? I’d like to hear the reasoning.
- Jake from Elwood - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 6:39 pm:
W-O-W. Judge Howse came through. I had my doubts. . . This will be interesting.
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 7:01 pm:
So are the already voted ballots spoiled and to be thrown out as tainted by the bias ?
- blame Pat - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 8:37 pm:
People, get it right. The question isn’t being rewritten - the question is simply a yes or no. It is the explanation that will be rewritten. You are all so caught up in thinking this was some conspiracy to defraud the voters or convince them to vote against a con con. Ridiculous. The sentence is a fact. It is not misleading and it is not biased. The group that wrote the explanation represented both those for and against a con con. WHY DIDNT QUINN OR OTHER POSE OBJECTIONS WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED MONTHS AGO? THIS IS SUCH A WASTE OF MONEY.
- county clerk - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 8:47 pm:
Who is going to pay for all this additional costs that many counties can not afford?
Once again Pat Quinn’s good ideas cost the taxpayers.
Why did not Quinn speak up sooner?
- county clerk - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 8:48 pm:
Yes, I supported the Constitutional call question.
Just mad as heck and how this is messing up voting.
- Cheswick - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:02 pm:
Objections were made. See John Fritchy’s comment earlier today (or was it yesterday). I don’t know what Pat Quinn’s role was during the process, if any. But, don’t you think if Fritchy’s concerns were dismissed, Pat Quinn’s would have been too?
- Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:21 pm:
IMHO this is great news for the pro con-con movement: as Rich said it certainly draws attention to the issue and hopefully the bad language will inflame voters into saying YES TO A CON-CON!
- John Bambenek - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 9:27 pm:
I can’t speak for the CBA or Pat Quinn, but we (Bruno and his set of Plaintiffs) will be asking the court to make the Sec. of State and/or the State Board of Elections pay all costs associated with any changes. They broke it, we think they should pay.
- Sweet Polly Purebred - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:25 pm:
No matter your personal opinion on the Con-Con - whether it be good, bad or a non-issue, the referendum should NOT contain language that COULD predjudice a voter. The language Jesse White’s office included should be and HAS been declared unconstitutional. Voters should be allowed to determine for THEMSELVES whether or not a Con-Con would be beneficisl, based on their OWN personal experience and feelings. Kudos to those who filed suit on behalf of the voters of ILLINOIS.
- Cheswick - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:27 pm:
John, ideally, the people who flubbed this up would pay the legal expenses out of their own pocket. Ideally.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 10:32 pm:
Double good for the pro con-con folks. Since the ballot language stays the same, they can sue again if the question fails.
I’m too tired to come up with clever language for the handout tonight. Rich could this please be the QOTD for Thursday? Pretty please?
- Our Reps and Senators were the authors: - Wednesday, Oct 1, 08 @ 11:29 pm:
The General Assembly broke it, not SOS or SBoE. Both houses of the GA voted unanimously for the ballot language at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory.asp?DocNum=137&DocTypeID=HJR&LegID=39202&GAID=9&SessionID=51&GA=95&SpecSess=
- stop the blame - Thursday, Oct 2, 08 @ 8:12 am:
you are missing the very important fact that the “notice” provision so many of you are angry about was not included in the resolution, but was added as a function of law. the election code requires the notice provision.
as for the infamous sentence, it is a fact.
- Ted - Thursday, Oct 2, 08 @ 8:19 am:
With early voting a reality, the voters most likely to be effected will be active duty military serving overseas or stationed out of state. There will be delays in getting their ballots out to them while this is all hashed out. Locals may now be brought to the courthouse or other sights depending on what county or election district you reside, so this is far less an inconvenience for them. Thus, net result will be that the get out the vote efforts [gotv] for those who target residents who live in densely populated areas will be far less adversely impacted than those who want to see our active duty military vote. This state is sickening. Everything has an angle and every aspect of democracy is gamed and contrived. Vote yes on con-con.
- BandCamp - Thursday, Oct 2, 08 @ 8:23 am:
wordslinger,
I asked Fritchey in comments yesterday for some more clarification. He never posted back.
Now what’s interesting is since it went through both chambers so easily, did Fritchey make the same objections to the whole House chamber when the resolution was called to vote/discussion?
Here’s what I think: Some things are taken for granted, and members did not even READ the resolution before casting a “Y” vote.
Following my hindsight comment from yesterday: How many legislators would have pushed the “Y” had they read what was actually going to be printed on the ballot?
- Dolly - Thursday, Oct 2, 08 @ 5:54 pm:
Why didn’t Quinn say something earlier? Because he is a demagogue who thrives on attention and drama and couldn’t care less about anyone else, while professing his unwavering support for the masses.
Quinn’s support is enough reason to vote no. He has single-handedly done more to harm Illinois government than any other person in the history of the state. Illinois wouldn’t be in the political position we are currently in if Illinois had resisted Quinn’s last forray into constitutional amendment.