* Unless they find some real money, and I doubt they will unless the Democrats step in to “help,” then this likely won’t have any impact on the governor’s race…
The Illinois Libertarian Party candidates will be on the November 2014 ballot, the State Board of Elections Board decided Friday.
“We’re certified and we’re on the ballot,” Brian Lambrecht of the DuPage County Libertarians told Illinois Review shortly after leaving the hearing in Chicago.
“The Republicans did everything they could to discredit the petition signatures to get us from the 46,000 signatures we gathered to below the required 25,000 signature threshold, but they failed,” Lambrecht said.
The only independent/3rd party candidate to impact an Illinois governor’s race was in 2010, when Scott Lee Cohen spent nearly $4 million and split part of the anti-Quinn vote with Bill Brady. The Libertarians received less than a point last time around.
The Green Party received ten percent of the vote in 2006, but had zero impact on the outcome.
No money, no real campaign, no impact.
* By the way, the Greens were kicked off the ballot…
Illinois Green Party candidates for statewide office – including Harvard attorney Scott Summers – likely will not appear on the Nov. 4 ballot after a federal judge on Thursday rejected a lawsuit aimed at forcing their inclusion.
While U.S. District Judge John Tharp Jr. in his 20-page opinion appeared to sympathize with some of the party’s arguments that the extra requirements imposed on third parties are unconstitutional, he concluded that he is bound to uphold the state’s constitutionally valid requirement when it comes to the number of signatures, which under Illinois State Board of Elections rules it did not meet.
Tharp called the Green Party’s predicament “a situation of the plaintiffs’ own making,” concluding that it had plenty of time before the election process started challenging the requirements, rather than filing a July lawsuit after the filing period ended. Candidates for the Nov. 4 ballot must be certified by Friday.
“What the plaintiffs have effectively created is a situation in which the only preliminary remedy that can be fashioned is to strike the ballot access provision that has been held to be constitutionally valid while allowing the allegedly unconstitutional provisions to remain. A cure that removes healthy tissue rather than the cancer has little to recommend it, and the plaintiffs’ reliance on that backward logic falls well short of meeting their burden …” Tharp wrote.