Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Arrestoversary roundup
Next Post: Rate Giannoulias’ new ad, rate Dillard’s new plan
Posted in:
* I get a lot of strange press releases every day, but this one from the National Taxpayers United of Illinois’ Jim Tobin was so far over the top that I thought I’d let you see some of what you’re missing…
RACIST GOV. QUINN AND CORRUPT DANIEL HYNES USING VICIOUS ANTI-PETITION MANEUVERS
CHICAGO–So-called “reformers,” Gov. Patrick Quinn (D) and Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes (D), are masterminding drives to invalidate petition signatures of other independent Democrats who have turned in the required number of signatures to appear on the Feb. 2, 2010, Democratic gubernatorial primary, charged Jim Tobin, President of National Taxpayers United of Illinois (NTUI).
“By attempting to knock William “Dock” Walls, III off the ballot, Gov. Quinn displays racial prejudice by targeting Walls over all the other gubernatorial candidates. Quinn believes he is superior to the only African American candidate for Governor. This should infuriate the African-American community of Illinois.”
“Walls submitted over 9,400 signatures, far more than the 5,000 signatures needed to run for Governor. Quinn’s Cronies challenged a large number of signatures with no legal justification. An army of petition checkers flooded the Board of Elections, often refusing to talk to reporters on the scene because they were government employees working for ‘reformer’ Quinn.”
“According to the Board of Elections hearing examiner, Walls is supposedly short the required number of valid signatures by less than a dozen.”
“In addition to Quinn’s Cronies, we also have Hynes’ Hacks, who are working hard to keep independent Democratic candidate Ed Scanlan off the Feb. 2, 2010, ballot. Hynes’ Hacks are exploiting every trick to invalidate Scanlan’s 10,000 signatures, including using government employees to challenge the signatures.”
“The Illinois challenge process is inherently corrupt and a disgrace, favoring establishment candidates and placing independent candidates, regardless of party, at a disadvantage,” said Tobin. “Quinn and Hynes are the problem. They are corrupt and rotten to the core.”
“Two-thirds of the states require only a filing fee to run for office,” said Tobin. “Illinois should follow suit and eliminate the requirement for petition signatures. That would reform Illinois politics more than anything else.”
* The Question: Leaving aside Tobin’s breathless rant, do you think Illinois should “eliminate the requirement for petition signatures”? And would doing so “reform Illinois politics more than anything else”? Explain thoroughly, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Arrestoversary roundup
Next Post: Rate Giannoulias’ new ad, rate Dillard’s new plan
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The petition gathering process and the objection process need to be simplified and the methods of verifying the validity of signatures needs to be explained thoroughly. I have seen signatures stricken because handwriting varied slightly from the penmanship of a voter’s registration card filled out thirty plus years earlier. No allowances were made for age and infirmity. The signature requirements need to bear some relationship to reality: 5,000 signatures will permit a candidate to file for a statewide office whereas it takes close to 3,300 to run for circuit court judge in Cook County. The system is in need of reform.
Comment by Honest Abe Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:30 am
Another case of the ultra-right wing extremists making fools of themselves. The sad thing is that there are probably quite a number of people who will buy into the rhetoric.
Comment by Deep South Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:31 am
DS, stick to the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:33 am
Sorry, I didn’t address the question. No, the requirement for petition signatures should not be eliminated. As long as everyone knows the rules and plays by the rules, signatures seem to be a fair way of gaining ballot access. I fail to see how a filing fee would reform politics.
Comment by Deep South Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:35 am
The “rules” are written by those who benefit most from them.
How many times does the federal courts need to slap our election code around until we make it fair?
There needs to be a higher standard to strike a signature.
Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:39 am
I’d like to see the number of signatures required be the same for both recognized parties and non-recognized parties. But they should be higher than they are now for recognized parties. I’d ideally like to see 20% of the registered voters in the district in question if dealing with local offices, with lower for statewide (just in the interest of sanity).
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:40 am
People, please answer the question(s) before proposing your own ideas. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:41 am
It isn’t difficult to take a poll sheet and go door-to-door asking for the signatures of registered voters, and asking them to sign petitions properly. You’ll get very few invalid signatures that way, but then it does require you to actually speak with your neighbors. Standing in front of Dominick’s on a Saturday morning and randomly asking passers-by for signatures is a recipe for trouble.
The petition process is a good test of organizational ability. The challenge process can be a bit goofy and is generally too easily gamed, but really, if you collect signatures properly in the first place, you won’t be complaining later.
Keep the system intact. Don’t reward the careless and sloppy campaigns. If they can’t do this simple task properly, these candidates have no business seeking office in the first place.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:43 am
Agree and disagree. We should keep petitions but the number of signatures required for independents needs to be the same as political parties.
The hearings on petition challenges need to be revised including who hears the challenges. Right now it is too much of an insider system that the public views with distrust.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:43 am
I think staggered term limits across the board, with the exception of GA members, would reform Illinois government, ideally the limits would be for those in leadership roles (including constitutional officers). If only blago and ryan had been limited to two-terms, things would be better today.
By many credible accounts illinois government/politics is no more reformed today than it was a year ago. the only possible exception may be FOIA, but then many will say that AG Madigan’s office was always good in that area.
The petition process is a political tool/weapon used by some (attempting) to control election outcomes. The whole process is suspect as a result. I wonder what other states do. I wouldn’t want California’s “come one come all approach”, but Illinois’ “don’t send nobody that nobody sent” clearly isn’t helpful or good.
Comment by Will County Woman Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:45 am
Rich, your question is kind of hard to answer. This situation consists of so much BS that, even if there’s an edible kernel at the bottom of this, the effort required to dig through it doesn’t merit the reward. The tone of the press release tells us everything we need to know about the organization; the charges of racism are obviously specious, and Dock Walls is a perennial narcissist token with no real standing.
No doubt there’s an aspect or two of the Election Code that needs a brush-up. Nothing of that appears in this mess.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:45 am
We live in an age of transparency and in an age where the facades offered by class, education and expertise, are undermined by that great equalizer - The Internet.
Consequentially, backroom deals, legal manipulations of public offices and candidacies, and fiscal deals need to be reformed to conform within the values and beliefs held by US citizens. If they are not reformed, then voters will rebel against the institutions corrupted by these political shadows. Voters will start by refusing to pay their taxes.
It is in the best interest of politics to swing wide the doors closed to public scrutiny. Because there can be no doors. Any doors in this age will be breached from outside by bloggers, or breached from the inside by rumors, hackers, or leaks.
We are living in a new age of democracy and citizen empowerment, thanks to technology. You cannot stop this.
Reform the petition process so that it reflects what is believed to be the fairest procedures for all. Challenges should be allowed, but armies of political operatives designed to undermine candidacies via these legal manipulations, have to end.
We live in a new age of Pro-Choice - that is, pro-choice regarding our choices of ballot candidates. Any procedures designed to eliminate candidacies must be able to survive public scrutiny - not just legal scrutiny. The legal bar is set too low for tomorrow’s governments. As long as we continue to see vermin and scandal slither under the legal bars set within our current governments, governments will suffer from a lack of citizen support enough to justify the taxes being taken from them.
Reform the process now.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:49 am
No. The signature requirement actually forces serious candidates to demonstrate some level of support in the jurisdiction they are running. Eliminating it would invite individuals with no community support to run.
I would, however, go back to the requirement that petitions PASSERS also be registered voters living in the jurisdiction they are passing petitions for. This would reinforce the community support aspect and help, to some extent, to dampen the influence of big money candidate who hire anyone to pass for them (at the very least they would need to hire workers from the district).
The signature requirements for 3rd party and independent candidates should not be more restrictive than for established political parties.
RWP
Comment by RWP Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:52 am
It harms no one and ensures a degree of seriousness/competence in campaigns. Keep it.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:53 am
“do you think Illinois should “eliminate the requirement for petition signatures”? And would doing so “reform Illinois politics more than anything else”?
No. Petition signatures reflect public support for a candidate or at minimum for a system that allows open entry for any candidate. It also serves as the beginning of your field campaign. If you can’t get a couple thousand people to support your candidacy, you’re probably wasting your time anyway.
Reforming 2 pieces would change the system greatly and allow more equity to first time or underfunded candidates: 1) hold challengers accountable. How, I’m unsure. Perhaps you fine unsuccessful challenges to help the challenged recoup resources spent validating and reduce time wasted by BOE employees. But there is a niche industry of campaign hacks who wait until the cycle and cash in on knocking candidates off the ballot and they don’t have to account to anything. 2) greater uniformity with signature # requirements.
Comment by Hmoore3 Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:53 am
No they should not eliminate signatures.
Maybe having the last 4 numbers of the SS used would help eliminate fraud. Or start assigning a number to the voter registration card with a partial name with a few numbers so people can remember it?
If they did there would be more candidates jumping into the race.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:53 am
Despite Tobin’s over the top language, there is definitely a need for reform in this area.
The system is too easily gamed by those ‘in the know’ that it keeps out any legitimate outsiders who want to enter the political arena. Then we all scratch our heads and we wonder why people don’t want to get involved in politics.
I’m not for cluttering ballots and letting everybody on. A candidate has to show some minimal amount of support to get on the ballot.
Perhaps redefining what actually can be challenged–(toss out the nonsense like binding the pages together, or numbering them. Some sort of limitation on challenging signatures–say the party doing the challenging has to pay for the Board of Elections’ time to go through the whole verification process should they lose their challenge.)
This whole thing shows the major amount of ’statistical noise’ and lack of actual standards in our election system. Legit candidates get tossed off on a technicality because the insiders want them off, but there are cases where candidates have filed with no signatures except their own, but stayed on the ballot because there were no challenges issued. Hit or miss–there is no consistency to any of it at all.
I believe a minimum number of signatures is needed, and that a person should not be allowed on without them plain and simple.
The whole body of law surrounding this needs to be cleaned up, but the way it is now helps out those in power, so they have no motivation whatsoever to change it.
train111
Comment by train111 Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 11:59 am
It’s amazing how many of these news spots (from the left and the right) are sounding more and more like some rant from an underground rag circa 1969. The requirement for the signatures should stay. If you can’t get the volume, you haven’t got much support or you are not working hard enough. As long as something like sigs are required there will always be challenges to their legitimacy. Just part of the competitive process. At the same time, I agree with Abe. Some adjustment to the numbers are needed. If a judge needs 3,300 names in Cook County, how many of those people even know who the judge is? Simply filing a fee to run would open the process up to many more people, but do you really need 15-20 candidates for every position on every ballot?
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:00 pm
But would not eliminating signature requirements allow any ol’ nutcase with a filing fee to then get on the ballot? Distracting from the serious runners, ridiculous length of ballots and more chance of ‘fake’ runners? Where is serious reform in that?
I’ve had one gentleman a while back decline my signature after asking for it merely because he saw me pause and asked me why. Because he had asked me to be certain I signed exactly the way my registration card is, I was standing there trying to remember how I made my first letter of my last time when I registrated. That letter usually depends on my mood of the day as to taking it’s form. The guy said he’d rather keep moving than chance me making it differently. Very polite, he just had a lot more to gather and did not want to waste time if the signature might not count.
Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:03 pm
There should be some sort of signature requirement.
That said, there should be reforms to equalize the number of signatures for both the established parties, new parties and independent candidates. I also like the requirement that the party collecting signatures is registered to vote in the district.
It is possible to submit valid signatures these days with access to voters lists. Failure to check the signature validity is simply laziness.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:08 pm
No, they should not eliminate the signature requirement. This requires a candidate to demonstrate a modicum of support and viability. This will be even more important if you publicly finance elections.
I do think the signature system needs reformed; I would even go so far as to suggest there needs to be a system that allows people to electronically sign online petitions so that the process can be modernized and eliminate the draconian system of trying to track down people door to door or in shopping malls.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Keep the petition process, otherwise we end up with 75 people running for every office imaginable. However, there needs to be more flexibility and it should be a more rigorous exercise to mount a successful objection than it currently is.
Comment by Randolph Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:10 pm
i’ll repeat my mantra on this one:
in florida, there is two ways to get on the primary ballot. collect a reasonable amount of signatures (i believe it was like 500 for a congressional race) or pay the party a reasonable fee (less than $5000 two decades ago). candidates could choose to do either one. in reality, most democrats collected signatures and most republicans paid the fee (any one want to guess which political party was in stronger financial shape?).
the other thing that i think illinois could benefit from my oh-so-long-ago home state is the fact that only the elections board could challenge signatures. other people could look at petitions and you could even suggest that some were bad, but no one besides the elections board could “challenge” signatures. the only time you (the general public) ever found out that petitions were officially reviewed was when that candidate was thrown off the ballot.
florida, of course, isn’t a reform state, either. which just goes to show how tilted the machine has made running for office in illinois…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:13 pm
I just read the Beachwood Reporter this morning and Steve had this tidbit gleaned from the Suntimes. The petition process is pretty rife with abuse it appears. I think the petition process could be useful but it is being used to really restrict ballot access. My opinion is it is harming ballot access and leading to lessening of public involvement.
From the Beachwood
“Of O’Brien’s 2,000-plus petitions, 10 virtually mirror petitions [Dorothy] Brown submitted, according to a Chicago Sun-Times examination of the thousands of petitions submitted by each candidate. Nearly all of the 200 voters who signed those 10 nominating petitions for O’Brien also signed for Brown - and in the same order,” the ,em>Sun-Times reported.
“Three people circulated those 10 petitions, which were notarized by one of two longtime Democratic operatives. Those two notaries stamped more than 200 petitions for O’Brien and more than 75 for Brown.”
The Sun-Times also reported that “Two longtime Democratic operatives - Sam J. Morabito and Teresa Navarro - notarized petitions circulated by a total of 25 people for O’Brien or Brown. Three of those petition-passers did it for both candidates. Morabito notarized 150 petitions for O’Brien and 42 for Brown. Navarro notarized 65 petitions for O’Brien and 24 for Brown.
“Morabito, 53, who lives on the Northwest Side, is an assistant chief operating engineer for the city’s Aviation Department. He got his start in politics under former state Rep. Joseph Kotlarz, who once pushed City Hall to give Morabito a promotion, according to the notorious ‘clout list’ kept by Mayor Daley’s now-imprisoned patronage director Robert Sorich.”
Comment by jeff Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Yes, there should be a signature requirement. It should be the same for a party candidate as an independent candidate. It should be reasonable, in many cases in this state it is not.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:16 pm
Approximately 859 Illinois candidates filed under the current petition process.
Are we lacking for candidates? No.
The petition process requires a candidate to persuade friends, family, and colleagues of the value of the cause and to volunteer for the grunt work of gathering signatures.
It’s a good exercise and practice when it comes to persuading voters down the line.
Keep it as it is.
Comment by David Ormsby Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:17 pm
jeff, we posted and discussed that Sun-Times story here several days ago. Also, what’s your response to the question?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:19 pm
No, that is just silly. As previous commenters have noted, signature gathering indicates some sort of campaign organization and/or support in the community, a filing fee shows nothing.
However there are many reforms that should considered. One obvious one to me is to not let people challenge signatures at all. Just give the Board of Elections enough money to go through signatures and certify that the candidate has turned in enough valid ones. If the requirement is 500 then when the Board gets to the 501st good signature the candidate is on the ballot period. And if they made other mistakes, like not binding properly or not filing the correct receipt, let them know this and give them 5 business days or whatever to correct it.
We also need to look at the number of signatures required. Right now you have to file many more signatures to run MWRD then you do for Congress. Why?
And yes, I would agree with requiring passers to live in the district. It wouldn’t eliminate all paid passers but as noted above it would at least limit it to locals.
Comment by Lakefront Liberal Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:23 pm
–Agree and disagree. We should keep petitions but the number of signatures required for independents needs to be the same as political parties.–
That sounds about right.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:27 pm
As bored now points out, the standard alternative in other states is paying a filing fee to get on the ballot. In theory, making ballot access contingent only on collecting signatures on a petition is, in fact, a reform that opens up the process to less-well funded candidates. So, keep the signatures and petitions, I say.
But there should be some better way of limiting objections. Right now, there is no penalty or disincentive for filing a frivolous petition challenge. (No comment on whether the challenges to Walls and Scanlan fit in this category.) I kind of like the suggestion of a filing fee for chasllenges, but it shouldn’t be so high that underfunded candidates can’t file a challenge.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Lakefront:
=Right now you have to file many more signatures to run MWRD then you do for Congress. Why?=
Because you represent more people on MWRD than in a congressional district.
RWP
Comment by RWP Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:43 pm
Q: “do you think Illinois should “eliminate the requirement for petition signatures”? And would doing so “reform Illinois politics more than anything else”?”
A: I do not think Illinois should *eliminate* the requirement but I do think that the required number should be reduced. Ideally, the number should fall somewhere between painfully high and impossibly high. I think it is above impossibly high right now.
And bored now’s suggestion that “only the elections board could challenge signatures” would mean certain death for legitimate Republican candidates in Cook County and the same for Democrats in DuPage. No “reform” could do more to maximize the majority party’s power to keep electable opposition of the ballot.
– MrJM
http://twitter.com/misterjayem
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:43 pm
I think the signature gathering is fine. Same rules should be for everyone. As far as striking signatures (or bouncing candidates), I handle this in Putback by saying:
“No candidate may be removed from the ballot except in the clear and convincing case of fraud, deception or unintelligibility.”
People’s signatures change in 30 years, that doesn’t mean they didn’t sign it. They may sign Mike when voter registration shows Michael. That doesn’t mean they didn’t sign it. Minor errors and “good faith” should be used.
Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:46 pm
I think it is fine to have signature requirements, and getting rid of them won’t necessarily help clean up politics.
Because signature requirements aren’t the problem, necessarily. The larger problem is that Republicans and Democrats waste a lot of time and money trying to restrict choices in each other’s and the Green Party’s primaries.
The current rules were written over a number of years by the GOP and Dems, and it’s become a wacky patchwork that, for instance, gives any voter the ability to prevent candidates from running in any party’s primary — not just the primary they actually intend to vote in. So a Democrat can in theory, eliminate a Republican opponent from even competing in the GOP primary, let alone the general! That essentially allows Democrats to decide the outcome of Republican primaries. How is that fair?
I think that the state should either 1) leave it completely up to the established parties to determine how candidates qualify, or, short of that, 2) create at least two or three sets of alternative requirements that parties can choose from, similar to the alternatives available for organizing a party’s central committee. For instance, maybe there could be an alternative that allows parties to use flat, pre-determined signature requirements, another one that is based on a percentage, and another one where nominations can be made by caucus.
In any case, objections should not be allowed from people who are not part of the party.
Comment by PFK Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 12:49 pm
Elimination of this gatekeeping function would likely result in “bedsheet ballots” and lot’s of election day confusion. We should, however, stop stacking the deck in favor of “established” political parties and against independents.
Comment by David Starrett Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:10 pm
What if Illinois had a system whereby one could qualify for the ballot by either gathering sigs or submitting a filing fee?
If the candidates sigs were not invalidated then the campaign would get the filing fee back.
This would liberalize ballot access. Nominating petition challenges would be a smaller part of the process.
I think an informal system would emerge that candidates who did not both get the sigs and pay the fee would be taken less seriously.
I do not feel the current system is fair and should have been eliminated as unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds of not treating candidates equally.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:21 pm
Keep the petition requirement and strengthen it by slapping stiff fines on campaigns that submit excessive phony signatures. Back in the day I was part of a team that challenged 4000 suspicious signatures. it took days. Pages upon pages of nominating papers had real addresses but fake names and no history of those people EVER voting from that location. It is what happens when wealthy candidates pay people $1 per signature. If you want to earn a spot on the ballot, you should be forced to demonstrate some level of support from the electorate.
Comment by Burrito Bandit Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:25 pm
Yes, signature requirements are for old fashioned stuck in the mud conservatives and were based on Jim Crow laws to keep “rif-raf” (minorities) off the ballot. Why keep our ballot access laws that are wholly based on discriminating against outsiders? No other state in the US that has lower requirements EVER faces too many candidates on the ballot. “Ballot clutter” meant the same thing as “no blacks allowed” back in the day so I see no reason why we cling to that practice of discrimination.
Massive reform of ballot access laws is obviously needed in Illinois as any non-political operative plainly sees when faced with reality. Petition signature requirements from the 18th Century being used in 21st Century shows our lack of progress in this state.
Could Abraham Lincoln and his new Republican Party get on the ballot under today’s ballot access laws, or would America have been denied Abraham Lincoln by the anti-democratic election laws? Abraham Lincoln NEVER would have been on the ballot if he faced anywhere near the requirements of “different” political groups we force on people today.
Should Iraq make the Kurds get 15,000 times more signatures to get on the ballot like the Ds and Rs subject independents and “others” to in Illinois?
Should Iran refuse to allow independent candidates on the ballot to “prevent ballot clutter”? Iran has several independent candidates elected to their National Congress. Illinois has not allowed one single independent candidate on the ballot for the GA or Congress since 1980.
Can we lecture Iran and Iraq about democracy when we only fake it here? Can we legitimately spread “democracy” to the world when our own laws are incredibly hypocritical? No, we can’t. In fact, a former Iranian President who now opposes the current regime in Iran had this to say about our election laws to the NY Times.
“There is only a veneer of democracy in the United States. Election laws are so complicated that people have no choice but to vote for one of the candidates who are with one of the two parties.”
That came from a reformer in Iran, folks.
Are you proud of our current election laws in Illinois? Are you proud of how they represent us to the world? Frankly, our ballot access laws are an embarrassment and something to be ashamed of.
You know, a “new party” candidate can get 150,000 votes for an office, but still have to go collect 50,000 signatures the next election to get on the ballot again. Which is a better measure of support, 150,000 actual votes, or 50,000 petition signatures? Our current law says the votes are not a measure of support but the signatures are.
“All elections shall be free and equal”
Not one single independent candidate has been able to run for the General Assembly since 1980. This will be 30 years we’ve discriminated against the politically homeless who actually outnumber party hacks. And during that time about 60% of all races were unopposed.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:40 pm
I agree with those who say the petition process should remain, but with changes. The petitions help show support among the voters who would elect the candidates and should be maintained. However, creating more uniform standards for petitions would be a very useful change.
I think that the more important reforms should be to clarify and simplify the rules that govern challenges. Some of the statutory requirements, like the maximum number of signatures, have been largely invalidated by the courts. Others, like the numbering of pages, have been strenuously enforced but don’t seem to really aid the process.
Reforms to the petition process should focus on letting voters express their intent to put candidates on the ballot. Voters should have a great deal of latitude to express their preference, and shouldn’t have to remember how they originally signed their name on the voter card. If a circulator wants to pass petitions for two competing candidates and the pages look the same, then the voters are saying that they’d like to have both those candidates on the ballot to choose from.
Comment by muon Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:48 pm
More food for thought. In 1998, George Ryan used Sec. of State employees on the taxpayer clock to work on the petition challenge that knocked Jim Tobin off the ballot. AFTER the election, the courts ruled Tobin did have enough signatures after all.
What if Jim Tobin had been on the ballot? Would Poshard have won? If Poshard won, would we have then seen a Blagojevich as Governor?
There is a very strong argument to be made that having sane ballot access laws that do not target “others” for elimination could have spared us from Ryan and Blago, in effect, massively reforming politics as usual in Illinois.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:49 pm
===No other state in the US that has lower requirements EVER faces too many candidates on the ballot.===
What a ridiculous claim to make. Do you remember the recall election in California in 2003? 135 candidates qualified for the ballot. 135!
===Abraham Lincoln NEVER would have been on the ballot if he faced anywhere near the requirements of “different” political groups we force on people today.===
You base that claim on what, exactly? Intuition?
===Should Iraq make the Kurds get 15,000 times more signatures to get on the ballot like the Ds and Rs subject independents and “others” to in Illinois?===
No one has to get “15,000 times” more signatures than anyone to get on the ballot in Illinois.
===Can we lecture Iran and Iraq about democracy when we only fake it here?===
Yes.
===Which is a better measure of support, 150,000 actual votes, or 50,000 petition signatures?===
50,000 petition signatures. Nothing beats face-to-face interactions with voters in campaigning. If you meet someone and you convince them to sign a petition for you, I would consider that a much better measure of support than an ambiguous vote on a ballot that you cannot possibly explain (did they vote along party lines? against your opponent? mistakenly? did they like your Irish last name?)
===Not one single independent candidate has been able to run for the General Assembly since 1980.===
What do you mean “has been able to run?” Almost every citizen who is a citizen, of mandated age, and free of felonies is ABLE to run. Able to win might be a different story.
===the politically homeless who actually outnumber party hacks===
Why do you think there are so many more of us “hacks?”
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 1:53 pm
Yes, signature requirements are for old fashioned stuck in the mud conservatives and were based on Jim Crow laws to keep “rif-raf” (minorities) off the ballot.
Wrong. Where did you learn that? So, not only are you historically inaccurate, you doubled down on your wrong take on history as some kind of moral statement? Weird.
In the US, voter registration dates back years before the Civil War. While it was abused by the Democratic Party during Reconstruction in order to prevent African Americans from voting, voter registration wasn’t created to keep blacks from voting. As a matter of fact, voter registration was adopted from our colonial European roots in order to administer elections.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 2:34 pm
Obamarama, please list the exact problems from that California election created by those candidates. There are no problems to list, Obamarama. 135 candidates on the ballot, and yet they still pulled it off. Would there have been 135 candidates if CA didn’t automatically mail every voter in the state a free advertisement? No. It was the free publicity from the mailing that resulted in 135 candidates, NOT signature requirements.
Election laws from the 1830s-1870s versus current election laws very clearly show Lincoln could have met the “full-slate” requirement that “new” parties face today. Do you have evidence Lincoln and the Republicans could have met the “full-slate” requirement? I didn’t think so.
Illinois has had Congressional signature requirements for independents candidates of more than 16,000 signatures in 90 days, while Lipinski’s can put a son on the ballot with only 1 signature. It has happened many times that a candidate has faced a requirement 15,000 times higher than a D or R. Alan Keyes only needed one signature to get on the ballot, while Jerry Kohn needed 25,000, so I can honestly say some Illinois candidates had to get 25,000 times the number of signatures as their D and R opponents. You need to learn more about election laws apparently.
A vote is NOT a good measure of voter support? A petition signature is a better measure of voter support than an actual vote is? I can see where the twisted logic of our laws comes from I guess. That logic makes no sense that a vote doesn’t actually show voter support. Twisted.
Run = get on the ballot by overcoming the strictest ballot access requirements for independent candidates of pretty much every election jurisdiction in the world. You aren’t able to run for office when its practically impossible to get on the ballot.
Obamarama, have ever been paid to try to kick someone off a ballot? How does that feel?
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 2:35 pm
VanillaMan, voter registration and ballot access laws are completely different things. Once everyone was finally allowed to vote in the US, THEN they stopped using voter registration discrimination and started using ballot access discrimination. I’m sorry our history is rife with racism and sexism in our election laws, but that is reality VanillaMan. Our laws have discriminated against women and minorities. They now discriminate against people that aren’t Rs or Ds.
Once southern blacks were allowed to vote and run for office, then we started to see more of these ballot access restrictions popping up everywhere. Wasn’t the sole reason behind the ballot discrimination we see today, but it was influential.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 2:41 pm
TaxMeMore list of problems created in CA election:
Significant increase in balot costs; increased complaints of balot confusion.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 2:52 pm
I think that the election code should be changed, eliminating the extra efforts that legitimate voters have to go through to prove they were indeed the registered voter that signed the candidates nominating petition.
I just witnessed hundreds of registered voters, some who even submitted affadvits that that they signed petitions, STILL have the election officer rule that their signatures did not match their voter record on file.
Voters have the additional option of having their signture reviewed by an official Board of Election Handwriting expert, BUT truthfully, after a registered voter signs a petition at their home and submit a sworn affadavit, WHY must they now be faced with the additional challenge of having a handwriting expert when what the Election Board hearing officer should be looking at is the signature when that last person voted and NOT their original voter card.
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:01 pm
MR. Allen
what race are you talking about?
Comment by Weird Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:03 pm
===Obamarama, please list the exact problems from that California election created by those candidates===
Ghost hit that nail on the head.
===It has happened many times that a candidate has faced a requirement 15,000 times higher than a D or R.===
So you’re problem is with slating–not signature requirements. Cry me a river.
===A vote is NOT a good measure of voter support?===
Yeah that’s what I said. Votes are bad.
===Obamarama, have ever been paid to try to kick someone off a ballot? How does that feel?===
It feels like work.
As to the question, which I now realize I have yet to answer, NO. I neither believe the signature requirements should be done away with nor do I believe it would reform Illinois. I am a true believer that if you don’t have enough talent or support from the electorate to make it on the ballot, you do not deserve to be there.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:20 pm
Weird; I was working in the Al Hofeld, Jr campaign for Illinois State Senator in the 13th District against Incumbent Kwame Raoul where there were only 1,000 signatures required and I submitted almost 3,000 BUT long time residents had their signatures ruled illegitimate because their current signature (even with affadavits) did not match their original voter file signature, yet these same voters do not face those type challenges when they have recently gotten ballots to vote, nor will be challenged that way in February.
This process is also used by most incumbents, which is far from when this process started years ago to weed out blatant “roundtabling”
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:22 pm
C’Mon taxme. The rules are fair and keep kooks off the ballot. Everybody plays by the same rules and only valid challenges are upheld. The system works. Leave it alone and be more careful next time. And yes, it does feel good when I can get a opposing candidate kicked off.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:24 pm
Ghost, unfortunately there is no evidence of those two problems from that election. That special recall election went off without a hitch. Increased ballot costs was because it was a special recall election, not because of the candidates. People found the candidate they wanted to vote for on the ballot just fine, and there was nothing unusual in the results to indicate confusion, unlike faulty butterfly ballot designs in Florida that really do create confusion.
And again, IF there had been a problem, the cause was the free mailing. 100+ people basically paid $200 to send free ads for their causes to all registered voters in CA. Not a bad deal. Take out that mailing, and there would’ve been less than a dozen candidates I bet.
Mark Allen brings up something often lost in all this. The very nature by which most signatures are challenged is incredibly insulting and dishonest. Petition challengers will accuse the candidates of forging their own signature. How is that an honest challenge? They will say a candidate’s mother and wife and kids signatures are all fake, and make them prove in court that they actually did sign their own petition or their relatives. And the challengers face no repercussions for making such outrageous accusations against other human beings. It really is a despicable practice that needs to end.
That we are one of the few (NY and IL) states that allows such private challenges should be instructive that there are better ways out there we might try.
60% of GA races unopposed and no independent candidates on the ballot since 1980 should be instructive that current requirements are too strict and are discriminatory.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:27 pm
The rules are fair when your signature challenges are of those round-tabled like signatures, but one should not challenge long time voters from the same address because their current signatures dont match their original voter registration signature. HOW MANY voters today have the same signature they had when they first registered? But maybe this is why people should just re-register with their current signature. There is a reason why Drivers Licenses and ID’s are updated so maybe its time for updating voter registration cards.
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:28 pm
But Bill, if they keep kooks off the ballots, then how do you explain George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich?
It looks like our corrupt ballot access process instead encourages more corrupt candidates. Like Ryan and Blago, they start off using corruption to get power and go right on being corrupt from there. Maybe an honest and moral ballot access process would encourage honest and moral candidates instead of a corrupt ballot access process encouraging corrupt candidates like Ryan and Blago.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:41 pm
===The rules are fair when your signature challenges are of those round-tabled like signatures, but one should not challenge long time voters from the same address because their current signatures dont match their original voter registration signature.===
That’s what challenges are for! How else are you going to determine whether or not my Grandma Mae actually signed a petition or whether some, how do you say, partisan hack signed her name and address during a round table session at an IHOP?
More to the point, signature matching isn’t the only method of challenge. A lot of petition errors are the cause of sheer incompetence:
1. having a circulator who isn’t registered to vote
2. not notarizing
3. binding incorrectly
4. circulators signing the petition before having them notarized
5. not knowing what township one is in
6. incorrectly stating the office sought (seriously)
The point is that there are many reasons for a signature, sheet of signatures, or entire petition submission may be invalidated. Most of the time incompetence is to blame.
In summary, election law isn’t inherently unfair; the gene pool is.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:42 pm
Obamarama and all: Your point is probabaly why I think that people should re-register with their current signature.
In my campaign, when the Grandma and Grandpa signatures were challenged as invalid, we then went back to their homes and got sworn affadavits and YET The Election Board STILL said the signatures did not match their orginal voter card on file. Several voters were upset and came down to the election board and testified in person, BUT that is not supposed to be the process for thousands of people were disqualified because their current signatures did not match their cards and I again think that they may just have to go an update their registration the way we do for ID’s and Drivers Licenses.
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:53 pm
I think there should zero signatures required that every knucklehead in IL could run for every office. The cost of elections would be sky high, taxes would go up, the media would go bankrupt trying to interview candidates before issuing their precious endorsements
More importantly can we get WingNutInChief Tobin and ChopperJim to endorse in the GOP primary? Will they go for OutsiderAndy&MuttMurphy who want to cut senior health care, deregulate polluters and give special interest free rein?
Let’s cross our tinfoil wrapped fingers
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:55 pm
So there I was, reading the CapitolFaxBlog, and…
Someday…..someday…..perhaps the petitioning process in Illinois will be pushed into the twenty-first century.
Why, someday….maybe I’ll be able to electronically sign the virtual petitions of candidates I support!
Perhaps I’ll be able to do it online, 24/7. Or to make everyone super-certain about validity, perhaps I’ll be allowed to go to my county clerk’s office in person, identify myself suitably, and sign electronic petitions there!
And maybe — just maybe — voter identification and signature validity questions will be mooted! An insufficient number of voters in virtual support? Well, then — no candidacy!
Huh? What? Oh, sorry…..I must have been daydreaming.
Comment by Scott Summers Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 3:59 pm
Obamarama
3. binding incorrectly
5. not knowing what township one is in
Yes because the bedrock of democracy is making sure you use the right thing to bind your submission.
As for the township thing…. How many people in this state know what township they are in?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 4:06 pm
“In summary, election law isn’t inherently unfair; the gene pool is.”
Lee vs. Keith (7th Circuit), among others, legally proves Illinois election law has been and is unconstitutional and unfair. Lisa Madigan didn’t appeal Lee vs. Keith, so the state basically admitted our election laws are unfair, why can’t you Obamarama? Do you think Lisa Madigan is wrong and should appeal cases like Lee v. Keith after she loses them?
And what is the deal with Alan Keyes and Lipinski Jr. not needing one signature to get on the ballot while their opponents needed 25,000 and 13,000 signatures? Yeah, that is real fair.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 4:11 pm
If this current challenge process is so legitimate, THEN doesnt that mean that for the thousands of people whose signatures were just ruled illegitimate be allowed to present this same “Illegitimate” signature in February and receive a ballot?
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 4:12 pm
I see your point. But the rules are the same for everyone. How to bind petitions isn’t exactly a complicated set of instructions.
How many people in this state know what township they are in? Probably not very many. But I bet every candidate who has ever been booted from the ballot for that reason knows what township they are in now.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 4:13 pm
TaxMeMore, the new law requires petition signatures for people appointed to the ballot.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 4:35 pm
VM, you may likely mean “after Reconstruction”.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 5:41 pm
we need signatures–gov quinn is a good man, and
he followed the process, by challenging candidates
who didnt have enough legal signatures!!
Comment by quinn fan Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 5:50 pm
The new law hasn’t been used yet, or litigated. Heck, the old laws still haven’t been fully litigated. The new law is actually completely unlike any other election law in the US. No other state has anything remotely close to requiring established party candidates get sigs after a primary or their party’s endorsement. It’ll be a new one for the courts.
That’s another funny one too, isn’t it? Slated candidates were fine for 30 years and didn’t result in ballot clutter and even produced more races with opponents. Then all of a sudden the Green Party gets 11%, 25% in Rockford area and other pockets, and suddenly they see the need to make slated candidates get sigs. More hoops for the Greens that weren’t there the last 30 years. Funny how that works.
What’s up with those Republican candidates for Governor anyway? More than 2 on the ballot? Must be awfully confusing for voters to have to pick from more than 2 candidates.
Here we have an actual case of more than two candidates on the ballot without much complaint and without a rush to change the law so that fewer candidates run for Governor as a Republican. Where is the outrage of ballot clutter?
We shall see after this primary just how credible the “ballot clutter” argument really is. Although, looking at the history of the few primary races like this GOP Gubernatorial without “ballot clutter and confusion” should be enlightening as well.
Comment by TaxMeMore Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 5:53 pm
Quinn Fan — Ask Governor Quinn if he would still accept a vote in February if that voters signature was just ruled illegitimate to be on someone elses petitions during this recent challenge which is now in a few thousand? Or does he or others want to have it both ways, in that the signature is only illegitimate for the challenge but good in February!!
You are making my case for the need for people to re-register to have their current signature on their card for there are now THOUSANDS of duly registered voters who signed petitions for people to challenge incumbents and their signatures were ruled illegitmate because their current signatures dont match their voter card.
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 5:59 pm
Mark Allen,
you have not told the whole truth about Attorney hofeld’s petitions! He had over 650 signatures out of the district and over 800 people not registered at the address on the petition.
Your so called thousand signatures challenged include many that were printed.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 6:29 pm
Huh? There is existing case law that says that a written signature could be accepted if that person was still the actual registered voter in which 186 affadavits included printed AND written signatures from the actual voter and many of them were STILL ruled illegitimate when challenged by the incumbent, and when we were told that we only needed 100, then we thought 186 would do but they were challenged as well for not matching their original voter registration record.
Yes there was also give and take on signatures that were in and out of the district but in the final analysis WHY would the incumbent STILL challenge the validity of that voters signature EVEN AFTER that said voter submitted sworn affadavits saying they were the registered voter, but their current signature STILL did not match their voter registration record, so maybe these type of instances will lessen if people just re-registered with their current signature.
Comment by Mark Allen Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 7:36 pm
I can’t believe Quinn is trying to kick off the ONLY African American Candidate for governor…
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Dec 9, 09 @ 10:49 pm
Quinn doesnt have the same confidence in his Black vote support as Mayor Daley had when he faced various Black challanges and never challenged Black candidates petitions choosing to let voters decide at the ballot box. Quinn doesnt appear to have that same confidence when his decision is not to face a Black candidate, but knock the Black candidate off then ask Black voters to vote for him by default. Maybe candidates should file Letters of Intent, oike they did when Local School Council elections first started when voters had to go to the polls and elect their council members. Their were multiple candidates but at keast voters could look at all of the candidates and then decide. Whats wrong with “letting the voters decide at the polls.” Don’t we trust that voters can make a decision?
Comment by Mark Allen Thursday, Dec 10, 09 @ 1:36 am