46 Comments - DuPage Dave - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:54 am: This is Illinois, people. You gotta kick the other guy off the ballot. Just ask Barack Obama- it worked for him back in the day. It worked for Dick Durbin in his first Senate primary. It is right? Of course not. But keeping the other guy off the ballot is the way things work here. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:58 am: I believe the state should make it easier to qualify for the ballot - thereby making it less likely a petition challenge would be cost-effective. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:02 am: The law requires a certain number of valid signatures, but does not require the election authority to verify that they are valid. Challenging petitions is part of the legal process and relies on citizens (including opposing candidates) to undertake validation. If this process is somehow unfair, we should change the law and require the election authorities to validate the signatures (and other information) on all filings. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:02 am: As far as I know, Berrios has the best petition challenger in the business working for him so if he dropped his challenge it wasn’t for good government everybody in-nobody out reasons. It was because he knew it wouldn’t work. The goal of a less incestuous political organization would be for the voters to have as many choices as possible. Requiring 100,000 signatures (in order to get 25,000 good ones) seems excessive. I’m sure other, less corrupt, States have better methods of ballot qualifying that could be adopted. - Confused - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:03 am: “Should it be more difficult to challenge petition signatures?” Yes. Better still, the requirement for petition signatures should be abolished in its entirety– it serves only to protect the two-party system and discourage independent challengers (even when “independent” can really mean only non-machine; Claypool is unquestionably a Democrat even if running as an Independent). The two-party system is a failure. It has failed nationally, and even more so at the state and local level in Illinois. It prevents real debate, new ideas, and continues to give voters choices of “least-bad” candidates. Let anyone run who thinks they can do better– there is a good chance they are right. - CLJ - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:03 am: It is already difficult and costly to challenge petitions. There needs to be a balance somewhere in the process. We do not want to open the door up for candidates that do not put in the necessary effort to be on the ballot. At the same time we don’t want legitimate candidates being thrown off the ballot for minor clerical errors. There is no easy answer. In this case, Claypool did a hell of a job obtaining more than enough quality signatures. - Wumpus - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:06 am: No, because the only people who will be able to legitimately mount challeneges would be incumbents, the uber rich and those with politcal armies. - Matt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:10 am: Berrios should certainly not be “praised”. He was itching to challenge, but they simply couldn’t do it. The recent articles about his thugs impersonating Board of Elections officials with false affidavits showed he was getting desperate in the end, trying to trick passers into disqualifying all their signatures. The petition system definitely needs to change so challenges can’t be used to effectively prevent independent candidates from having a chance. At the very least, the numbers need to be brought to the level required for party primaries. - haverford - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:17 am: I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say Berrios was working in the interest of the democratic process or open government. Claypool had more than enough to get on, and a long court battle would have just given Claypool supporters more anti-Machine fodder. Now he looks like a good gov type, which he might need if Claypool gains enough traction. And to answer the question, it should be both easier to check the validity of sigs, so Scott Lee Cohen doesn’t get on with 100000 unregistered people, and the challenge process should be modernized to stop protecting incumbents by making it difficult and costly to either challenge or be challenged. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:26 am: Should it be more difficult to challenge petition signatures? Explain. Yes it should be. If I am not mistaken, Illinois is still considered a democracy. If you have no fears regarding voters and have no fears to be open, honest and willing to adhere to their wishes, then Illinois should be willing to have more open access to it’s ballot. Illinois politics has become a racket instead of a civic duty. Honestly, not every government is ran with as much corruption as ours. How can it not become a racket when state government has taken billions of dollars from it’s citizens annually and redistribute it, along with billions in loaned money, within the state? We’re talking billions of dollars in the hands of those chosen by ballot. Naturally, as a result, those controlling this racket are going to fight for every spot on that ballot. Every citizen motivated by individual desires should be empowered to present their campaigns to voters. Sure, there are going to be a wealth of nuts. But after seeing Jason Plummer, Rod Blagojevich, and Scott Cohen winning nominations within the current rules of political ballot play in our state, we have to admit we could hardly do worse. When our political parties are failing so miserably in nominating qualified quality candidates, Illinoisans should be empowered to take the job and do it better. So yes, it should be more difficult to challenge petitions. It is not the petition challenger’s moral obligation to weed out their sugar daddies’ competition. It should not be possible for partisans to determine whom appears on our ballots. In the 21st Century, we have plenty of routes to expose corrupted candidates. If political parties took their responsibilities seriously, they would have the credibility to steer their supporters towards good candidates and away from the bad ones. With the Internet, there is more 24/7 media availability to bring democracy to Illinois. It is time for us to leave behind the status quo partisan power players within our political parties, and let the sunshine of democracy clean up the cesspool of corruption that is Illinois politics today. - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:29 am: Reform of the process is definitely needed. But we should remember that getting signatures is an important part of the process for two reasons: 1) Collecting signatures is good for the candidate because they are forced to put together an organization ahead of the election which helps them exercise their political muscles; 2) It reduces the presence of phony candidate who simply had to write a check to qualify. A look at the disaster in the SC U.S. Senate race where a deadbeat and accused crook was nominated in the Dem primary over a legit candidate. They have no signature requirements. Reforms that should include rationalizing the signature number requirements (it takes 60% more signatures to run for Cook County Water Reclamation Commissioner than for IL governor) and easing the definition of what constitutes a valid signature. particularly in the number of valid signatures required for an office - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:29 am: Oops. Formatting was messed up in my post. Forget the last sentence fragment. - AJsaCrook - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:30 am: What about Cedra Crenshaw ? Why challenge and feet drag 35 days in a very pro dem State Senate District ? - Levois - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:33 am: # “But keeping the other guy off the ballot is the way things work here.” Sounds like a justification. I think it should be made more difficult. Not saying you shouldn’t attempt to challenge petitions, but there should be a way where it wouldn’t cost insurgent campaigns much money to defend their petitions and even if the infractions are relatively minor there should be an opportunity to correct them. If possible. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:35 am: Well said, V-Man. - soccermom - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:04 pm: I dunno. Forrest’s petitions show that it’s possible to get on the ballot without having the might of the Democratic Machine behind you. And I don’t think it’s fair for Claypool, or another independent to go to the effort and expense of securing the necessary signatures only to have someone else get on the ballot with only a fraction of the required petition signatures. If we don’t challenge — and if the election officials aren’t willing to take on the task — how do we make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules? And here’s another, pragmatic issue: If a campaign can’t get its act together to get petitions signed, how can you expect them to get organized to do anything else? And if a candidate can’t pull together petition signatures, can s/he really govern? - Lakefront Liberal - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:08 pm: I agree with Pot Calling Kettle: “we should change the law and require the election authorities to validate the signatures (and other information) on all filings.” In other words, yes, I think it should be made “more difficult” to challenge petition signatures in the sense that I think individuals shouldn’t be allowed to do it at all. It is nuts to give campaigns this method of legal intimidation of their opponents (i.e. when they file nuisance challenges), and it is nuts to rely on campaigns to make sure that all candidates fulfill their petition requirements (who examines the signatures of those running unopposed? anyone?). The election authorities should check the paperwork of all candidates to make sure they have satisfied the requirments. And if some small requirement was missed the campaign should have an opportunity to rectify this. For example, in 2007 Aldermanic candidates were kicked off the ballot for including a photo-copy of a receipt instead of the original receipt in their paperwork. It is crazy to have someone’s whole campaign go down for something like this. Campaigns should be given two business days or something similar to rectify small issues. We want people to do what is required to get on the ballot, but those requirements should be administered in a reasonable way, all candidates should receive the same scrutiny, and the people providing that scrutiny should NOT be those with a vested interest in getting that candidate off the ballot. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:23 pm: =If a campaign can’t get its act together to get petitions signed, how can you expect them to get organized to do anything else? And if a candidate can’t pull together petition signatures, can s/he really govern? = I’m not sure that really proves anything if you think of a first-time candidate as “a start-up”. You’d have to assume they’re more likely to hit “procedural” snags than someone who has done it before. Doesn’t seem to say much, however, about the product or service being offered. There’s a possibility that a great “innovation” might have just gotten stalled in its infancy due to procedural error, failing to make it to “market”. - Dooley Dudright - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:40 pm: It shouldn’t be more difficult to challenge petition signatures. Instead — make challenge and screening mechanisms smarter. I support the “apparent conformity” standard articulated by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden: election authorities should be empowered to refuse nominating papers which are, on their faces, patently defective or insufficient. http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2009/08/05/apparent-conformity/ - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:48 pm: Sorry. “Lost” my handle again (even yesterday). I posted 11:35 and 12:23. - JeffTrigg - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:18 pm: Illinois’ private petition challenge system needs to be completely abolished. NY and IL are the only two states with such system. There should be no such thing as a petition challenge in Illinois. It serves no purpose whatsoever except to stunt democratic elections. This world has all kinds of examples of fair ballot access requirements and Illinois is one of the worst in the world. Charlie Crist just paid a $10,000 filing fee in Florida to run for US Senate as an independent. Florida brings in hundreds of thousands in filing fee revenues each election. Illinois spends millions on petition challenges each election. - plutocrat03 - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:25 pm: No it should not be more difficult to make a challenge to the petitions. There should, however be reforms to the number of signatures needed to get on a ballot. The ‘bonus’ of reduced signatures because you belong to a party should be removed. It is not hard to collect valid signatures. When you go door to door, you already know that you are in the correct district and is is not hard to check to see if the voter is registered. For those who collect signatures in public places, the job is more difficult, but still doable with training. Gocha challenges such as consecutive numbering of pages or “proper’ binding should be disallowed. - John Galt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:26 pm: Keep the petition system as-is but with one exception: If you challenge a set of petitions and lose, you must pay the attorney fees of the defendant. Granted, it may not stop the wealthy candidates and machines from challenging, but: 1) it would stop some of the frivolous challenges from happening at the lower levels, and 2) it would allow a “little guy” to vigorously defend their signatures if they were being bullied by a machine and they were confident that their signatures would hold up. i.e., no racking up attorneys bills and forcing somebody out that way…. - the Other Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:30 pm: It’s pretty easy to challenge petitions now, but that’s necessary because private challenges are the only way to enforce ballot access laws. However, the thing that galls me is that there is no sanction for frivolous challenges. I would leave the mechanism for petition challenges the same, but impose sanctions (such as paying for the other side’s legal fees) if the electoral board finds that the challenge was frivolous. - JeffTrigg - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:32 pm: If they keep the private challenge system, then yes, it needs to be much more difficult to file petitions. There are no consequences to filing frivolous challenges and that needs to stop because it wastes too much money and is anti-democratic. I’d charge a filing fee for petition challenges $1 for every signature the candidate was required to get and another $1 for each signature challenged. So for statewide office, challengers should have to pay $25,000 plus $1 for every sig they challenge. At least. It costs taxpayers a lot more than that. In addition to that if their challenge fails, they should have to pay costs and damages to the candidate and the taxpayers of Illinois. - JeffTrigg - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:36 pm: “private challenges are the only way to enforce ballot access laws” Nope, but they are stupidest and costliest way to enforce ballot access laws. 99.9% of the democratic world enforces ballot access laws without using private challenge systems which pretty much proves it is not the only way to do it. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:16 pm: V-man wrote: ==It is not the petition challenger’s moral obligation to weed out their sugar daddies’ competition.== Actually, in Illinois, it is. That’s where the law places the burden. If I took a petition and wrote in a bunch of made-up signatures and addresses while sitting in my living room, I would get on the ballot unless challenged by someone who took the time to to pull my petitions and file a challenge. Silly system, but that’s what we have in Illinois. - Amalia - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:22 pm: shouldn’t they start by equalizing the numbers of signatures necessary for offices? to the best of my recollection, there are larger numbers necessary for party office than for mayor in Chicago, more needed for independent office than for the same office in the primary, right? that would go a long way to creating balance, and take out some of the challenge automatically. as for Berrios, no paragon of democratic virtue, the only hope he had of getting his opponent off the ballot was a question of whether those who voted in the Democratic primary could circulate or sign. it would have been an ugly constitutional fight, one calling into question the motives of individuals who wanted to get a candidate on the ballot, not just the candidate, and shown Berrios to be what we know he is… a large, heaping, cog in the machine. isn’t Berrios the patron of the tanning judge, Gloria Chevere, pictured on Fox Chicago? by his fruits we shall know him. - Conservative Veteran - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:03 pm: Yes, Amalia. All statewide candidates, of the Republican, Democrat, and Green Parties must submit at least 5,000 signatures, but all others must submit at least 25,000 signatures. I think that the minimums should be the same for all parties. If that change is made, fewer third-party candidates would get objections, since they would easily get enough signatures. - Honest Abe - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:09 pm: Under the current system, it costs nothing for an Objector to file a challenge to sufficiency of a nominating petition. There is no absolute requirement of a good faith effort on the part of the Objector to file a bona fide objection and no realistic penalties for filing a frivolous objection. There should be penalties for objections filed solely to harass a candidate or to cause the candidate to waste funds defending a petition that could otherwise be used for campaigning. - GetOverIt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:11 pm: Has anyone on this post ever circulated a petition? I will tell you, it’s hard work. Just getting enough signatures to get your name on the ballot as a candidate for state rep can take a month, not including the additional signatures one must procure to assure survival post-challenge. I say, to heck with the signature requirements. Open up the dam…let them all in… - Old Timer Dem - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:27 pm: I have been circulating petitions for decades. It is a difficult process to say the least. The process should be made easier so everyone has a chance to run for any office. Claypool was able to get enough signatures to discourage a Berrios challenge only because he had the full force of the Axelrod machine behind him. Axelrod’s machine makes the “Cook County Machine” that these so called reformers want to defeat look like Kindergarten kids. Axelrod is participating in a big way in Claypools campaign. They smell blood and hope to capture complete control in Cook county based on the anti-incumbent mood that has developed from the horrible economy. Hopefully the electorate realizes these guys are no better than the “Machine Dems” Alexrod and his followeres want to defeat. - hipster - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:29 pm: The real question of the day, Rich, is this: when will you blast your drinkin buddy for not paying taxes? - Old Timer Dem - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:39 pm: Hipster, you probably need to narrow the scope of your question for him to answer. Rich may have a few drinking buddies with tax problems. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:43 pm: =Rich may have a few drinking buddies with tax problems. = And I’ll bet they’re the “more respectable” of the bunch! - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:49 pm: Hmmm…I bet this week’s search for our “closing” tune is on. Any bets on whether Rich’ll go for the obvious or a more “obscure” topic this week? - Old Timer Dem - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 3:54 pm: Conventional wisdom by the establishment politicians is if your opponents can not get on the ballot they can not win. Obviously this is true. The cost and the effort entailed in not only getting the necessary petitions circulated correctly and legally is cumbersome. Numerous circulators or should I say soldiers are required to have an effective petition operation. It is even more cumbersome and costly to challenge an opponent and successfully remove them from the ballot. The soldiers who circulate and challenge usually get burned out in the process. It would be much easier and be better open government to relax the requirements to run for office. The establishment would benefit also because additional candidates would split the anti-establishment vote to the benefit of the incumbents. There would also be less burnout with regards to the “Little People” who “volunteer” to circulate and challenge the opposition petitions. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:20 pm: Great point Hipster! Rich hit Bardy pretty hard for not paying federal taxes. Will he give Alexi the same treatment??? - VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:29 pm: It is not the petition challenger’s moral obligation to weed out their sugar daddies’ competition. If I took a petition and wrote in a bunch of made-up signatures and addresses while sitting in my living room, I would get on the ballot unless challenged by someone who took the time to to pull my petitions and file a challenge. What if I inserted the word “legitimate” competetition, because what you wrote I do not disagree with. I see the current process empowering petition challengers in a way that eliminates legitimate competition. Now, that may not be a legal description, yet, the intention behind my original statement recognizes that the current system is abused by petition challengers whose sole purpose is focused on finding reasons to eliminate honest challengers, in my opinion and in the opinion of those expressing concerns over the current system. We should err on the side of the challenger in order to ensure political competition within our democracy. What we have is petition challengers employed to root out challengers which meet the intention behind the process, but may fail in some minor aspects. This is simply wrong as you would agree, I believe. - Team Sleep - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:38 pm: No, it should not be more difficult. Pouring over thousands of signatures and trying to determine if people are registered to vote is a tedious task - especially with the current deadline timeframe in relation to when most third parties or third party candidates turn in their petitions. However, given the money in Illinois politics and the legions of Dem and GOP attorneys, perhaps it should be difficult. - Reformer - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:52 pm: The biggest abuse of petition battles comes in local elections where local election boards (as opposed to county or state boards) decide upon the validity of challenges. These local boards consist of local officials from the same unit of gov’t as the canddiates and who always have political ties (sometimes they’re running mates) to either the challenged or to the challenger. Since legal opinions can be given on either side of complicated petition issue, boards with an ax to grind can often reach their desired verdict. Such flagrant conflicts of interest should be ended. - Upstate - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 5:23 pm: ==Claypool was able to get enough signatures to discourage a Berrios challenge only because he had the full force of the Axelrod machine behind him=(Old Timer Dem) Geesh…and I thought Axelrod was all tied up with Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf Oil spill! He does county Assessor’s petition drives too? What a guy! - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 5:27 pm: I’m guessing he will, Anon 4:20. UNLESS–and again, I’m guessing–he decides that most of us would respond the same way (which most of us would) now that the shoes on the other foot. - the Other Anonymous - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 5:46 pm: Jeff Trigg wrote: “private challenges are the only way to enforce ballot access laws” Nope, but they are stupidest and costliest way to enforce ballot access laws. Let me clarify my statement: private challenges are the only way to enforce ballot access laws under the Illinois Election Code. I agree that there are other ways — namely, having county clerks verify signatures. However, I am not sure that having elected clerks, who themselves run on a partisan ballot, enforce the requirements would be less controversial. The charges of bias and prejudice when a candidate is knocked off the ballot will only be louder. And for the commenters who support a filing fee for petitions (not challenges, as Jeff suggests): keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that if a state requires a filing fee for petitions, it must also provide a way for getting on the ballot without a fee, i.e., through signatures. This is not a solution to the problem of frivolous challenges, it’s only a way for well-funded or wealthy candidates to avoid grassroots field work. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 8:45 pm: I would toss the current system. It seems strange that the election authority is not responsible for checking the materials. Of course, this is untenable because of the signature requirements. And who’s to say what determines legitimacy? In Illinois, it’s the challengers. I do think there is a role for citizens to examine and challenge. To fix the system, the number of signatures should be greatly reduced, and the election authorities should screen submissions to determine if minimum requirements are met and for blatant fraud. After that, challengers should have to pay reasonable expenses (for the gov’t and candidate) if the challenge is found to lack merit. BTW, I have circulated petitions for myself and others and I have pulled and reviewed them. - Liandro - Saturday, Jul 3, 10 @ 2:18 am: Yes, make it harder to challenge…for the simple reason that more choices aren’t going to overload the system. It will lower the entry barriers for qualified individuals and perhaps better keep incumbents on their toes. I also agree with those posting above that a better democracy would not give the major parties a leg-up by lowering their petition requirements. That is pure nonsense imo. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.