119 Comments - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:10 am: What point is the right to vote if you don’t have the right to choose? When only one name is on the ballot, in effect, you ARE denied the right to vote. There’s only one special case where only one candidate was on the ballot and still failed to win (mostly because he forgot to vote for himself come election day). - Todd - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:14 am: tee up the house district in 2012 - Living in Oklahoma - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:19 am: If she didn’t get enough signatures to with stand a protest of her petitions then she shouldn’t be on the ballot to start with. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:20 am: Why didnt’ she run against McAsey, she would have had a chance there, Ms. Crenshaw had the opportunity to run in the Primary and she chose not to There will be a lot of tea party folks who will give her money instead of a worthy candidate and i’m fine with that, good luck with the approximately 35% you will get - Coach - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:20 am: === She’s also black, and tea party types have used her skin color to counter claims by the NAACP and others that they are not racists. === Rich, did you intend the double negative with both “counter” and “not”? The statement might make more sense without the “not”. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:22 am: She filed with 2100 signatures, she needed 1000. The issue isn’t with her signatures, the issue is with the ambiguous new law that requires candidates petition after being slated. There is a debate about whether it should be 90 days or 75 days. She used stock petitions, but she also submitted evidence that she started circulating 19 days out anyway. Or I should say, she tried to submit evidence, the Will County Election Board rejected her attempt to submit evidence, argued that her forms were wrong and then kicked her off the ballot for circulating too early, even though the evidence clearly showed otherwise. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:23 am: I do believe that Ambiguous new law was sponsored by Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) - Jake from Elwood - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:24 am: This election petition challenging process is a hypertechnical and befuddling set of circumstances. It is a cottage industry for a handful of election attorneys like Odelson and Kaspar. There is often no rhyme or reason to the decisions made (even by the judges). No one who has ever been through a few of these can can ignore the fact that politics often swallows up the law. But, understand, this is not just about Ms. Crenshaw, this is about all political neophytes. Yet again, Kristin McQueary knocks the ball out the park. Well said. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:25 am: HB0723 Flew through the General Assembly, House Third Reading Third Reading - Short Debate - Passed 112-004-001 Senate Third, Unanamious - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:26 am: ===The issue isn’t with her signatures=== Who said it was? - Easy - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:26 am: she’s just one mom. What do the dems have against moms? - Anon - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:28 am: Rich- I think you hit this one on the head. Everyone needs to take a deep breath here. Thanks for being the cooler head in this situation and pointing out the district is almost unwinnable. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:29 am: ===House Third Reading Third Reading - Short Debate - Passed 112-004-001=== That was the original bill. After the Senate amended it, the concurrence motion passed the House unanimously. 117-0. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:29 am: My apologies - Fed up - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:30 am: Rich when it comes to this you give the dems a pass on race. When Bobby Rush slapped down Quinn telling the U of I trustees to resign well only the black ones nothing was said. Racism is alive and it’s the Dems exploiting it. The only reason the two trustees were allowed to stay was the color of their skin. For several local Dems all that mattered was that the person appointed to replace Obama was that they be black. When John stroger died many Crook Co dems claimed that position could only go to an African American. Racial politics is used everyday in Illinois. When the Dupage board president position came up for election I think the reaction would of been differnt if local pols said only a white person can have this job. - N'ville - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:30 am: In this political environment, NO district is unwinnable…which is exactly why the Democrats went to the extremes that they did in this case. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:33 am: ===In this political environment, NO district is unwinnable=== That is utter hogwash from somebody who doesn’t know a thing about history or this map. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:33 am: - What point is the right to vote if you don’t have the right to choose? - She didn’t say choice is being denied, she said the vote is being denied. If she didn’t make stupid claims like that, journalists wouldn’t have to point out her stupid claims. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:34 am: ===Quinn telling the U of I trustees to resign well only the black ones nothing was said=== You are insane. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:36 am: Rich- “Living in Oklahoma” said signatures were an issue. Small Town Liberal- And my point is, denying someone the right to choose an alternative candidate on spurious and capricious reasons is essentially the same as denying them them the right to vote. It’s media, I could explain it in a law review article and make it airtight, sure. Or we could use a soundbite. Golly gee, what a shocker the soundbite was used. - train111 - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:39 am: Looks like both sides play the ‘Race Card’ when it is to their benefit. Tea Party and NAACP alike–go look in the mirror guys–you are both playing the same political game!! train111 - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:39 am: Fed up, the next time you intend to hurl partisan accusations at me, do a simple search first. For instance, here are just two posts which take up that U of I issue that you were so wrong about… https://capitolfax.com/2009/08/21/quinn-sets-another-trap-for-himself/ https://capitolfax.com/wp-mobile.php?p=9336&more=1 Bite me, you freaking moron. - Jean9 - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:40 am: Really? Really? So your point is that here in the 43rd Illinois Senate District, I have a right to vote for my Senator? ….. Wilhelmi or Wilhelmi… last time I checked that isnt a choice. Everyone forgets to mention that she was removed on a “possibility” She was denied the opportunity to present evidence AND her petitions copied the language from the statute. Really - lets stop election by lawyer and give the voters a choice. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:41 am: Rich- Tad touchier than usual. aren’t we? - Ghost of John Brown - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:41 am: Rich - In response to John B’s comment - “Living in Oklahoma” brought up the number of signatures as the 3rd comment. That said - I agree that the comment about kicking her off the ballot was racist. The Dems would have tried to kick her off if she was green or purple. What IS dissapointing is that the NAACP doesn’t step in to say something. By their silence, they show that they are not about the “Advancement of Colored People”, as their name indicates, but the advancement of colored people who vote Democrat. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:42 am: Let me get my umbrella, look like the BS Storm is coming - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:42 am: John Bambenek - I know what your point is John, but we’re not talking about your point. We’re talking about what she said. And what she said was false, no matter how much you want to make it into a metaphor. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:42 am: I’m not being touchy, John. Just pointing out the facts to morons. It’s a bit frustrating, however, since morons don’t care about facts. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:43 am: The reality is, the Chicago Democrats will let you vote for whoever you want, as long as it’s A. J. Wilhelmi. And then they’ll croon on how much of the vote he got to show how blue a district it is. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:45 am: Small Town Liberal- Who do you think came up with the talking point? Yes, denying voters the right to choose *IS* denying them the right to vote. Yes, the Republicans do it too. Yes, it’s still BS. That’s why there was a particular clause in Put-Back to end that (at least for the ILGA) where a clear and convincing case of fraud, deception or unintelligibility were the only causes to remove someone from the ballot. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:48 am: - Who do you think came up with the talking point? - Good for you, you’re deliberately misleading voters. Yes, the Democrats do it too. Yes, it’s still BS. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:51 am: Miller- your theory would hold more water had the Dems challenged the other dude too. How’s that not dealing with the distraction working out for them? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:52 am: Dave, sometimes they let others do their dirty work for them. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:53 am: Also, better to have two conservatives in the race than one. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:57 am: C’mon guys. This is politics. Let’s explore two messages: “The voters are being deprived the right to vote for a Republican on the ballot because the Will County board denied my petition to overrule their decision to remove me from the ballot by disallowing my petitions because of a new unclear rule passed by the GA that said a petition had to say 75 days even though I downloaded a form from the state that said 90 days and because the law was unclear, didn’t change the language even though I only passed petitions for 19 days but they wouldn’t allow me to present evidence showing that I complied with the intent of the law, and they are excluding me or a technicality.” OR: “The voters are being deprived the right to vote.” From a communications point of view, which would YOU rather do? - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 11:59 am: Sure, but it’s best for the no distraction theory to have none. Wonder how much Kasper charges? They improve Cedra chances at a competitive race every day. This couldn’t have backfired on them more. Before, it may have been a nuisance. Now, they have to keep her off. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:02 pm: - From a communications point of view, which would YOU rather do? - I understand the strategy, that doesn’t make it honest. - Cedra Crenshaw vs. The Machine - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:05 pm: Unwinnable? I don’t doubt Crenshaw would have an uphill battle, but it’s not like the great AJ Wilhelmi is known as a hard campaigner. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:05 pm: ===Wonder how much Kasper charges? === Usually pro bono. - State Rep Mike Fortner - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:06 pm: One area of confusion came from the change in the language of HB723 as initially passed in the House to the version passed in the Senate which became law. The original House version required the party committee to slate within 60 days after the primary and signatures to be collected from that point until filed, which was specified to be on the same schedule as for independent candidates. The Senate amendment set both the period for slating and filing to be 75 days after the primary. That Senate change overlooked another section of the election code that specifically says a petition must certify that none of the signatures were collected more than 90 days in advance of the last filing date. The new law requires the same petition form, but a shorter collection period. Since 75 days is less than 90, it is certainly true that valid signatures under the new law would also be within 90 days, but there is nothing on the standard form to indicate that a shorter period for collection was used. The intent from the original language referred to the process for independent candidates and should have avoided the current confusion. However, this point was missed when the Senate amendment was attached and the result is host of interpretations by local election boards. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:08 pm: ===and the result is host of interpretations by local election boards. === Thanks for the explanation, Rep. Fortner. To our new commenters, notice how the word “racism” wasn’t used once? - ZC - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:09 pm: If “voters’ right to choose” means anyone can get on the ballot, just by wishing to, the thing would be about a hundred names long for every position. - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:11 pm: =Who said it was?= Your readers have repeatedly raised the issue of the number of signatures. I don’t know how you don’t see the political engineering in this story. Michael Kasper is hired in one district to keep Deb Mell on the ballot after she submits documents that list her address as outside the district she wants to represent. Then Kasper is hired to knock Crenshaw off the ballot on a technicality. Take a wild guess what Michael Kasper is cooking? Machine stew. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:12 pm: State Rep Mike Fortner, Would you be willing to provide an opinion of this challenge based on the intent of the petitioner and the intent of the final law? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:13 pm: Brennan, all you’ve “proved” with that post is that Kasper works for Democrats. Take a breath. As far as the petition sigs go, I just didn’t see those other posts or I would’ve weighed in. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:13 pm: Mlller Yeah, pro bono means they make sure he gets the paying gigs. This is not going to turn out well for the anointed Senator in the 43rd. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:15 pm: Dave, Quincy is a long way from Joliet. You might want to take a look at that district before making bold predictions. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:20 pm: Miller The prediction is bold. I base it solely on the people backing her. Get some popcorn. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:22 pm: ===I base it solely on the people backing her.=== And they have proved what so far? They can gather sigs, sure. Can they overcome a gigantic D map? Prove it. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:25 pm: Tea partiers love to be outraged. It’s like a movement of Jay Mariottis. - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:28 pm: I agree that Crenshaw’s race is not why she was challenged. It IS ironic how the Democrats race card has been turned against them, though, and I think the uproar this has caused indicates others catch that irony, too. The timing of the NAACP’s foolish, self-serving resolution just exacerbated this situation (completely unsurprising). Bottom line: this charge is resonating, and that needs to be examined. It shouldn’t be, but it is. I completely disagree with the relevance of this district’s winnability, though, Rich. That just doesn’t matter. Fielding candidates gets the message out, and helps with the ideological push-back. In a recent piece you were blasting Brady for not putting more focus in Chicago (not a natural base for him), but here you are essentially saying Republicans shouldn’t mind ignoring this area. Nonsense. We need to fight everywhere. That helps out our state-wide candidates, and we spread our message to responsive people who otherwise would go untapped. Hopefully we also lay groundwork for one day re-taking long lost areas. As for the right to vote, it is kinda pointless when your options are one guy and…that’s it. It is possible to strip someone’s rights in effect while leaving it there on paper. This junk drives reformers up the wall because it is blatantly abused, and is rather undemocratic to begin with. For that matter, so are lower petition thresholds for certain groups. As for the Chicago machine being afraid of her…maybe, maybe not. They have weaknesses, Rich, and slowly losing the minority vote is definitely one of them. They have multiple minority candidates running against them in the Chicago area…so yeah, Rich, I find it possible they are threatened. This is only somewhat relevant, though, because you are completely right that they would have challenged any competition. But it IS relevant in that she may face greater push-back then some…and she would be a fool not to recognize that. Heck, maybe that plays into why the issue is resonating? No? - just sayin - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:29 pm: I think Dave is proving it right now. When is the last time you see a GOP state senator challenger plugged on Hannity? How much is all this earned media worth (please denominate by number of cases of whiskey you could buy with it). AJ decided to pick on a black housewife and he’s getting his posterior handed to him. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:31 pm: ===here you are essentially saying Republicans shouldn’t mind ignoring this area=== Um, no I’m not. Where do you get that? ===When is the last time you see a GOP state senator challenger plugged on Hannity? === Probably never, but that’s because this issue is so unique. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:32 pm: - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:22 pm: And they have proved what so far? They can gather sigs, sure. Rich, that ain’t chopped liver. Even if she had paid for signature collection, and if we believe her that she circulated for less than 20 days, and if she collected 2100 valid signatures, that’s still a pretty impressive feet of electioneering. Impartially, you have to admit that it shows a certain enthusiasm among voters for change in what is normally a safe district. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:33 pm: ===They have weaknesses, Rich, and slowly losing the minority vote is definitely one of them. === Where? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:34 pm: ===Impartially, you have to admit that it shows a certain enthusiasm among voters for change in what is normally a safe district. === It does, but it also shows a strong candidate. She’s good at what she does. No doubt. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:40 pm: - The prediction is bold. I base it solely on the people backing her. - Yeah, John Bambenek has a long tradition of winning… - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:45 pm: Define “win”. Put-Back? I knew that was a longshot, everyone did. It was building an organization and carrying an issue. I have a mail list of 50,000 people now, for instance. Adam? Sure, he didn’t win the primary, but he’s probably one of the more influential Republicans in the state today. And issues I was talking about 4-5 years ago, many are talking about today. If you’re starting from behind, you aren’t going to be head of the pack quickly and without effort. But in November, I bet I win more than you do. - dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:48 pm: Adam? … he’s probably one of the more influential Republicans in the state today. Ha. I am trying to figure out how much Adam A would help a candidate, and how. I am thinking he would help them get about .1% of extra votes. And that may be being generous. Adam A has no organization. He has no influence. He does’t have real money to throw around. How you think he is one of the most influential Repubs is beyond me. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:51 pm: dave- Keep watching. - dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:53 pm: So who does Adam A influence? You? Fran? Anyone else? - just sayin' - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:53 pm: I agree that Crenshaw should be on the ballot and I agree with those fighting for her. But I also agree it’s wrong for Republicans to play the race card, something they always complain about when Dems do it. Rich is 100% right that “The Democrats didn’t challenge Crenshaw’s petitions because she was black, they challenged the petitions because she’s a Republican. Period.” It’s also interesting to note that the Illinois Republican Party is behind more objections pending right now with the Illinois Board of Elections than anyone. So the complaining about the “Chicago Democrat Machine” is also hollow. But that’s not Cedra’s fault that the IL GOP is making her look like a hypocrite. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:55 pm: dave- Your mom. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:55 pm: Wow, this conversation seems to have gone off on a tangent of biblical proportions. Has Wilhelmi been out touching voters? I think that will make the difference. If the Crenshaw campaign relies on rhetoric and he is quietly knocking doors, it’s game over. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:56 pm: It’s unclear if Wilhelmi has ever knocked on a door since there has never been a serious challenge in this district since like 1988. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:58 pm: Miller I’m not talking about the signature gatherers. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 12:58 pm: John Bambenek - Well, when someone makes a prediction about a candidate winning based on her backers, and I comment on your history backing candidates, I guess I probably mean winning elections. And I would love to know what issues you thought of 4-5 years ago that people are just starting to talk about. I’m surprised you’re not a bigger Kirk fan with the grand visions of your own resume. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:01 pm: Small Town Liberal- Adam was the first candidate I backed in any serious way. Exactly what about my resume would you like to discuss besides the grabage fed to you by Jay Rowell? - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:01 pm: Small Town Liberal I wasn’t talking about John either really. Get the big tub with the liquid butter. You can share it with Rich. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:05 pm: Whiskey and liquid butter? Not a good image. - Highland, IL - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:06 pm: The Trolls have taken over! - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:11 pm: Whenever I ask for calm, some folks demand craziness. Never fails. - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:13 pm: Hrm, I stand corrected on you saying R’s should ignore the district. You tied the “unwinnable” argument to your point that Dem’s weren’t afraid of her (something I’m still not convinced of). I read into it a bit farther then I should have. As to “Where?”, I’m not sure what you’re asking. I was referring to anywhere–to the future prospect of eroding minority support. This is especially true anytime Dem’s have to face minority candidates. They have played the race card so often that it hamstrings them when they go after minorities (even legitimately). I’m not saying that’s just, I’m just saying it is a noticeable dynamic. If they overplay their hand, they risk backlash. Example: The controversy over using it against Obama in the primaries (”he’s not black enough”). Black lawmakers and other leaders got burned. It is easier to play against minority R’s, but still risky; I believe it is getting riskier each cycle. That dynamic plays into what the Chicago machine can do, and I hope they learn that the hard way. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:13 pm: - grabage fed to you by Jay Rowell - You could start by telling me what you mean by that since I haven’t received any garbage from Jay Rowell. - dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:15 pm: You know… the conservatives, including Crenshaw, would have a lot more credibility if they complained about the GOP backed petition challenges. Until then, their complaints about democracy and a right to vote ring quite hollow. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:16 pm: ===As to “Where?”, I’m not sure what you’re asking.=== You wrote… ===As for the Chicago machine being afraid of her…maybe, maybe not. They have weaknesses, Rich, and slowly losing the minority vote is definitely one of them.=== Where in Chicago over the past decade has this erosion happened? Specifically. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:17 pm: For the record, I was referring to a tub of popcorn and the liquidy movie butter referenced in a previous comment. - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:19 pm: Small dave You do know he had one sig on his petition, his own? - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:27 pm: Rich- You are aware Illinois is more than “Chicago”, right? - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:28 pm: @just sayin: I too would much prefer if R’s weren’t injecting race into the situation. So easy, but so destructive to the whole process. I didn’t even like putting up my last comment, but minority support is an openly fought over voting bloc, so sometimes it has to be discussed. I wish the lines were drawn differently. At the end of the day, people should be voting on issues, resumes, and character. The idea of a Black caucus or Hispanic caucus has always bothered me, especially when someone like Joseph Cao, representing an over 50% black district, isn’t allowed in the Black caucus. That was a blatantly liberal sucker-punch, and I would argue blatantly racist. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:32 pm: I live in Springfield, John, so yes. Why? - dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:33 pm: Small dave - You do know he had one sig on his petition, his own You do know that a) Crenshaw still took away voters’ right to vote for him, and b) that the Republicans have challenged many more petitions than just that one, right? Until you all start complaining about Republican petition challenges as often as you complain about Dem petition challenges, you have ZERO credibility. - Downstater - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:34 pm: Rich, You challenged the guy that said “no district is unwinnable”. Have you seen the poll numbers out of metro east? This haven for Democrats is showing a real contempt for all things of the Democratic party - Quinn, Alexi, Hoffman, even Obamacare. - dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:34 pm: John doesn’t seem to understand that when someone refers to the Chicago machine, that examples from Chicago would seem to be relevant. - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:34 pm: @Rich: I was referring to the *future prospect* of eroding minority support. I was not trying to say there is a history of it. Sorry if that was not clear. I see it as a standing weakness, not a weakness that has been exploited. As you mentioned with Brady, it sometimes seems R’s go out of their way to NOT exploit it, and that is part of why that vote has remained locked down. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:36 pm: Downstater, I’ve seen results from two polls in Hoffman’s district. Both are completely and diametrically opposed to each other. More for subscribers tomorrow. - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:38 pm: @dave: I’m conservative, and I complain about the R’s doing it. I complain that it is so easy at all, and I complain that Greens, ‘tarians, and idie’s have higher petition counts. If I were an officeholder I’d fight it, and as a citizen I would vote for a state constitution amendment equalizing petition drives. And, yes, that is something I have mentioned in live discussions, not just on internet boards. - Adam Andrzejewski - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:40 pm: Across the state, there were several challenges on this technical petition point, and everyone- except Cedra- won their challenge. The local Democrat board pushed the envelope by booting her. They also did it by waiting 6 weeks and 2 days to make a decision. This is more than just a simple challenge. They reversed themselves two hours later and kept Ryan Eggert. It’s a clear case. Wilhelmi admitted that he’s driving/controlling the challenge in today’s Southtown article (above) he said he won’t appeal the circuit courts ruling. We’ve asked him from the beginning to call Kaspar off- but, Wilhelmi keeps proving the point that he’s part of the corrupt Chicago Machine. - Downstater - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:41 pm: “I’ve seen results from two polls in Hoffman’s district. Both are completely and diametrically opposed to each other. More for subscribers tomorrow.” I’m ahead of The Capitol Fax? Either I’ve died and gone to heaven, or it’s the final sign of the apacolypse! - Dave - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:49 pm: tiny dave After Cedra gains her rightful place on the ballot, you should push the Wilhemi campaign to use that in their mailers. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 1:56 pm: Adam A and John B - You’ve still yet to prove in any way that this had anything to do with race or fear. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:04 pm: - Small Town Liberal Ahh… nowhere in Adam’s reply did he make a statement saying it was racially motivated. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:04 pm: Pedersen filed with one signature. He made no attempt to follow the low to get on the ballot. Cedra made a good-faith effort and complied with all aspects. That’s the difference. There isn’t a “tad bit of hypocrisy”, or, as Jay Rowell said, “ZO NOES, I IZ HORRIFIED AFTER ALL MAH YEARZ IN POLITICKS I’VE NEVER SEEN SUCH EBIL!!” Pedersen filed for every office he could file for with only one signature, his own. It’s about as serious as me declaring my candidacy for the Presidency in 2012. Cedra is the exact kind of candidate Democrats don’t want on the ballot. She may win, she may lose, but more importantly, she’ll make Wilhelmi actually have to campaign and work for the office he was coronated with. And that’s just not the Chicago way. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:06 pm: ==as Jay Rowell said, “ZO NOES, I IZ HORRIFIED AFTER ALL MAH YEARZ IN POLITICKS I’VE NEVER SEEN SUCH EBIL!!”== Dude, you are out to lunch - tominchicago - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:07 pm: “Adam? Sure, he didn’t win the primary, but he’s probably one of the more influential Republicans in the state today.” That is either one of the funniest things every said about Illinois politics or is the saddest assessment of the ILGOP ever written. - chicago 7 - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:09 pm: ‘Pro bono’ means ‘for the (common) good.’ In this case, the lawyers representing the Dems might be working for free, but they aren’t working pro bono. They’re only oiling up the machine that help them earn a living. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:12 pm: ===I’m ahead of The Capitol Fax?=== No. lol - siriusly - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:23 pm: WORDSLINGER! LOL “Tea partiers love to be outraged. It’s like a movement of Jay Mariottis. ” I couldn’t pinpoint what annoys me about them until you said that. Now I know. I wonder how the WSox feel about the tea partiers. - JeffTrigg - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:52 pm: You mean Illinois Republicans actually have the nerve to complain about a candidate getting kicked off the ballot over a technicality? That is completely hypocritical. Illinois Republicans, as we speak, are trying to do the exact same thing to the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and independents. Do we need to bring up George Ryan in 1998 using state employees on the clock according to a Tribune investigation? Jim Ryan’s complete failure to boot Skinner in 2002 with a frivolous and wasteful challenge? Cedra Crenshaw and Illinois Republicans need to look in a mirror. Character has nothing to do with race. This is obviously flawed election law. All of Illinois’ election law is seriously flawed. It has even been ruled unconstitutional recently in Lee v. Keith, which is why IL will have its first independent candidate for the GA in 30 years this election. It took a lawsuit for that needed reform, since politicians like Rep. Fortner continue to fail to live up to Article III. Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution. “All elections shall be free and equal.” Come on Rep. Fortner, step up. Get rid of this private petition challenge process that both Republicans and Democrats abuse to remove competition from our free and equal ballots. Filing fees will bring in revenue. Also offering the option to get sigs, but all candidates should have the same sig requirement. 500 for state rep for everyone is equal. Everyone will tell you raising $10,000 as Charlie Crist in FL paid to get on the ballot as an independent is easier than getting 25,000 sigs. The Utah Supreme Court just ruled that electronic signatures on petitions are valid. The rest of the world has figured out how to do elections better than the system in Illinois, without cluttered ballots or confused voters. We rely on a system where the signatures on voter registration cards signed on counter-tops 15 years earlier are compared to petition signatures obtained on clipboards held against knees on windy days while wearing gloves. And these comparisons are made by election office employees with absolutely no training in handwriting, let alone being anything close to professional handwriting experts. I’d advise Cedra Crenshaw to shut up and get to the root of this problem, which isn’t race. It is bad election law. Not just bad election law, but unconstitutional and blatantly discriminatory. - too obvious - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:54 pm: Shouldn’t Adam Andrzejewski be publicaly calling on Jason Plummer to release his tax returns? Isn’t Adam just doing the bidding of the GOP Machine by shutting up about that disclosure issue post-primary? Isn’t Adam just covering for GOP Machine candidate Jason Plummer? - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:58 pm: - Ahh… nowhere in Adam’s reply did he make a statement saying it was racially motivated. - Yes, but thats what this post is about, toning down the ridiculous attempts to blame this challenge on racism and fear. So I’m pointing out that their continued banter is really irrelevant. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:23 pm: - too obvious - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 2:54 pm: “… GOP Machine…” funniest. Thing. Ever. If the GOP has a machine, its wheels have fallen off, the engine has seized, and it’s running on vapors. - Segatari - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:35 pm: >The Republicans are pretty sure they’ll win this on appeal. They may be right, but the red-hot racial rhetoric and the mindless Tribune rants really need to be toned down in the meantime. The Democrats didn’t challenge Crenshaw’s petitions because she was black, they challenged the petitions because she’s a Republican. Period. And I suppose according to Rich Miller the bias toward other black conservative are because they’re Republicans and has nothing to do with these guys establishing themselves without help from the civil rights coalitions…geez, you really are clueless sometimes. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:37 pm: What the heck are you talking about? - too obvious - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:38 pm: “If the GOP has a machine, its wheels have fallen off, the engine has seized, and it’s running on vapors.” hmmmm, interesting. But somehow that GOP Machine can back objections to MORE candidates than the Democrats are right now. And it can still stonewall for their Gov. Lite candidate who won’t release his tax returns like everyone else. - JeffTrigg - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:43 pm: Cedra has never done anything about our ridiculous election laws because she is a standard Illinois Republican who use the same type of technicalities to remove candidates from the ballot. Illinois Republicans right now are accusing Libertarian and Constitution parties of forging signatures based on the signing conditions I described above. Hundreds, if not thousands, of the Illinois Republicans objections will be ruled against because they are absurd and arbitrarily picked. Cedra Crenshaw has said not one word about her party doing this in every past election or in this election. Also, just sayin, Illinois Republicans have often tried to kick black candidates off the ballot creating an unopposed race. If what you say is true about Chicago Democrats, it is also true about Illinois Republicans. The real truth is that our very election law obviously discriminates against independent candidates, alternative parties, and non-incumbents. - Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:43 pm: I will take this moment to applaud Ms. Crenshaw and Downstater for using the correct signifier “Democratic” instead of the incorrect (and puerile) “Democrat” in their statements. Mr. Andrzejewski, aren’t you past this nonsense? - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:48 pm: Democrat. Democratic. I’ve never understood why it’s such a huge issue that send people into a tizzy. It’s two letters, it’s not like we called you red diaper babies. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:56 pm: - John Bambenek - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:48 pm: Democrat. Democratic. I’ve never understood why it’s such a huge issue that send people into a tizzy. It’s two letters, it’s not like we called you red diaper babies. I do love how some of people(not all, mind you) who get their shorts in a knot about being called Democrat, do not hesitate to use “teabagger.” - State Rep Mike Fortner - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:58 pm: JeffTrigg, I think the record will show that I did step up. I agree that independents and established party candidates should have equal access requirements. The original version of HB723 placed the parties on the same footing as independents in signature count and timing. After the Senate amendment to HB723 kept the distinction between parties and independents I filed HB6214 to equalize independents and established party candidates. HB6214 would resolve the issue of Lee v. Keith, but it was never allowed out of Rules. - JeffTrigg - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 3:59 pm: I’d like to take this moment to point out that the Illinois Democratic Party has completely forgotten what the word democratic even means. The party doesn’t deserve to be called Democratic because they rule in Illinois with anti-democratic laws. - I'm Just Saying - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:06 pm: Representative, why did you move to concur then, and why did the HGOP caucus support it unanamiously then? - Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:07 pm: No tizzy here, Mr. B! Just having fun and finding out if guys like JeffTrigg are around. Impeach Obama! - State Rep Mike Fortner - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:15 pm: I’m Just Saying, though the signature counts represent one discrepancy, I felt the most egregious discrepancy was that the established parties needed no signatures to place a candidate on the ballot after the primary. As amended, HB723 brought the parties in line with other post-primary candidates, such as independents, by requiring signatures. The lower signature count for parties was a compromise I was willing to accept to address the greater issue of no signature requirement for parties. - PFK - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:43 pm: Rep. Fortner, the requirements are not equal. You say the signature window is 75 days, but in reality it’s 45 days, because the committee that can appoint the candidate (and thus begin the signature collection period) does not exist until a month after the election. This is hardly “equal access”. The Green Party argued that the window should equal to 90 days, which would at least put the slating requirements on par with other candidates, but there didn’t seem to be much enthusiasm among Republicans and Dems to giving slated candidates a fair shot. If you had adopted the recommendation, the language on the Crenshaw’s petition wouldn’t have been an issue. To fix the bill, I’d suggest changing the filing deadline from 75 to 120 days after the primary (which functionally would give candidates a 90-day window) and saying that committee approval can come anytime during that time frame (so a candidate can collect the signatures, then get approval at the end) — either that or move the signature collection period to the same time as independent and new party candidates to give the committees a little bit of time before they have to start making slating decisions. - JeffTrigg - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:50 pm: Rep. Fortner thanks for responding. I can not find where the original bill HB723 made signature requirements equal. If that was in there, I apologize, you did step up. However, with about half of the GA races unopposed the past two decades, adding new requirements to the process typically only helps to protect incumbents, not increase participation in democracy. Sure, candidate slating was not fair, but it was hardly one of the worst problems with Illinois election laws that needed to be fixed. I would have gone another route, but at least you noticed one aspect that was unfair and unequal. I hope you will keep looking or are open to hear from ballot access experts. My reading of HB6214 shows an improvement for independents but that new parties will still have unequal signature requirements. That isn’t good enough for me. I also see no reason to shorten the petitioning period from 90 days to 75 days. Shortening the period only serves to increase the requirement. I also want to point out that the legal precedent in Illinois for having different and unequal signature requirements is based on the fact the established parties were petitioning for the primary while independents and new parties were petitioning for the general election. That fact is no longer true after your legislation passed. What is the state’s justification for having different and unequal signatures requirements for candidates after the primary to get on the general election ballot? A judge is going to be asking that very question someday soon. There won’t be any legal precedence to back up the different and unequal signatures requirements that are on the books now. If this law is not changed soon, the Illinois General Assembly could once again be found to have put election laws on the books that are in violation of our US Constitution. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. HB723 may very well be unconstitutional whereas the way it was before, was not. Rep. Fortner thanks for giving us another opportunity to challenge Illinois ballot access laws that are among the worst in the democratic world. - JeffTrigg - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 4:53 pm: Lefty, I don’t use the term Democrat Party if that is what you are referring to. But I have no problem pointing out how anti-democratic the behavior of the Illinois Democratic Party is, and the silence of most of its members to that fact. - Honest Abe - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 6:44 pm: “No voters are being denied a right to vote. Just a “right” to vote for her.” Crenshaw is correct — her nominating petitions used one of the prescribed phrases that has always been deemed acceptable for the circulator’s affidavit and the Democrats are now insisting that the petitions are not valid for failing to list the precise dates of circulation. Stating under oath that none of the petitions were gathered beyond the deadlines for circulating has always been accepted before by electoral boards. The objection to Crenshaw was totally bogus. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jul 15, 10 @ 7:44 pm: Rich, you do this sort of stuff just for the pleasure you get out of seeing the weird take on the weirder. lol! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.