Today’s number: 10,754
Tuesday, Aug 2, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Bernie…
Congressional candidate David Gill claims “severe and overly burdensome” signature requirements for his independent candidacy are unconstitutional and wants a federal court to allow his name on the Nov. 8 ballot.
If Gill gets the result sought by the lawsuit filed Monday, he would face U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, and Democrat Mark Wicklund of Decatur in the 13th Congressional District election.
Sam Cahnman, the Springfield lawyer representing Bloomington resident Gill, said the signature requirement for independent U.S. House candidates in Illinois “clearly violates” constitutionally mandated equal protection of the law, and is also “clearly out of whack” with requirements for U.S. Senate candidates.
Democrats and Republicans in the race had to file just under 740 valid signatures to enter their primaries. Independents, who filed later and don’t face primary opposition, are required, in the 13th, to have 10,754 – or more than 14 times the amount needed by major-party candidates.
* From Gill’s attorney…
Rich,
You reported on the ballot challenge to Gill, so I thought you’d be interested in the attached Complaint For Declaratory Judgment And Preliminary & Permanent Injunction I filed Monday in federal court on behalf of Dr. David Gill, challenging the constitutionality of the excessive signature requirement for independent candidates for Congress.
It is a rather lengthy complaint, so let me draw your attention to Court III (pars. 60-82) where some of the more salient facts are alleged, particularly:
1. No candidate for the U.S.. House in Illinois has ever overcome the 10,754 signature requirement Gill was subjected to, and it has only been overcome 3 times since 1890 on the entire country! (par. 75)
2. In 2016 the 8,593 valid signatures the SBOE Hearing Examiner found Gill had would have gotten Gill on the ballot as an independent general election candidate in 88.5% of the 435 U.S. House Districts. (par. 70.c)
3. Looking at all 435 U.S.. House Districts in 2016 the median number of signatures required for a candidate petitioning to get on the general election ballot is 1,000, and the average is 3,179. (par. 70.b)
4. Only 3 states have signature requirements of 10,000 or more for U.S. House candidates to get on the general election ballot (N.C., S.C. & GA). (par. 70.a)
5. Only one U.S. House candidate in IL has ever overcome a signature requirement of 8,593 (no. of valid signatures Gill was found to have), and that was 42 years ago when David Lassiter did it in the 15th CD in 1974. (par. 77)
6. An independent candidate for the U.S. House in the 13th Dist. must get almost 15 times the number of signatures the Dems and Repubs have to get to be on the primary ballot; whereas for the U.S. Senate, the independent candidate only needs 5 times more than the Dems & Repubs. (pars. 62, 65 & 66).
7. An independent candidate for U.S. Senate must obtain signatures of 0.694% of the last vote for U.S. Senate, while an independent for the U.S. House must file 5% of the last vote for U.S. House in the District, i.e. a more than 7 times greater signature requirement; yet a Senator has more power (1 of 100 vs.. 1 of 435); has a longer term (6 years vs. 2) and represents the whole state as opposed to 1/18th of the State (par. 69).
In sum, the signature requirement for independent U.S. House candidates in Illinois clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; and it is clearly out whack with Illinois’ signature requirement for independent U.S. Senate candidates and with signature requirements for independent U.S. House candidates in other states.
The full complaint is here.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
Haven’t the libertarians attempted this unsuccessfully in the past? If Jeff Trigg is around I’d be interested in his insights.
- Federalist - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
Obviously a separate and discriminatory standard with the two traditional parties protecting themselves.
Whatever the number required it should be the same no matter political affiliation or lack of such affiliation.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of it.
- A Modest Proposal - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:41 pm:
Ha, SMH, why would Gill hire that guy to represent him…
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
Hasn’t the ARDC recommended a suspension for Cahnman? I hope plaintiff has a backup attorney.
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=264546848
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:49 pm:
Totally unfair for Gill and indie candidates, but I can’t say I feel bad at all for everyone’s least favorite perennial ER doctor candidate.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:52 pm:
I agree 100%. I believe many members of both parties often put their party loyalty before what is best for their constituents.
More independents would help with that problem and possibly cut down on the uncontested races we have in many districts. The voters should be the ones deciding if a candidate is worthy of representing them, not some lopsided rules.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:57 pm:
File on time and the rules are the same. Skipping a primary has a cost too. This is it. Start hoofin’ it or plan better next time. Buh Bye.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:07 pm:
==- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 12:57 pm:==
The same could be said for redistricting or term limits.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:25 pm:
PC,
Ok. I guess you’ve said it.
- Jon - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:29 pm:
Cahnman & Gill together, this should be a reality show.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:33 pm:
Both Davis and Wicklund got over 71,000 votes in the primary. If Gill can’t get 10,000 people to show support, what hope does he have in the general?
- A New Direction - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:34 pm:
A Guy - you don’t understand the election process. Primaries are only for Ds and Rs to nominate their candidates. The election in November includes the D, R candidates, plus independents. If you want to run as an independent (or third party) you are severely penalized by 15x signature requirement (and BS “binder check”), in a spread out district. More voters than ever are (a)not participating in primaries, and (b) tired of the “usual suspects” that keep getting recycled, and aren’t very effective at all.
- cdog - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:46 pm:
How about an open primary in Illinois where the top candidates of any party make it on the November ballot? (we have read about that here.)
This is a good one to watch regardless of the players involved.
Carry On!
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
Good for Gill for protesting. It is unfathomable that is is constitutionally acceptable to have different standards for Republicans & Democrats than it is for other parties and independents. Everyone should have equal ballot access end of discussion.
Unfortunately, all judges are either Republicans or Democrats and they are part of the rigged system of government we have right now.
- A guy - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 2:14 pm:
==- A New Direction - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 1:34 pm:
A Guy - you don’t understand the election process.===
New D, actually I do. Got a fairly recent case study for you called Bernie Sanders.
- anon - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 2:26 pm:
I have yet to hear anyone defend the signature requirement almost 15 times higher for independents. Instead of snide comments about Gill’s attorney, what about the substance of the complaint?
- The Captain - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 3:02 pm:
Fine, I’ll address this. Here is the legal rationale. It’s not that independents have a much higher signature requirement it’s that major party candidates have a lower signature requirement.
To qualify for the ballot all candidates need to demonstrate a basis of support, this keeps the ballot from being cluttered with endless candidates, elections would be a free-for-all. To demonstrate a basis of support we require that candidates go out and get petition signatures of a minimum number. Candidates of major parties (parties that received at least 5% of the vote in the previous general election) have a reduced signature requirement because as a major party they’ve already established a basis of support, their party received at least 5% of the vote in the previous general election. Winning 5% of the vote in the previous general election is not viewed as an overly burdensome threshold so the candidates of parties that have met this reasonable threshold have a lower signature requirement because they’ve already established a history of voter support.
If a major party failed to get 5% of the vote in a statewide election year, for example if none of the Democratic candidates for Governor, AG, Secretary of State, Treasurer or Comptroller managed to get 5% of the vote in the 2018 general election, they would lose major party status in 2020 and be subject to the same signature threshold as independent and 3rd party candidates.
Agree or disagree with the policy but that is the rationale for why things are the way they are.
- Biker - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
Madigan did this to destroy the Green party a while back. It is clearly problematic for anyone to try to run as an independent/alt. Party in Illinois. I would argue the signature requirement is onerous, arbitrary, capricious, etc.
- titan - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
The Captain @ 3:02 did a very nice job of explaining the rationale, but left out one significant additional point - as a Democratic or Republican candidate, after getting that lower level signature load, you still aren’t necessarily on the ballot because other Democratic or Republican candidates could have also done that, and then you need to win a primary to get to the November election.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
Under a federal system, this seems to be an area the Federal courts should avoid. I see no protected classes being denied their rights.
- Supreme Allied Commander - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
This is a disgrace. And I say that as a lifelong Democrat. I cannot believe that the two major parties have been allowed to rig the system to be so grossly unfair.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 4:30 pm:
This argument has been litigated all the way to the US S ct and this argument has lost. several times.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 4:55 pm:
This is waaay out of my wheelhouse, my garage even. Thanks to The Captain and others for filling in the blanks for me.
- Downstate Libertarian - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 5:51 pm:
The additional problem is that independent/3rd party candidates have to get so many more signatures than the minimum due to challenges. As someone who spent time in 2014 volunteering to defend petition signatures to Republican protests, I saw firsthand all of the BS challenges to a given petition and/or signature.
I don’t see the lawsuit going well, but will be waiting to see.
- Illinidem - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 7:46 pm:
You forget independent candidatestudy can have any registered voter sign there petition where a candidate for a political party are only supposed to have members of their party sign the petition. Independent candidates have a larger universe of potential petition signers.
- Michael Westen - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 9:02 pm:
Illinidem that is actually incorrect. A voter does not have to belong to a party to sign a candidate’s petition. Theoretically a voter is not supposed to sign more than one party’s petition in the same election cycle, but I have challenged signatures on that basis and the election board, at least in Cook County, won’t even hear a challenge on that basis.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Aug 2, 16 @ 10:33 pm:
“1. No candidate for the U.S.. House in Illinois has ever overcome the 10,754 signature requirement Gill was subjected to, and it has only been overcome 3 times since 1890 on the entire country! (par. 75)”
Basically the two parties have made it illegal for an independent to get on the ballot. Sounds unconstitutional to me, but that doesn’t mean a judge will agree.