Here we go again
Tuesday, Aug 9, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Back to the drawing board? Maybe…
Judge William Becker has ruled the Illinois law that keeps certain individuals off the election ballot in the state unconstitutional, and has ordered Michael DePoister back on the ballot.
DePoister, who is currently a member of the County Board, was seeking re-election as a Republican when he learned that the county’s Republican Central Committee then-chairman Steve Donaldson was supporting another person in the March primary. That led DePoister to announce plans to run for re-election as an Independent candidate. He then voted in the March primary using a Republican ballot.
State law in Illinois currently indicates that if you vote a Republican or Democrat ballot in the primary, you can’t run as an independent in the general election that year. Donaldson filed an objection to DePoister’s candidacy and the Effingham County Officers Electoral Board upheld Donaldson’s objection and ruled DePoister off the ballot. […]
Judge Becker said that provision was troubling, asking Mette, “If I’m not a Democrat or Republican, why is this a compelling interest for me? Why can’t I run after the primary? (Under this law) I can’t even run against the people I don’t like.”
In making his ruling, Judge Becker said, “It’s personally offensive to me that if I take a certain ballot, I can’t run…I think the statute is unconstitutional.”
It’s not just independents. People who take Republican ballots in the spring can’t run in the general election as a Democrat. We’ve seen a handful of appellate cases with diametrically opposed rulings on this topic, which is why they passed a new law.
* Here’s the 2012 statute…
A person (i) who filed a statement of candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter of an established political party or (ii) who voted the ballot of an established political party at a general primary election may not file a statement of candidacy as a candidate of a different established political party or as an independent candidate for a partisan office to be filled at the general election immediately following the general primary for which the person filed the statement or voted the ballot. A person may file a statement of candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter of an established political party regardless of any prior filing of candidacy for a partisan office or voting the ballot of an established political party at any prior election.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
As much as I don’t like the rule, I must say, every candidate packet I have ever seen has included these rules. The key is to read them….
- Juice - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 2:55 pm:
“If I’m not a Democrat or Republican, why is this a compelling interest for me? Why can’t I run after the primary…”
Umm…because you’re a Republican since you declared yourself one in March when you took the ballot?
- so... - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
When you vote in a primary, you are claiming to be a member of a given political party. You shouldn’t be able to turn around shortly thereafter and claim to be a member of a different party.
DePoister had the option of casting a non-partisan ballot. He didn’t.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:12 pm:
these kinds of crazy rules create barriers which block people from running. this is part and parcel of why there are so many uncontested races.
instead of term limits do something meaningful. reform and simplify the ballot access procss. letting people run is far more important then telling coters they cant cote for someone they want more thne x times.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:12 pm:
An open primary be a better route all the way around??? As an Independent, it galls me to no end that I have to choose one of two parties’ ballots if I want to vote. And , if I like a Dem for one office and a Repub for another, again, I can’t make that known with my vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary
- Jon Musgrave - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:19 pm:
It’s the sore loser law that prevents primary losers to go on and cause a ruckus in the general election. It may be offensive to the judge, but it’s part of the process.
I could go either way on this issue if it came up for a vote by the legislature. I’m not sure if I see the constitutional issue. The legislature gets to set the rules for ballot access.
I would like to see the rules for write-in candidates go back to the old way (as much as the election judge in me likes not having to spend time counting most write-ins at the end of a very long election day). Forcing write-in candidates to file paperwork weeks before the election was developed by incumbents and party bosses (MJM?) in a most undemocratic way. It limits the rights of voters to choose their candidate.
The best example of why this should be changed can be found in Mount Vernon. Back in the late 70s or early 80s, involving the late city Mayor Roland Lewis. When he and two council members up for re-election voted themselves a raise for the next term, just days before the election, the other two council members not up for re-election who voted against the measure announced last minute plans to run as write-in candidates, one against Lewis and the other for council. Despite less than 72 or 96 hours before voters went to the polls, they managed to win. That’s democracy in action, but would be prevented by modern election law.
Or how about the prohibition of being nominated by two parties which is common in places like New York where there are more than the basic two parties at the state level. Open ballot laws like that allow fusion tickets.
Granted, it can also cause political shenanigans. In 1960, Carl Sneed, the incumbent Republican state’s attorney in Williamson County was running for re-election. The Democrats had no candidate in the primary, even though they were contesting all of the other county races. Sneed managed to get more than 70 write-in votes on the Democratic ballot ensuring he would be the Democratic nominee come November and that the party couldn’t slate anyone later.
The trend over the last few decades has been to limit ballot access making it harder for independents, third parties and last minute candidates. At the same time lawmakers have also made terms of office longer (county commissioners have gone from three-year, to four-year, and then to everyone’s surprise, six years), and given other built-in advantages to incumbents.
Politics have changed quite a bit over the last 50-60 years, some for the better, but many ways for the worse.
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:20 pm:
Good, it was a terrible law geared at restricting ballot access. More of these laws that restrict ballot access should meet the same fate.
- steward - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:25 pm:
And here I was so looking forward to a Ken Dunkin independent run… /s
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:32 pm:
==- Anon221 - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:12 pm:==
Blame the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/27/us/supreme-court-freedom-association-court-strikes-down-california-primary-placing.html
- Biker - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:43 pm:
Lovely ruling. Gotta love the Constitution, keeps political science a relevant major and ensures that thinking outside the box is still a useful skill
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 3:58 pm:
Precinct Captain,
The Supreme Court said that the California system was unconstitutional because the way it worked was that the largest vote-getter from each party went on to the November Ballot. In 2008, they clarified that “Top-Two” Open primaries are perfectly legal, where the top two regardless of party go on to the November ballot
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-713.ZO.html
- x ace - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 5:34 pm:
No Idea on the Issue , But as a Sidenote:
Believe Judge Becker is an Associate Judge who ran unsuccessfully as an Independent for a Circuit Judge slot. So may have Independent insight .
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 5:57 pm:
During the primary this year, there were requests and pleas for Dems and Indies to take a Republican ballot to help defeat Trump at that level. I would have liked to, but I had other down ballot issues and local issues I wanted to support, so Dem it was instead. I would have done the same when Rauner was running in that primary, but again, same down ballot issues and Dem ballot again. The Independent vote is valuable, to both parties. But when it isn’t allowed because of the two party primary system we have in Illinois, then , maybe, more Trumps and Rauners will be our future.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
- Skirmisher - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 6:19 pm:
I think the two parties can make any rules they choose so long as they, and not the taxpayers, pay the cost of their private primaries. But if we foot the bill they should be wide open.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 6:38 pm:
Illinois election rules stink. The extreme number of signatures required is a deliberate barrier to stop non-establishment candidates from betting on a ballot.
This particular rule seems a little more coherent but is part of the same picture, namely keeping people off the ballot.
Knocking people off the ballot is a proven track to success. Just ask Obama or Durbin.
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Aug 9, 16 @ 8:11 pm:
If your part of the establishment, then you probably did not like the judges opinion.
- gdubya - Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 8:07 am:
This law was put in place after the Scott Lee Cohen debacle.
- MissingG - Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 9:09 am:
This is awesome