* Interesting…
…Adding… This is the e-mail received by the attorneys…
OPINION: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Relief (d/e [4]) is GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Illinois Election Code’s signature requirement against David M. Gill, independent candidate for U.S. Representative in the 13th Congressional District in light of the fact that he has obtained 8,593 valid signatures and shown a modicum of support. Consequently, because it appears Gill otherwise qualifies to be on the ballot, this ruling requires that Gill remain on the ballot. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/25/2016. (GL, ilcd)
I don’t yet have the written opinion.
*** UPDATE *** The opinion is here.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Bernie had a piece about the case today…
In a hearing Wednesday, Gill was seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the State Board of Elections from removing his name from the ballot despite an earlier State Board of Elections staff review that found Gill had 8,593 signatures considered valid. The number he needed, under state law, was 10,754, and he had turned in more than 11,300.
But Gill claims the law is unconstitutional because so many signatures are required. While Republican and Democratic candidates have to go through a primary to get on the November ballot, they also need to collect fewer than 740 petition signatures each. Gill’s case is based on the idea that the threshold for independents and third-party candidates is so high that it creates an unfair burden.
Gill has noted that independent candidates for U.S. Senate in Illinois have to gather five times the 5,000 signatures required of major-party candidates for that statewide office, but as an independent House candidate, he is required to gather nearly 15 times what a Democrat or Republican needs.
“The point of me running as an independent is because people have been poorly served by both major parties for the last 30 or 40 years, and now we’re seeing both major parties try to keep me from being on the ballot, and I think it’s entirely unconstitutional the way in which they’re doing so,” Gill said after the hearing.
- Put the Fun in unfunded - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:28 pm:
Agree with Dr. Gill. Maybe two times as many signatures could be required, but not 15 times. The major parties are just as susceptible to an excessive number of, or “fringe”, candidates.
- Ghost - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:34 pm:
This issue has been tried to the supreme court and lost. not sure what the basis is for the decision, but technically a local judge cant over rule the SCOTUS.
The court found the primary process creates a smilar burden. Gill does not mention that when he just mentiones sig requirements. but Gil did mot have to go theough a primary and win votes. i.e he just gets signatures, primary contenders have to get votes
- SKI - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:35 pm:
Glad the judge ruled in his favor.
- A Jack - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:37 pm:
Good to let the voters decide.
- Harvest76 - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
Ghost-
I believe the difference is that primary elections are controlled by party rules, nothe the people’s government.
- Nobody Sent - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:41 pm:
I don’t know what his positions are, but I like the decision in here
- Outsider - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:42 pm:
Good decision
- L.A. - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:44 pm:
What probably happened (and I haven’t seen the order yet) is that Judge Myerscough granted the injunction prohibiting the State Board of Elections from removing his name from the ballot, pending her ruling on the merits.
- Indochine - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
Nonsense. Stuff like this leads to ballots with 25 candidates for 1 position. These people don’t have to be bothered with the primary election process, building support, a base, developing a campaign, etc. They simply roll out of bed and decide to run. I don’t give a whit about David Gill. Rodney Davis will win easily whether Gill is on the ballot or not. These independent candidates should have to exhibit adequate support, and these extra signatures are the perfect device to ascertain whether their candidacies are ego and folly or real. I hope that Judge Myerscough is promptly reversed.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
Indochine, so you’re saying he should have to get over 15 times the signatures required of dems and republicans? That seems insane. Should he have to show a decent amount of support? Yes. But let it be 5 times the number of signatures needed for a den or republican like it is when an independent runs for the senate.
- Spliff - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
Technically primaries are not governed by party rules. The state sets the signature requirement for that and governs the process of the election.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
“While Republican and Democratic candidates have to go through a primary to get on the November ballot,”
This is not true. Republican and Democrat candidates can be slated to run after the primary for the general election, and those candidates do not need the “extra” signatures required of others.
There are aspects of this case SCOTUS has never ruled on, namely the requirement for each petition page to be individually notarized. That requirement has been ruled against in other courts.
The SCOTUS case that did uphold a 5% signature requirement decades ago was from a state that had a 180 day petitioning period. In Illinois it is 90 days.
There is no state in the US which has a problem with ballot clutter or too many candidates. There is no problem being solved with these excessive requirements for independents and new parties, other than the Rs and Ds problem with having competition on their ballots.
More than 30 states have filing fee options to get on the ballot and they actually bring in some revenue to help offset election costs, instead of spending unnecessary money on petition challenges.
- atsuishin - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:05 pm:
- Indochine - you sound like you know little about the political process. it is hard to collect signatures for elected office, particularly congress. Most candidates pay $5000 plus for an election lawyer to do it for them. It is also very expensive to fight these issues out in courts. independent candidates and third parties are not welcome in this country.
- Michael Westen - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:09 pm:
Actually if you are “slated” after the primary, you have to get exactly the number of signatures needed as if you had run in the primary, not the “extra” signatures required of others.
And, I seem to remember some sniping about Gill’s attorney. Looks like he did a good job.
- L.A. - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:11 pm:
the opinion has been posted to SJ-R website
- Indochine - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:15 pm:
You’re wrong, @atsuishin. It’s not hard at all. Most of the time, precinct committeemen and party volunteers, and candidate volunteers gather signatures throughout the district. Election lawyers do NOT gather signatures, I can assure you. Very few candidates pay companies to gather signatures. If they have to, they are likely not viable. The only times those services are generally used is for statewide initiatives, etc. Independent Maps used one the last time — a firm out of Arkansas, I believe — and failed miserably. You are the one, it seems, a stranger to the political process.
- L.A. - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:15 pm:
this is FAR from over. I’m sure there will be an appeal.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:17 pm:
Still find it kind of ironic he is fighting so hard for independents when an independent run in 2012 likely won the race for Rodney Davis as he lost by 1,002 votes that year while “independent Democrat” John Hartman sucked up 21,000+ votes.
- L.A. - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:19 pm:
“Election lawyers do NOT gather signatures, I can assure you.”
Michael Kasper is not going door-to-door collecting signatures.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:21 pm:
Here’s a link to the 26 page pdf of the decision.
http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Gill-win.pdf
- ILPundit - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:22 pm:
So, does this ruling have the effect of voiding the statutory requirement for the number of signatures?
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
L.A. Hope you are right.
If Ghost is correct and the principle has already been litigated, then the Judge needs to rule quickly.
Not real happy with Federal judges ruling on state elections when there is no clear Federal Constitutional issue. I don’t think Independents are a protected class. If they are, I want to add moderate Republicans to the list.
- Mason born - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:28 pm:
We want more participation in the Electoral process right? Why just focus on Voters and not more participation from Candidates? Good lord didn’t ‘14 gov election teach us anything sometimes both D & R choices are unpalatable.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:28 pm:
Oops, Rich beat me to it. While election lawyers don’t collect signatures, every candidate who has their petitions challenged needs a lawyer to protect those signatures during the challenge process. I believe there are more than 30 challenges at the state level this year.
The last time we saw a third party make it on the ballot for a county office in Illinois, was the Harold Washington Party. If it was soooo easy, it would be done more than a couple times every half century.
- Indochine - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:35 pm:
It shouldn’t be easy for third party candidates unless they are established and have the mechanics for primaries, etc.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:47 pm:
It should be no different for independents and third parties than it is for Rs and Ds, especially those Rs and Ds who did not run in a primary. “All elections shall be free and equal” Sometimes critical issues crop up right before an election, like a civil war, that doesn’t give “new” parties the decades needed to build a party structure to get third party candidates on the ballot, like Abraham Lincoln.
The Rs and Ds have written all the election law with mechanics for primaries in Illinois. There is no problem there.
- Timmeh - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:53 pm:
It shouldn’t be 15 times harder. We can debate about the numbers, but 15 times harder is too much.
- Richard Winger - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 2:25 pm:
The median number of signatures for a petitioning candidate for US House in the whole USA is only 1,000 signatures. Why should Illinois require eleven times as many?
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
Good, the law should be overturned, it’s complete crap that the parties in power can limit ballot access to third parties and independents. Hopefully this is the first step towards equal ballot access for all.
- Jeff Trigg - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
Because… Madigan. - (Nice to see to you chime in Richard.)
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 6:40 pm:
===Nonsense. Stuff like this leads to ballots with 25 candidates for 1 position.
Actually it doesn’t in very often. It’s not like there aren’t 49 other states that vary their laws on ballot access so one can simply see what happens elsewhere and seldom are there that many candidates.
- Johnny Justice - Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:40 pm:
Never are there that many (25) candidates in a US House race. A study by Winger found that if you set the signature requirement at 5,000 you will almost never get more than 8 candidates & the SCOTUS said 8 or less is not a crowded ballot. Sheesh, the problem in IL is so many races with only ONE candidate!