He gone… for now
Tuesday, Sep 20, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Dan Petrella…
Barring future court action, David Gill’s name will not appear on the Nov. 8 ballot as an independent candidate in the 13th Congressional District.
The Illinois State Board of Elections voted unanimously Monday to remove Gill, a Bloomington physician who’s previously run for Congress four times as a Democrat, because he failed to collect the 10,754 signatures he needed on his nominating petitions to earn a spot on the ballot. […]
When the board met Aug. 26 to certify the ballot, it was under an order from U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough to allow Gill’s name to appear alongside those of incumbent U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, and Democratic challenger Mark Wicklund of Decatur. […]
But a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and blocked Myerscough’s order, pending the outcome of an appeal from the Illinois attorney general’s office.
* Bernie…
Ken Menzel, general counsel to the elections board, said Monday the ballot has now been certified without Gill’s name on it, but his name can still be returned if that is ordered by the federal appeals court. […]
Sangamon County Clerk Don Gray said ballots being readied in his county – part of which is included in the 13th – do not have Gill’s name, and the first ballots are to be sent out Saturday to people in the military serving overseas. Early voting in the county begins Sept. 29.
Gray said ballot updates can be made if ordered by a court. He also said there will be a line for write-ins in the 13th on the ballot, so if Gill files as a write-in, there would be a place for voters to cast votes for him.
* From Gill’s attorney Sam Cahnman…
Today’s action by the State Board was expected after a 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued its one sentence order temporarily staying Judge Myerscough’s preliminary injunction pending the outcome of the States appeal. Our focus now is to get Dr. Gill back on the ballot by a) getting the temporary stay lifted; or b) defeating the State’s appeal of Judge Myerscough’s 26-page well reasoned opinion, letting the voters of the 13th Congressional District decide who will represent them in Congress rather than 8 Gubernatorial appointees at the Board of Elections, or 3 Judges in Chicago.
Here’s a candidate who got more than 15 times the signatures the Republican and Democratic candidates had to get. I don’t know what they are afraid of. They are certainly going to great lengths to keep voters of the 13th Congressional District from even getting a chance at voting for this highly qualified candidate.
- AC - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:20 am:
==Gill’s attorney Sam Cahnman==
That’s interesting!
- Piece of Work - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:28 am:
Sam Cahnman??? That should turn out well!!
- Indochine - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:29 am:
I still cannot figure out why the Davis campaign wants Gill off the ballot.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:35 am:
I don’t know Gill at all but his choice of attorney sure calls his judgment into question.
- Yiddishcowboy - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:39 am:
Even though Sam Cahnman is, uh, let’s say socially challenged, he’s certainly no dummy as an attorney.
- @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:48 am:
The System™ works.
– MrJM
- LizPhairTax - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 10:54 am:
==Even though Sam Cahnman is, uh, let’s say socially challenged, he’s certainly no dummy as an attorney==
Sangamon County Mike Kasper. Totally.
- Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:10 am:
I suspected this would happen. The 7th Circuit won’t decide this case until after the election, very similar to what they did in the Lee v. Keith case in the 7th Circuit. Gill will probably win this case, but they aren’t going to mess around with ballots this close to an election.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:11 am:
===Sangamon County Mike Kasper. Totally. ===
Had to clean the coffee off my screen after reading that.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:29 am:
There has been extensive litigation in the 7th Congressional District also which resulted in a candidate being kept on the ballot.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:34 am:
“Here’s a candidate who got more than 15 times the signatures the Republican and Democratic candidates had to get.”
No nothing about the attorney’s reputation, know little about the candidate. Irrelevant to me, because that statement says enough. Unjust laws, unjust outcome, democracy stifled.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:35 am:
===democracy stifled===
He also didn’t have to face a primary opponent.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:35 am:
Know*
Good grief. Rich, who do we have to kill to get an edit feature? Ironic that I was being a know nothing…and couldn’t even spell it. Sigh.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 11:39 am:
“He also didn’t have to face a primary opponent.”
Valid point, but then again ANYONE else could meet has the choice to get on independently as well. The point of elections shouldn’t be to give established parties a leg up…it should be to get people choices.
I’d give more credence to that concern if the ballot was seeing an influx of candidates, but adding one more is more than reasonable. He won’t have a party establishment to support him, he won’t have ingrained voting habits to help him…those dynamics should be the power of an organized party, not 15x legal hurdles to opposing voices during the ballot access process, imo.
- Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 12:33 pm:
Mark Wicklund also didn’t face a primary opponent. Ds and Rs can get on the general election ballot after the primary with the same number of signatures as they need for the primary. Since they changed the election law in 2006, that “not in the primary” argument no longer works, and the AGs office has never made that argument in court since then.
The AGs office argues they need to prevent ballot clutter, which is not a problem anywhere in the US. Kind of like the Republicans crying about voter fraud, when it too, is not a problem anywhere in the US.
- anon - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 1:53 pm:
It’s instructive that more attention has been given to the lawyer than to the issue at hand. Is the signature requirement excessive or not? I agree with Gill’s lawyer on this one.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 2:24 pm:
“Even though Sam Cahnman is, uh, let’s say socially challenged, he’s certainly no dummy as an attorney.”
Some of his actions that have landed him in hot water with ARDC say otherwise. I wouldn’t hire an attorney that is at risk of having their license yanked or suspended any day now.
- titan - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 4:49 pm:
The 7th Circuit has denied all of the motions to expedite and to lift the stay on the injunction. It doesn’t look like it will be heard before the election.
- Yiddishcowboy - Tuesday, Sep 20, 16 @ 6:07 pm:
@Anonymous 2:24 p.m. Without sharing my personal feelings about the ARDC actions and the multiple attempts to nail him over the years, there’s a difference, as I see it, between (1) lacking some common sense, from time to time, which leads to poor decision making and (2) lack or absence of legal acumen. While Cahnman lacks common sense at times, this does not mean he’s a buffoon when it comes to his knowledge of the law.