Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Peoria paper warns of “revolution”
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Peoria paper warns of “revolution”

Tuesday, Sep 27, 2016

* The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear independent congressional candidate David Gill’s case that he was illegally knocked off the ballot for coming up short on petition signatures. Gill won his case at the district level, then lost at the appellate level. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied the request for appeal. The Peoria Journal Star is hopping mad

For us, it was the principle of the thing in a state where Gill is quite right that the political system is “rigged” — against third parties, in favor of incumbents, etc. To suggest, as the state did in federal court, that Illinois law on this subject is “reasonable and non-discriminatory” is nonsense. It’s clearly discriminatory against independents. It’s only reasonable if you’re among the favored in an Illinois that has made a mockery of every aspect of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

What we have instead in the state we have the gall to call the “Land of Lincoln” is a government for them and against us, that has few peers for incompetence and corruption, that goes out of its way to deny its residents the choices they want (see the Independent Maps effort).

George Washington may have been on to something in warning us to the dangers of a two-party system — “itself a frightful despotism.” Not in our experience have Illinois and U.S. voters been so fed up as they are now with such “deplorable” — to borrow a popular term — choices at the ballot box. Come the revolution, don’t say it came without warning.

Keep in mind when commenting that these were federal judicial rulings about a state law. Also keep in mind that independent candidates aren’t subject to primary opposition, which is one reason why they have to obtain so many signatures. You can make the case that it’s a bad law and does discriminate, but it’s apparently not unconstitutional.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:48 pm:

    I think Dr. Gill is tilting at windmills, but he’s right to challenge the law and he’s smart to bring this issue to the limelight through proper legal channels. He won’t win the case but he’s made his point and gotten coverage.

    I’m upset that Governor Johnson and Dr. Stein weren’t included in the first debate, but perhaps they would be better served by bringing suit(s) in federal court as opposed to screaming on Facebook and Twitter.

  2. - Anon - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:52 pm:

    A race I worked in a different state had a candidate get on the ballot because ‘he’d thought it’d be fun’ in the only interview he gave. I think he made it to one candidate forum and that was it. That’s all he did. It was during a wave election year, though, so someone might have been hedging their bets — but having a high bar is better than having a ballot full of people that out for funsies.

  3. - Chicago_Downstater - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 1:57 pm:

    I agree with the Supreme Court on this one even if I think the law isn’t optimal.

    Just for the sake of argument would it be possible to force independent candidates into primaries with other independents and remove the signature collection issue or would that have unintended consequences I’m not fully thinking through?

  4. - Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:04 pm:

    While challenging the specific numbers required is valid as far as I’m concerned, the required signatures should be significantly higher if the candidate is not subject to a primary process. As a practical matter I don’t think we want to incentivize every Tom, Dick and Harry to skip the primary process and go straight to the November ballot without proving some minimal support.

  5. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:17 pm:

    @Ron Burgundy: it’s not minimal support but broad support that should be demonstrated to get on the general election ballot. That’s one step from swearing in; it’s not for the unserious or the distractors.

  6. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:39 pm:

    –Come the revolution, don’t say it came without warning.–

    The Gill Revolution? Gotta admit, I didn’t see that coming.

    –George Washington may have been on to something in warning us to the dangers of a two-party system — “itself a frightful despotism.”–

    I’m sure that if Washington were alive today, he’d blush with pride that the PJS edit board credited him as maybe being “on to something.” That’s high praise, considering the source.

    Washington was down on the concept of parties, period, and of factions, mostly geographic in those days.

    I didn’t realize the “revolutionaries” at the PJS never engage in party or regional factionalism.

  7. - JoanP - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:50 pm:

    @Chicago_Downstater - “Just for the sake of argument would it be possible to force independent candidates into primaries with other independents . . .”

    I don’t see how. The purpose of a primary is to select the candidate of a specific political party. Since, by definition, independents do not belong to a political party, what party’s “primary” would they be running in?

  8. - Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 2:53 pm:

    Move to open primaries where the top three candidates appear on the General election, subject to the third candidate having received at least 10% of the primary vote.

    Nobody runs unopposed in the general and only those with significant support make the ballot.

  9. - Union Man - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 3:37 pm:

    Get rid of party primaries. Just have two or three elections where the top 5 continue, then the top 3 and then a winner. This ain’t rocket science.

  10. - thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 3:49 pm:

    How about the high 3 signature counts make it on the ballot, guaranteed. Anyone that collects more than x% also makes it on.

  11. - Red tower - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 3:52 pm:

    I don’t think one justice alone can stop a case, just deny an emergency hearing. If he wants to press it further he can but it might not matter because of timeliness.
    I could be wrong though.

  12. - siriusly - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:06 pm:

    How about we create a system where only people who have billions of dollars to spend or the political ability to legislate, litigate and navigate the complex election laws are in charge ?

  13. - Chicagonk - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:12 pm:

    Forget it Jake… It’s Chinatown.

  14. - LessAnon? - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:18 pm:

    Not sure Gill is the best flag-bearer for Independent candidates and ballot access. A disgruntled Democrat who ran and lost already looking to screw over the party that he believes screwed him over. Sometimes it’s not as complicated as we want to make it. Not saying ballot access shouldn’t be something in between what we have today and a free-for-all; just that Gill is a poor standard-bearer.

  15. - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:22 pm:

    SCOTUS staying out was a good thing here. There are numerous citizen-friendly election reforms I would support in terms of federal/state amemdments or changes to election laws but I just don’t see a constitutional injustice to remedy in the Gill case. If SCOTUS got involved it’d just be stepping in to make policy.

  16. - Dead Head - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:24 pm:

    Wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said it would be good for this country to undergo a revolution every seven years or so? It’s long overdue.

  17. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 4:41 pm:

    But if you go carrying pictures of David Gill
    You ain’t going to make it all the way to Capitol Hill.

  18. - Amen - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 6:33 pm:

    “every person has a right to be a candidate
    for any office for which he is legally qualified, but if every man might have his name on the
    official ballot great inconvenience might result. Therefore no person may have his name
    printed on the official ballot unless he has been nominated by a party or by a certain number
    of voters.” People ex rel. Schnackenberg v. Czarnecki, 256 Ill. 320, 327 (1912)

  19. - Mama Retired - Tuesday, Sep 27, 16 @ 8:35 pm:

    Why don’t we change the law to force all independents to run against each other in the primary?

  20. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 9:55 am:

    “I didn’t realize the “revolutionaries” at the PJS never engage in party or regional factionalism.”

    Hear, hear.

  21. - GridleyGuy - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 10:42 am:

    FYI–1980 PJStar endorsed the Libertarian presidential candidate Ed Clark, over Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. Of course, PJStar Editorial Board has changed over the years. Just wanted to give the historical perspective here.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* *** UPDATED x1 - Checked wrong box *** Oberweis files FEC paperwork to run for US Senate in 2020
* Local 150 PAC promotes capital plan in two new TV ads
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
* Illinois Credit Unions: People Helping People
* IEPA issues "seal order" on Sterigenics plant
* Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
* Rep. Chapa LaVia will head IDVA after previous appointee bows out
* Question of the day
* Mary Morrissey named new executive director of DPI
* Transparency issues
* It's just a bill
* Amazon leads $700 million investment round for Rivian
* Hysterical much?
* Minimum wage roundup
* Poll: Five points separate five mayoral candidates as union money whacks Daley
* Should the state sell the Tollway to boost the pension funds?
* Southern Illinois state's attorney vows not to enforce assault weapons ban if it becomes law
* Daley would keep hope alive for those who want pension benefit cuts
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...










Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller