* Sun-Times…
After more than two years, the game appears to be over for Jason Gonzales in his quest to have a jury deliberate Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan’s campaign tactics — and whether the powerful Democrat put “sham” candidates on the 2016 ballot.
The opinion granting summary judgment is here.
* Jason Gonzales statement…
Friday’s ruling was a disappointment. I consider myself a well-informed individual, but I don’t understand the judge’s reasoning here. Still, there appears to be wide-reaching constitutional issues at stake in this case. My legal team is trying to explain the ruling to me, but even they are having difficulty explaining to me how my actions in exposing the fraud caused it to not be fraud. We we currently weighing our options.
* Here’s why…
“… The Court is cognizant that there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants engaged in a deliberate effort to interfere with voters’ decision making,” Kennelly said in his opinion. “Such fraudulent interference in the form of sham candidates might, in an appropriate case, undermine the ability of the electorate to hold the offending candidate to account.
“But Gonzales has not pointed to evidence - or even alleged - that the defendants’ fraud prevented the voters from punishing Madigan at the ballot box.” […]
Kennelly noted Gonzales had used the sham candidates as “a central issue” against Madigan in public statements and in the press. The judge also noted the sham candidates had been called out in an editorial published in the Chicago Sun-Times.
“This publicity placed the alleged misconduct squarely within the political realm, enabling voters to rebuke Madigan by electing his challenger,” Kennelly said. “Instead, Madigan prevailed by a substantial margin.”
Citing the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the 2018 decision Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, Kennelly said he believed a judge “may not appropriately second-guess the voters’ choice ‘without displacing the people’s right to govern their own affairs and making the judiciary just another political tool for one faction to wield against its rivals.’”
* Tribune…
Madigan attorney Adam Vaught said the ruling showed that Gonzales can’t “come into federal court and try and overturn the voters’ decision.”
“The judge found Gonzales ran on this issue, it was publicly broadcast, and the voters’ overwhelmingly rejected Gonzales and reelected the speaker,” Vaught added.
Tony Peraica, Gonzales’ attorney, vowed to appeal. He accused Madigan of engaging in electoral shenanigans. “With this decision, he will continue to do it with impunity. It’s a sad day for all citizens of Illinois,” said Peraica, a former Republican Cook County commissioner.
Gonzales had sought damages of up to $2 million.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 9:39 am:
tl;dr- voters knew all about Madigan’s dirty tricks before the election, so if his tricks had been too dirty, the electorate would have punished him at the ballot box — but they didn’t so No Harm, No Foul.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 9:43 am:
Great Post Rich, hitting “both sides of the plate”
First…
=== I consider myself a well-informed individual, but I don’t understand the judge’s reasoning here. Still, there appears to be wide-reaching constitutional issues at stake in this case. ===
Then this.
Gonzo;
Read, comprehend, understand….
===But Gonzales has not pointed to evidence - or even alleged - that the defendants’ fraud prevented the voters from punishing Madigan at the ballot box.” […]
Kennelly noted Gonzales had used the sham candidates as “a central issue” against Madigan in public statements and in the press. The judge also noted the sham candidates had been called out in an editorial published in the Chicago Sun-Times.
“This publicity placed the alleged misconduct squarely within the political realm, enabling voters to rebuke Madigan by electing his challenger,” Kennelly said. “Instead, Madigan prevailed by a substantial margin.”===
That’s ball game.
The monies, the Raunerbucks that tried to muddy and highlight the practice “only” garnered Madigan 65% of the vote in a 4-way race.
A vast, 15 point plus, majority still voted Madigan.
I do hope Gonzo “strenuously objects” so we can all reconsider.
That’ would be fun.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 9:51 am:
“My legal team is trying to explain the ruling to me”
Billable hours…
Sweet, sweet billable hours…
– MrJM
- Ron Burgundy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 9:53 am:
Shady though the practice may be, this is the correct decision based on the law.
- Ray del Camino - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 9:58 am:
Stalking horse candidates are as old as urban aldermanic elections. If the were blatantly illegal somebody would have won such a case a long time ago.
- OutOfState - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:08 am:
After following this case for over a year and reading the decision, it seems like 1) Gonzales and his legal team were inept in developing comprehensive arguments that could survive 2) A better legal team might have gotten past summary judgment 3) Madigan and his team know how to win, and they play to win even if it takes conceding that they may have been playing dirty.
- Shaky Grounds - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:11 am:
Relying on a strained ‘publicity’ argument that assumes the fraud was baked in with voters makes this distinguished, novel ruling ripe for the Appeals Court.
Also surprising that some find that speaker’s fraud is just acceptable as the Chicago way of doing business; as Blago found out - disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off as just the way it’s always been done
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:12 am:
===My legal team is trying to explain the ruling to me===
Somebody probably ought to explain it to Peraica first, then he can break it down for Gonzalez. The judge tried once already, but it didn’t take. He even wrote it down, but it still eludes the legal mind of Tony Peraica.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:17 am:
===novel ruling===
Oh, please.
You really want the federal courts overturning lopsided elections because of some dirty tricks that didn’t even work?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:18 am:
===Relying on a strained ‘publicity’ argument that assumes the fraud was baked====
How much more money and publicity do you need to have the informed electorate be at a lever of acceptance?
===Also surprising that some find that speaker’s fraud is just acceptable as the Chicago way of doing business===
Your beef is with the voters of the 22nd district.
===disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off as just the way it’s always been done===
They equaled 35% of the voters… they voted and had their say.
Also.. - Shaky Grounds -…
What legal measure do you seen an appeal now.
Not “I strenuously object”, try a truly legal argument.
Thanks.
- Jocko - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:19 am:
I guess Gonzo didn’t find Madigan’s secret room when scouring his offices./s
As an aside, Tony Peraica is walking proof for the need to institute a ‘loser pays’ rule in our legal system.
- Just Me 2 - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:22 am:
Just getting a look inside the Madigan operation was worth the trouble.
- show your work - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:26 am:
Am I the only person who finds it fascinating that Peraica took dozens of depositions and ultimately found absolutely nothing to use against Madigan.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:26 am:
Reading through all the mumbo jumbo from the judge, in the end, he had to follow case law. The judge should have never let this fishing expedition get this far
- Powdered Whig - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:27 am:
It is the legally correct ruling.
- OutOfState - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:36 am:
===Peraica took dozens of depositions and ultimately found absolutely nothing===
That’s a function of the same fact that Judge Kennelly cited while providing summary judgment: Everyone knows Madigan’s playbook already, so a deposition isn’t shocking to anyone.
- Norseman - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:45 am:
Rich +1
=== disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off as just the way it’s always been done ===
I assume you’ve shared this sentiment with the GOP.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:47 am:
So we can all stipulate that MJM is a scoundrel in the rich Illinois tradition of political scoundrels. But that doesn’t make him a criminal. What is criminal (figuratively speaking) is how the voters of Illinois keep electing other legislators who tow the line to MJM in spite of decades of evidence that under his leadership this state has gone from bad to worse on any number of metrics.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:51 am:
===What is criminal (figuratively speaking) is how the voters of Illinois keep electing other legislators who tow the line to MJM in spite of decades of evidence that under his leadership this state has gone from bad to worse on any number of metrics.===
Narrator: Madigan and the Democrats have more seats in the Illinois House than at any time Michael J. Madigan has been the Speaker.
Your beef is with the voters, as you say, but what does that say about the GOP, doing commercials, mailings, the IPI movie… Madigan, Post-Rauner, is most powerful after all that “slander” or as you say “corruption”, and its exposure.
Should they do another film?
That’s fun.
- Skeptic - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 10:57 am:
“how the voters of Illinois keep electing other legislators” Gosh, I would have thought “Fire Madigan” would have been profoundly persuasive.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:05 am:
===disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off===
Who was deprived of the right to vote, or are you unclear on what the word disenfranchising means?
- A guy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:16 am:
===disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off===
Tough point to make in a day and age when so many voters simply disenfranchise themselves so willingly.
- Colin O'Scopy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:20 am:
=Gonzales had sought damages of up to $2 million.=
I have a gut feeling that Mr. Gonzales had this money spent. Well the $10,000 that would have been left after Peraica billed him $1,990,000 for his services.
- Twirling Towards Freedom - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:25 am:
I agree with the decision, but I’m not sure I agree with the reasoning. It’s either fraud or it’s not. If it is fraud, the fact that Gonzalez publicly accused Madigan of fraud and made it a campaign issue shouldn’t make in non-actionable. Madigan denied being behind the sham candidates, and the court has a lot more information now than the voters had. I’d be more comfortable saying “running sham candidates is not actionable fraud” or “its fraud but there’s no damages because Madigan would have won anyway” than “it’s probably fraud but the voters didn’t care so the Court doesn’t either.”
- Roman - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:34 am:
Kennelly could have easily reached the same conclusion without allowing for months of discovery and depositions. I’m tempted to be very critical of him for that, but in doing so, he forced Tony Peraica to invest an untold fortune in time and resources on a case that will pay him next to nothing (assuming he took it on contingency.) So, thank you, Judge Kennelly.
- Ron Burgundy - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:35 am:
I don’t think it is so much a case of bad lawyering as bad facts. Nothing that happened here affected the outcome. If the numbers were different and the outcome was affected there might be a case. As it is, can’t prove harm, no foul.
- 4th - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:50 am:
===disenfranchising any voter shouldn’t be written off===
Tell that to Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP, Brian Kemp and the Georgia GOP, Pat McCrory and the North Carolina GOP, and the rest of the state parties actively kicking black and brown people off of the rolls.
Republicans claiming disenfranchisement is as rich as Republicans complaining about budget deficits.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:55 am:
The voters knew about the “sham” and chose Madigan anyway.
But for right wingers, Madigan Derangement Syndrome, scapegoating him and hoping voters do as well, has been a disaster. After the latest and possibly most brutal attacks against Madigan, he and Democrats are as strong as ever. As long as right wingers keep going with constant attacks and policies most of us don’t want, the outcomes may be continue to be bad for them.
Madigan must enjoy it, that his opponents keep attacking their caricature and failing to see their real problems, unpopular and even cruel policy positions.
- Grand Avenue - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 11:58 am:
Absolutely the right decision. Gonzales’ theory of liability came from the 7th Circuit Smith v Cherry case, and subsequent 7th Circuit decisions held that the deception needed to be hidden from the public for liability under Smith v Cherry. Here there was no doubt to the public what was going on, largely thanks to Mr. Gonzales, hence no liability
- Grand Avenue - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 12:06 pm:
I don’t blame Peraica for wanting to appeal though. The 7th Circuit is overwhelmingly made of appointees by Republican Presidents, so maybe he’ll get lucky.
While a district court can’t go against 7th Circuit precedent, the 7th Circuit itself can “clarify” its precedent or even outright overturn it en banc.
- Bourbon Street - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 12:18 pm:
@ Shaky Grounds. The judge stated in his Order that “Gonzales told multiple new outlets” about the sham candidates. These outlets included the Sun-Times (who wrote an editorial about this issue), NBC Chicago, WTTW, and the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, there were other outlets that Gonzales spoke with; hence, the use of the word “included”. Based on this, I hardly thinks the judge’s reasoning is “strained” on the publicity point.
- West Side the Best Side - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 12:47 pm:
The 7th Circuit has always been more of a workhorse rather than showhorse circuit, much less driven by political ideology than some other circuits. They are more likely to follow their own precedent than divide along political lines, so I don’t see too many judges there, regardless of who appointed them, jumping in to help Perica or hurt Madigan.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 1:06 pm:
“I’m not sure I agree with the reasoning. It’s either fraud or it’s not. If it is fraud, the fact that Gonzalez publicly accused Madigan of fraud and made it a campaign issue shouldn’t make in non-actionable.”
Perhaps a familiar analogy will help:
If you give me $6.5 million for an old stovepipe hat, that’s simply bad judgment on your part.
But if you give me $6.5 million for an old stovepipe hat because I assure you that it once belonged to Abraham Lincoln, that’s a fraud.
– MrJM
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 1:18 pm:
Madigan won by almost 40 points. He could have had a bunch of sham candidates and still won. Just looks like huge sour grapes.
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 1:31 pm:
@Grand Avenue:
Plain English Version: it isn’t deception if the voters can see it happening right in front of them.
It’s ironic that Gonzo’s central complaint is more or less an admission that the only thing he had going for him was Hispanic last name.
But the name “Madigan” clearly had more appeal among Latino voters.
To me, that is progress.
- Anonish - Monday, Aug 26, 19 @ 1:48 pm:
@show your work, I don’t think the point of all those depositions were to get evidence for this case.
- Arock - Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 9:05 am:
The right decision based on law but should show the Democratic Party that they need to rid themselves of unethical leaders.