* Press release…
Yesterday, Governor JB Pritzker signed the following bill, which was filed today:
Bill Number: SB2412
Description: Amends the Elections Code. Places three statewide advisory questions on the ballot for the November 5, 2024 general election. Makes changes to the deadline for filing candidate nomination petitions. Makes other changes to the Elections Code governing the filling of vacancies in nomination for legislative offices.
Action: Signed
Effective: Immediately
* Here’s some background from the Tribune…
A comprehensive election bill that gained final approval by the Democratic-led Illinois legislature on Thursday would give Democrats a significant advantage toward keeping their legislative majorities before any votes are even cast in the Nov. 5 general election. […]
But the election bill given final approval by Senate Democrats Thursday on a 35-3 vote, with 18 Republicans voting “present” in protest, would further help Democrats maintain control in the next General Assembly.
Under the measure, local political party organizations could no longer appoint candidates to fill out legislative ballots where the party did not field a primary candidate. Current law allows the appointment process within 75 days of the primary.
Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker said that while he had not seen all the details of the measure, he considered it an “ethics” bill.
* And more from Capitol News Illinois…
Privately, GOP lawmakers said they believe the proposed change is designed to influence the outcome of one particular race this year – the 112th House District in the Metro East area, where incumbent Rep. Katie Stuart, D-Edwardsville, is running for reelection.
No Republican filed to run in that race in time for the March 19 primary, but party officials say one is currently being lined up.
Republicans believe that district is winnable for them. Stuart won reelection to that seat in 2022 by a 54-46 margin over Republican Jennifer Korte. […]
The measure would also pose three nonbinding advisory referendum questions to voters on the November ballot, including asking whether health insurance plans that cover pregnancy benefits should be required to cover in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments.
…Adding… Leader Curran…
Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran (R-Downes Grove) released the following statement in response to Gov. Pritzker signing SB 2412 that changes General Assembly election rules halfway through the 2024 Election Cycle:
“Gov. Pritzker capped off a 30-hour dash by Illinois Democrats to politically suppress Illinoisans’ voting rights. This abuse of power that blocks candidates from giving voters a choice in free, fair, and open elections is unprecedented in Illinois’ 205-year history. Their dictator-style tactic of stealing an election before a vote is cast is a new low for elective government in this state and undermines the core principals of American democracy.”
…Adding… I told subscribers about this as well…
- Juvenal - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:22 am:
From “I haven’t seen it” to “enacted” in the same day must be a record.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:23 am:
===in the same day===
Two days.
- Cornfield Cowboy - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:32 am:
This new law does not eliminate the eligibility of a candidate to get the usual (for established parties) or even higher amounts of petition signatures to be on the ballot, correct?
Just eliminates the “slating” of a candidate?
- Gravitas - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:36 am:
Wow! That was quick.
Two Republicans slated by committeepersons managed to file papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections yesterday.
I am guessing that this dispute will be litigated.
- NIU Grad - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:39 am:
A 54-46 race is “close” for the modern ILGOP.
- JB13 - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:42 am:
Two days.
“Enrolled Bill Doctrine” anyone?
Illinois Supreme Court?
Bueller?
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:46 am:
= he considered it an “ethics” bill.=
Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it - but show me the hue and cry of past abuses or public outcry about parties slating candidates. I mean the current practice at least offers voters multiple candidates. As we all know candidates can get kicked off the ballot for all sorts of reasons - no slating limits choice. It seems like this ethics bill only helps his supermajority party.
- low level - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:49 am:
==No Republican filed to run in that race in time for the March 19 primary, but party officials say one is currently being lined up.
==
Yeah, ita kind if hard to feel sorry for the lazy GOP if no Repubs filed in the primary. As usual they want to blame everyone else fie their failures.
- Anon62704 - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:51 am:
=Two Republicans slated by committeepersons managed to file papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections yesterday.=
One filed yesterday. The other filed this morning. When did the law go into effect? Definitely expect litigation. *grabs popcorn*
- Sox Fan - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:56 am:
The law is what it is and should be debated. I’m more concerned about seemingly changing the rules post primary. I can think of a few reasons why a candidate wouldn’t bother filing in the primary if they think they have a shot at being slated later on.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:58 am:
I know I’m missing something, but I still don’t see what problem this bill is trying to solve.
- cermak_rd - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:01 am:
I would still like to do something to fix the primary problem that both the Lipinskis and Stroger used to get their offspring slots. Todd turned out not to be that bad though he only lasted a term he was still better than the individual he wound up facing in the general. Dan was a bad politician and couldn’t change with the changing electorate in his area.
- FunAndGames - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:08 am:
=Two days.=
Less than 20 hours, if we’re looking for accuracy. Regardless, Pritzker spinning this as an “ethics” issue is certainly ironic. I don’t see anything ethical about fixing an election and not giving voters a choice. Thanks to gerrymandering of the recent maps, most voters already wont’t have a choice this legislative election cycle, and now the supermajority is limiting choice even further. But, ethics…
- Sad - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:18 am:
==I know I’m missing something, but I still don’t see what problem this bill is trying to solve.==
Katie Stuart doesn’t want to have to campaign this fall. That’s the problem.
- James - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:26 am:
The Republicans circular firing squad is what causes this stuff to happen. Dem super majorities make the republicans meaningless. But we can’t run any pro choice republicans in the suburbs because of purity primaries. Republicans cant even vote on budgets in exchange for pork projects. What a sad state of affairs for republicans. 1994 is rolling over in its grave.
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:26 am:
===Katie Stuart doesn’t want to have to campaign this fall. That’s the problem.===
Republican candidates don’t want to face the voters in a primary. That’s the problem.
- Rabid - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:35 am:
Sandbagging the primary for your preferred candidate is not democracy
- Lakeview Looker - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:37 am:
Even if politically motivated, this makes sense. Primaries are essential to vetting candidates. The days of old when parties could meet in a smoke-filled room and come out with a candidate are long gone. Just file by the deadline, dorks!
- Just Me 2 - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:49 am:
I don’t ever want to hear them say they need more time to pass legislation.
It isn’t enough they use a corrupt process to write a corrupt map, now they have to change the rules halfway through the game.
- Say What - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 10:53 am:
The irony is this probably helps the Republicans more than the Democrats. The Democrats have deep pockets they can reach into, whereas the GOP is shaking old couch cushions and only finding pennies. Curran and McCombie should be privately relieved because this eliminates opportunities to slate candidates for several districts that could be competitive, including the old Durbin district and Stephens.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 11:22 am:
With the Derby tomorrow - I would say this bill/law is a superfecta for Dems. They get three non-binding referendum questions designed to drive D’s to the polls and a new law to limit GOP organizations from slating candidates. For what it’s worth I like #11 Forever Young in the Derby - maybe not a winner but throw him into your exacta’s
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 11:22 am:
===designed to drive D’s to the polls===
Meh. It’s a presidential year.
- low level - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 11:32 am:
==designed to drive D’s to the polls ==
When was the last time nom binding referendums drove anyone ti the polls, D or R? Answer - never.
- @misterjayem - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 11:49 am:
“As we all know candidates can get kicked off the ballot for all sorts of reasons - no slating limits choice. It seems like this ethics bill only helps his supermajority party.”
It helps incumbents regardless of party — it will help Democrats more than Republicans only because there are more elected Democrats.
– MrJM
- Beef combo - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 12:32 pm:
There’s good precedent from Illinois courts for the slated candidates to file suits claiming it can’t be applied for 2024
- Excitable Boy - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 12:36 pm:
I’m positive the motivation for this wasn’t pure, but this is good for democracy. Both parties need to work hard to recruit candidates and put their platforms before the voters.
This is another welcome byproduct of Madigan being gone.
- Beef combo - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 12:41 pm:
Independents and New Party candidates can still file for the General Assembly - their filing deadline is June 24. However, their signature minimums are 2-5 times that of established parties, and you can’t run as an independent or new party candidate if you voted in an established party primary this year
- Norseman - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 12:41 pm:
Hardball politics to help the majority party in the state. OMG, who ever heard of this?
- Norseman - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 12:50 pm:
Don’t you love it when folks like to pretend to be legislative experts on the process when bills they don’t like get passed quickly. It’s called the amendment process.
In my day, we had conference committees.
- Anon221 - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:05 pm:
From the Tribune article: “Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker said that while he had not seen all the details of the measure, he considered it an ‘ethics’ bill.”
OK… so flip the script. What if this was the same bill with the same language but sponsored by the Republican party and “boycotted” by the Dems but, play along with me now, garnered enough votes to pass and be sent to the Democrat governor’s desk. Would it have been signed as quickly and not read for “details” prior to that signing?
Why do we have to keep creating fights that legislatures (it seems like) fully intend the courts to figure out the legalities? This is tiring (at all levels of government) and does nothing for democracy in general. Maybe these reforms would be a good thing, but not when they are presented to the public before a thorough vetting through legislative debate and detailed analysis.
- Gravitas - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:06 pm:
It would have been less objectionable if the new law was set to take effect after November 5, 2024.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:12 pm:
===Both parties need to work hard to recruit candidates===
Candidates - emphasis on the plural. I say take this one step further and require at least two non-write-in candidates in the primary or the single candidate is listed as independent in the general. If I do not have a choice, they should not represent the party.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:20 pm:
==stealing an election==
I’m sick to death of Republicans constantly saying this sort of crap. It does no such thing. Put someone up in the primary. Nobody is stealing anything. Maybe do a better job of recruiting candidates. And maybe do a better of job of actually getting Republicans elected so you can become a party of substance rather than a party of whiners.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:26 pm:
===It would have been less objectionable if===
Much.
This is just goofy.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:34 pm:
==designed to drive D’s to the polls ==
Pretty sure they were designed to keep other initiatives off the November ballot.
With respect to the bill; it would be interesting to see how often slated candidates win in the general election. My guess: very rarely. I’m guessing it’s not as much about protecting Rep. Stuart as it is about having those resources available to use elsewhere.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:36 pm:
===designed to keep other initiatives off ===
Just one.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
As a hard-D Democrat stuck in Republican vote sinks for the statehouse and Congress who often only has anyone to vote for in the general election thanks to slating, this is a bummer.
I am curious about the petution deadline changes aspect of the bill though. Is that to give more runway for petition challenges and related lawsuits before the counties have to print ballots before early voting? If so, I support that.
- John Lopez - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 2:00 pm:
Republican Jay Keeven, challenger to state Representative Katie Stuart in 112th District, filed his papers yesterday afternoon, prior to the state Senate vote let alone Governor Pritzker’s signature this morning.
Litigation coming, but Keeven is in good position given he filed yesterday. Stuart still has to face the challenge.
- Pedro Grifol Guy - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 2:06 pm:
Don Harmon had to sponsor this one himself and lost 3 of his caucus on the vote because they knew it was skeevy. Don Harmon might follow Luke Casson’s political advice, but those three no votes didn’t. Good for them.
- Mr. Middleground - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 2:30 pm:
—but those three no votes didn’t. Good for the—
Refreshing for sure. This was an act of courage, and they should be applauded.
- Just Me 2 - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 3:08 pm:
What if only one person ran in the primary, and after the primary that person drops out (or dies). Can the party still appoint a replacement? Or is the party SOL?
Or does it depend if the person that drops out is aligned with the majority party or the minority party?
- John Lopez - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 3:32 pm:
@Middleground
Don’t forget the 4 House Democrats who voted “No” on SB 2412, House Amendment 2.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 4:10 pm:
@JustMe2 - If someone dies or drops out the party can still slate a replacement.
10 ILCS 5/8-17) (from Ch. 46, par. 8-17)
Sec. 8-17. The death of any candidate prior to, or on, the
date of the primary shall not affect the canvass of the
ballots. If the result of such canvass discloses that such
candidate, if he had lived, would have been nominated, such
candidate shall be declared nominated.
In the event that a candidate of a party who has been
nominated under the provisions of this Article shall die
before election (whether death occurs prior to, or on, or
after, the date of the primary), or decline the nomination, or
withdraw the candidate’s name from the ballot prior to the
general election or should the nomination for any other reason
become vacant, the legislative or representative committee of
such party for such district shall nominate a candidate of
such party to fill such vacancy. However, if there was no
candidate for the nomination of the party in the primary,
except as otherwise provided in this Code, no candidate of
that party for that office may be listed on the ballot at the
general election, unless the legislative or representative
committee of the party nominates a candidate to fill the
vacancy in nomination within 75 days after the date of the
general primary election. Vacancies in nomination occurring
under this Article shall be filled by the appropriate
legislative or representative committee in accordance with the
provisions of Section 7-61 of this Code. In proceedings to
fill the vacancy in nomination, the voting strength of the
members of the legislative or representative committee shall
be as provided in Section 8-6 or as provided in Section 25-6,
as applicable.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 4:12 pm:
Oops I meant to copy the crossed out language but that didnt copy. Here is the link where you can see it
https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=103-0586