* Some background…
On June 5, an Illinois court ruled that provisions of P.A. 103-0586—a law the Illinois General Assembly and Governor J.B. Pritzker rushed through in May, changing the rules for accessing the ballot in the middle of an active election cycle—violates the constitutional rights of fourteen candidates seeking to access the ballot in the 2024 general election.
Case Background: On May 10, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections for violating Illinoisans’ constitutional right to vote by repealing a campaign law mid-election.
Prior to this rapid repeal, if no one ran in a political party’s primary election, the party itself could nominate (or “slate”) a candidate, provided the candidate gathered the required number of petition signatures. On May 3, however, Governor Pritzker signed into law P.A. 103-0586, which repealed that provision, effective immediately—targeting only races for the General Assembly while allowing other offices to continue the slating process.
P.A. 103-0586 was signed into law abruptly in the middle of an election season. It was introduced on May 1 through a controversial “gut and replace” maneuver, when legislators replaced the entire text of a dormant, existing bill on another subject—Senate Bill 2412, which previously would have amended the Children and Family Services Act—with text that reformed the Illinois Election Code. The House passed the bill the same day. It was passed by the Senate the following day and signed into law as P.A. 103-0586 by the governor on May 3, less than 48 hours after its contents had been introduced.
* House Speaker Chris Welch then appealed the case directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. Today…
In this case, two justices of this court have recused themselves, and the remaining members of the court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value.
Justices Neville and Cunningham recused.
…Adding… Leader Curran…
Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran (R-Downers Grove) released the following statement in response to the Illinois Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Democrats’ appeal to the lower court’s finding that Public Act 103-0586 was unconstitutional.
“Gov. Pritzker once again signed a purely partisan law that violated the constitutional rights of Illinois citizens. This latest attempted power grab by Gov. Pritzker and the legislative Democrats that would have reduced voters’ choice in the upcoming election was thankfully rejected by the courts for the final time, and voters, rather than politicians, will have the final say on Election Day.”
- walker - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:38 pm:
“”The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value.”"
Cn someone please tell me what this means practically..
- fs - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:40 pm:
==Cn someone please tell me what this means practically.==
The lower court ruling, finding it violated the Plaintiffs rights under constitution, stands.
- Evanston - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:42 pm:
What the court’s dismissal means in practice is that if another person or organization can “prove” standing and file suit about the same law, the Illinois Supreme Court could still either rule the slating law either definitively constitutional or definitively unconstitutional at a later date. Essentially it kicks the can down the road.
- Barrister's Lectern - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:45 pm:
It means the ruling of the lower court stands.
- fs - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:49 pm:
== Essentially it kicks the can down the road.==
The road ends in November, though. The whole point of rushing it through was to impact elections this year.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 2:50 pm:
=Cn someone please tell me what this means practically=
JB’s last-minute law to protect crony political interests is not binding at least in 2024
“P.A. 103-0586 which eliminates “slating” for General Assembly races in the 2024 election is unconstitutional. The ruling allows the plaintiffs to seek ballot access under the rules that were in place when the election cycle began”
- Norseman - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:04 pm:
walker - it means that the MAGAs win another due to judicial gridlock. However, I’m not going rant and rave because two justices took the ethical action to recuse themselves. The non-precedential part means that the GA can take another crack at it - although, you may want to wait for a little change in the court’s makeup.
- JB13 - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:15 pm:
– it means that the MAGAs win another due to judicial gridlock –
That is certainly a take.
Or - and hear me out - don’t abuse your partisan supermajority and actually follow the constitution.
But nah, you’re right. Just keep pretending you can do whatever you want.
- JB13 - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:18 pm:
– although, you may want to wait for a little change in the court’s makeup –
5-2. You Illinois Democrats are just so spoiled. You wouldn’t know how to function in a real representative democracy in which the interests of 40% of voters were actually considered and not gerrymandered into oblivion
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:27 pm:
===gerrymandered into oblivion ===
The new Supreme Court map could’ve been won by two more Republicans. But y’all nominated a kookie dude in one and didn’t raise nearly enough money in the other.
- Barrister's Lectern - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:40 pm:
To the post: This one must sting for Welch. The amount of money that will have to go into the Katie Stuart district alone should give him heartburn and also narrow the field for where he will compete this fall.
- Mike K - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:53 pm:
At the risk of eliciting laughter and/or eye-rolls, this broken-down old election lawyer would like to remind readers that the we have have no knowledge how the remaining 3 “Republican judges” and 2 “Democratic judges” voted. All we know is no side could get 4 of those 5 judges to agree.
- Mike K - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 3:55 pm:
Sorry, weak on math:
At the risk of eliciting laughter and/or eye-rolls, this broken-down old election lawyer would like to remind readers that the we have have no knowledge how the remaining 2 “Republican judges” and 3 “Democratic judges” voted. All we know is no side could get 4 of those 5 judges to agree
- JoanP - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 4:11 pm:
= thankfully rejected by the courts for the final time =
Until the next time. The Supreme Court did not make a decision. Because the Court was evenly divided, the Appellate Court decision stands, but only until such time as another case is brought that can garner a majority of votes.
- JoanP - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 4:12 pm:
Sorry, the necessary votes.
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Aug 23, 24 @ 4:12 pm:
=All we know is no side could get 4 of those 5 judges to agree=
See Perlman v. First National Bank of Chicago, 60 Ill.2d 529 (1975). A Perlman order notes that one or more members of the court are not participating, states that it is not possible to obtain the concurrence of four votes necessary for a decision, and dismisses the action.