|
Question of the day
Friday, Mar 20, 2026 - Posted by Isabel Miller * 25News Now…
* The advisory referendum’s full language…
Both Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez and Mayra Macías will need to collect at least 10,816 valid signatures to run as independents against Patty Garcia, who secured the Democratic nomination after Rep. Chuy Garcia dropped his reelection bid at the last minute. Patty Garcia only needed 697 signatures, according to the State Board of Elections. For US Senate, independents face a much higher bar, they must gather signatures equal to 1 percent of the vote in the last statewide general election, or 25,000 valid signatures. Democratic and Republican candidates only need a minimum of 5,000. And in the race for Sen. Dale Fowler’s seat, independent candidate William Lo will need at least 3,973 valid signatures to get on the ballot. His opponents, Republican Rep. Paul Jacobs and Democrat Tamiko Mueller, only needed 1,000. * The Question: Should Illinois lower signature requirements for independent and third-party candidates to equalize them with major party candidates? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
|
- Lurker - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:08 pm:
I’m not a lemming. Because you have an (R) or (D) does not make you worthy or honest in my eyes. I can proudly say I did not vote for Ryan, Blagoyevich, Rauner, because I did not find them worthy. I would have liked more and better choices in those elections.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:10 pm:
Lurker, you didn’t answer the question. You instead insulted others. Please, don’t do that.
- Name Withheld - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:13 pm:
I think 20x the number of signatures might be excessive, but I do agree with the idea that a 3rd party candidate should have some real backing. I’d be in favor of making it easier to qualify. Maybe with 10x or possibly even 5x the number of signatures.
- Pundent - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:18 pm:
Voted yes. The only ones that benefit from the current system are the political parties and insiders. And what defines “serious backing.” Presumably that means money and/or the support of one of the two parties. Using that as a bar only guarantees more of the same.
- don the legend - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:21 pm:
Voted yes. I’m a convert and am more than convinced the current two parties are irretrievably broken.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:26 pm:
Yes. Signature requirements should be the same for an office. Party affiliation or none should not matter.
==Opponents argued the current system ensures candidates have serious backing before joining a race.==
If that is the reason for requiring so many signatures, shouldn’t the same apply to folks in established parties? The implication here is that if you are in an established party, you don’t need to be as serious. Not having a party tag already limits the votes someone is likely to receive.
I would also add that the signature requirements for some offices are too high. In the early 2000’s the requirement for state rep was 300.
- Joseph M - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:30 pm:
Voted yes. I found the Tribune editorial board’s argument compelling.
I also think IL is long overdue to implement voting systems like Ranked Choice Voting - a crucial step to end the toxic Red/Blue duopoly. The parties may despise it, but it’s necessary for the future of our state and country.
- Excitable Boy - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:38 pm:
Yes. More democracy is always a good thing.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:38 pm:
Voted yes, but with a caveat. We need some sort of ranked choice/jungle primary system to go along with it.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:39 pm:
Voted yes, but I would add a caveat that that this should be in combination with approval or ranked choice voting to lessen the effect of spoilers.
Additionally, the signature threshold should be low for all candidates (e.g., 697 for Chuy’s seat), but if there are more than about 6 candidates, only the top 6 candidates with the most signatures should appear on the ballot, but anyone who meets a high threshold is guaranteed to appear (e.g., the 10,816 for Chuy’s seat but for all candidates).
It would also be great to allow for corrections to address objections, whether they are minor things like stapling or collecting more signatures to address invalidated ones. Give people a couple weeks to fix issues.
- JS Mill - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:43 pm:
Voted Yes. A candidate from and established party is no more serious than any one else.
- Juice - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:45 pm:
Voted no, and since I’m clearly in the minority might as well explain myself.
As a general matter, being the nominee for a major party is a two-step process. The candidate has to get the sufficient number of signatures, and then they also have to win a primary. Sufficient signatures alone does not guarantee someone a spot on the general election ballot.
Equalizing the threshold makes it far more likely that we are going to have way overcrowded ballots for the general. Some may say more choices are better. I don’t necessarily disagree with that. But I also think that its important that the people we elect to represent us have clearly established that they have the will of the majority (or at least a significant plurality) of those who have chosen to vote in that race behind them.
Just look at the results from this week. Lashawn won the primary with less than 25% of the vote. Daniel with less than 30% of the vote. But come the general, both will likely receive support from a majority of voters in the District. I’m just not sure we ought to be sending people to DC (or Springfield) to represent us when supermajorities of people have expressed an unmistakable preference for someone else.
I would support moving to a system that promoted ranked choice voting or even a runoff system, which could provide that kind of support and in which case I do think it makes more sense to equalize the ballot access rules. But that is not the system we have today.
I do think our current rules now are far too strict, and would support reducing the burden to a degree. But I don’t think equalizing them would be the way to go.
- Remember the Alamo II - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:45 pm:
Yes. If candidates of established parties can show “real backing” by submitting a certain number of signatures, why would Independent candidates be required to submit 20x the number of signatures to establish that they have “real backing?”
- DuPage Dad - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
Yes, lower, but don’t completely equalize. I’d be fine with 5x or 10x, like Name Withheld said. Juice makes good points as to why it shouldn’t be completely equal.
- G'Kar - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
I voted yes, but with the same caveat that others have mentioned. I don’t necessarily agree it should be the same as major parties, but the # of signatures needed shouldn’t be so onerous. In the small rural county where I live, there are often only one candidate running for office, so perhaps allowing independents to run with the same number of signatures as the big parties might increase competition.
All that being said, I acknowledge Juice’s argument.
- King Louis XVI - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:07 pm:
Equality.
- The Dude Abides - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:13 pm:
Re: G’kar
What if we made the threshold a % of eligible voters?
I also agree that RCV is a net positive, and wish more elections had it so that I could actually vote in a primary.