|
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.
- Leap Day William - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:45 pm:
Voted yes, but would rather they split the difference and have every candidate meet a number somewhere in the middle.
I agree that a candidate needs to show some serious support, but how many unserious people can skate by with 1000 signatures just because they’re running as a Republican or Democratic candidate?
- 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?”
- Leap Day William - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:47 pm:
Voted yes, but would rather they split the difference and have every candidate meet a number somewhere in the middle.
I agree that a candidate needs to show some serious support, but how many unserious people can skate by with 1000 signatures just because they’re running as a Republican or Democratic candidate?
I would also be way more in favor of ranked-choice or some other kind of instant runoff voting
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 12:48 pm:
Would vote yes on the ballot question, because of expanding democracy and giving others a better chance. But getting on a ballot is quite different than winning. The “both parties stink” types still have to campaign and convince voters, just like Stratton did to beat two established opponents.
- 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.
- 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.
- Patty - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
In a vacuum the threshold should be the same. However, in my experience for every sincere third party candidate there are 3 people just trying to split the vote. I like that the barrier is high.
If we should make any change at all it should be to raise the number for Republicans and Democrats. I’m really sick of unserious people without experience running for state and federal office, no matter which party they’re aligned with.
- Duck Duck Goose - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
Voted yes. I think the two-party system is corrosive, and things will only get worse if we keep treating government like a team sport.
I don’t buy the argument that lowering the signature requirements will produce unserious candidates. Even if you have to collect only 5,000 instead of 25,000, collecting 5,000 signatures shows that you’re a pretty serious candidate–particularly where you don’t have a party structure to collect all the signatures on your behalf.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
Voted yes, but don’t think they should be equalized, just lowered to an achievable threshold.
- Lurker - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:37 pm:
I did not know I insulted anyone and that was not my intention. I was explaining why I voted yes, I want more candidates and more worthy candidates
- Patty - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:44 pm:
@Duckduckgoose
There are many candidates who passed the 5k threshold who I personally found unserious, such as Rocio Cleveland or Bethany Johson in Il-9. Although, perhaps this issue was more due to a media-affiliated candidate turning the race into a National spectacle, and not the low requirement for signatures.
I also respectfully disagree that more parties can fix corruption. Minor parties can be just as corrupt. And I personally believe the Democratic party really is a big tent party made up of several smaller groups.
- Candy Dogood - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:53 pm:
We absolutely should.
Imagine the delight that we would experience with Illinois’ own version of Vermine Supreme arriving to campaign events with their Cheese grater hat, Malort T-shirt, and large walking stick adorned with a Goose Island tap handle.
From a practical standpoint with the condition that the Illinois GOP is in the only way that some of our state might be able to elect representatives and senators that are actually interested in governing and actually interested in doing things that improve the lives of their constituents is for there to be an easier path for 3rd party candidates.
That signature threshold isn’t protecting incumbents. It isn’t protecting the establishment. It’s protecting lunatics.
- thisjustinagain - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 1:57 pm:
Time to level the playing field for new parties and candidates. There is no justification for requiring such a disparate number of signatures for new parties, or even some higher threshold simply because it’s a new party. Both Dems and Repubs rely on such laws to maintain their “two parties, one circus” dominance.
- Skokie Man - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:13 pm:
“a media-affiliated candidate turning the race into a National spectacle”…
Quite a random drive-by on Kat Abughazaleh, assuming that’s who you mean. Are you suggesting that her presence led unserious candidates to run?
Do you remember who ran against Schakowsky in 2020?
https://www.infowars.com/posts/alex-stein-trolls-dem-congresswoman-jan-schakowsky-over-chicago-murder-rates-mentoring-aoc/
- George Danos - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:13 pm:
“There are many candidates who passed the 5k threshold who I personally found unserious”
Patty, there is no congressional district in Illinois that had a 5K signature threshold. Il-09 requires 1,173 for a Democrat and 540 for a Republican. By this logic, independents should require fewer signatures yet.
- West Sider - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:20 pm:
Voted No, for the reasons Juice noted. The signature quotas are sometimes exorbitant, so the should be some reasonable ratio. The goal is not just democracy, but representative democracy. The capacity to gather signatures is a measure of a potential candidate’s organizational abilities. If I could ban paid signature canvasers I might do that.
- Techie - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:40 pm:
Yes.
Running under a major party gives no indication of how serious a candidate is.
The restrictions on minor parties and independents is purely political gamesmanship to help major parties maintain control.
It restricts competition among candidates, and we sorely need greater competition among them, not less.
- Amalia - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:49 pm:
they get access to the main contest with “fair and achievable” signatures (whatever that is) and don’t have to face the public for the first step. No. Do not lower the number of signatures needed. If they want to skip step one, they have to show support. Heck, the required number now is too low compared to running in an election.
- Patty - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:56 pm:
=“a media-affiliated candidate turning the race into a National spectacle”…
Quite a random drive-by on Kat Abughazaleh,=
Kat claims to be a journalist (I would personally call her a political commentator) and she worked for Media Matters. I don’t see how calling her media affiliated is an insult or a “drive-by”.
My previous comment speaks for itself regarding your other question.
- Patty - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 2:58 pm:
=By this logic, independents should require fewer signatures yet.=
George you may not have seen my previous comment but my logic is that more signatures is better. I am pro-raising the threshold for everyone and against lowering it for anyone.
Thank you for clarifying the signature limit is different for congressional races. Around 1,200 signature is far too low, in my opinion.
- Skokie Man - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 3:16 pm:
Patty, you claim that perhaps Kat’s candidacy turned the race into a National spectacle and led unserious candidates to run. I’m not questioning you describing her as media-affiliated. I’m questioning how you conclude there is any causal relatioship between her decision to run and either Cleveland or Johnson, among others you find unserious, running.
- New Day - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 3:22 pm:
I favor keeping the requirement for Sigcho-Lopez but getting rid of it for everyone else. What, that doesn’t work? Fine. Get rid of it for everyone.
- George Danos - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 3:29 pm:
=By this logic, independents should require fewer signatures yet.=
This refers to the lower requirement for Republicans, which is based, as it is for Democrats, on a fixed percentage of the highest performing member of that party in the district.
THAT is the logic—not yours—by which third parties and independents should ask for lower thresholds.
The system we have is horrible. The state performs unpaid labor for the D and R establishment by questioning perfectly legitimate signatures and then forcing the candidate to prove their validity with “evidence”, the nature of which is undescribed by so-called Rule 9 procedures.
- Flapdoodle - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 3:58 pm:
Voted yes, with two caveats and a question.
Legislatures controlled by the major parties establish the number of signatures required for independent and new party candidates, so is it any surprise that the number is set outrageously high to deter such candidates? Removing such deterrents will have a positive effect on the range of issues, positions, and candidates presented to the voters, making our elections more democratic.
Caveat 1: It makes good sense to discourage truly fringe or vanity candidates, and if requiring a modestly larger number of signatures does so effectively without deterring serious independent and new party candidates, so be it.
Caveat 2: It also makes good sense to implement measures to prevent any candidate from winning an election with an unreasonably low percentage of the total votes cast. Enabling more candidates to run opens this possibility. What “unreasonably low” means needs to be determined. My starting point is 30 percent, with the top 3 finishers in any election where that threshold is unmet competing in a winner-take-all run off.
Question: What qualifies a party as “major” or no longer “new”?Some means of determining this is required, as it is a question with particular relevance in Illinois given the trajectory of the state GOP.
- Annonin' - Friday, Mar 20, 26 @ 4:01 pm:
Voted Yes. Guessin’ GOPPIES will chew on Indies abd Ds win more