Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** To strike or not to strike? Here are the arguments
Next Post: Daley unveils new gun restrictions
Posted in:
* Former Chicago Ald. Marty Oberman sued last year to force a special election for US Senate. He claimed the US Constitution requires a special election and the appointment of Roland Burris was only temporary and the state should’ve set special election dates.
The lower court ruled against his request for a preliminary injunction, so Oberman appealed last fall. As we’ve already discussed, a confusing, long-winded and obtuse appellate opinion [fixed link] was finally handed down in June that claimed a special election was necessary, but no election was actually ordered.
A court hearing was held yesterday, and the state attorney general objected to a special election based at least partly on grounds that there simply isn’t enough time to conduct a primary before November…
“It’s extremely difficult to try to shoehorn in a process where candidates file petitions to get on the ballot and then the ballots are prepared and the voting equipment is prepared and then to get all that stuff deployed in the polling places, then get all that machinery system back into the warehouse,” said James Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. “You still have to accept absentee ballots for 14 days after the election; you may not have a proclamation until say the end of September, and then at the end of September, you’re supposed to be sending ballots out to overseas and military voters for the general election.”
There’s lots more detail from Allen at this link.
They also claimed that the cost would be quite high - up to $30 million statewide.
* You can read the attorney general’s motion that was filed yesterday by clicking here. From the motion…
…in declining to hold that the period between November 2, 2010 and January 3, 2011 is de minimis… the decision misapprehends Illinois law, which does not permit a candidate elected on November 2 to assume office until election results are certified in early December, when there will be few to no days left in the Senate session, and the decision fails to account for the risk of serious prejudice to Illinois voters if the State must include two elections for the same Senate seat on the November ballot. Finally, the decision errs in presuming that sufficient time remains before the general election to include an additional
Senate race on the November 2 ballot consistent with Illinois law.
Translation: Even if there was time to hold a special primary and a special election, which there isn’t if we follow state and federal laws, the new Senator would be in office about a month, over the Christmas break. That’s a lot of cash for no benefit. Ridiculous.
* Oberman came up with a goofy way to get around the serious time constraint problem…
Plaintiffs argue that adding a second ballot could be done at no cost to taxpayers if the candidates are chosen by party leadership
Translation: The three state party chairmen could appoint candidates to the general special election ballot. According to the attorney general and the Chicago elections board, that would be against state law…
10 ILCS 5/7-1 of the Election Code states:
“Except as otherwise provided in this Article, the nomination of all candidates for all elective State, congressional, judicial and county officers … shall be made in the manner provided in this Article 7 and not otherwise.” ie through a primary.10 ILCS 5/7-61 then reads: “Whenever a special election is necessary the provisions of this Article are applicable to the nomination of candidates to be voted for at such special election…” and then goes on to detail a primary.
Thus, even if the code does not specifically refer to a U.S. Senate special election, it does give clear direction.
Also, why bother to even hold a special general if the party leaders are gonna just appoint the nominees anyway?
* Yesterday’s court hearing produced no results, and we may not get any direction for weeks. It’s also possible, maybe probable, that the full appellate panel will take the case back and look at it. From James Allen of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners…
The next hearing on this matter was scheduled for Wed., July 21 — but Judge Grady advised all parties to be prepared to return to court sooner in the event the 7th District Court of Appeals acts before then to affirm, clarify, amend or otherwise change the opinion it issued on June 16 regarding the need for a Nov. 2 Special Election for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Roland Burris.
* I sure hope Oberman isn’t pursuing this suit because of any eligible reimbursable expenses from the state. But the timing of the appellate ruling now means that there just aren’t enough weeks left to run this silly special election. He needs to drop it and move on.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden’s blog…
In fact, if a special primary election would be held, it is all but certain that military ballots would not go out in time to meet the new standards set up by the MOVE Act.
It could also be argued, persuasively, that a simple tweak to the Election Code could clarify this issue for this election. That would require a special session, but the cost of that vs. the cost of a special primary is not even close. If Judge Grady, at the U.S. District Court, tries to take the authority for this process away from the legislature, the legislature should wrest it back and save taxpayers the money of the special election and not imperil the November election, especially the votes of those overseas.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Marty Oberman…
The plaintiffs’ position is that, consistent with the election code and the constitution, the nominees for a special election to be held on Nov. 2, 2010, could be chosen through the same mechanism now contained in the election code for filling vacancies in nominations, i.e., the party central committees can choose the nominees. This appears to be what happened in the special election ordered by the 7th Circuit in 1970 when George Collins was elected to the House. This same approach was upheld by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to flll the vacancy when Pennsylvania Senator Heinz was killed in a plane crash in 1991.
There is no requirement in the election code for a primary for a special senate election because the legislature never thought about it.
If the plaintiffs’ approach is followed, there will be not one penny of extra cost to the taxpayers and the principles in the constitution will be upheld. We still think the constitution is important, don’t we?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 11:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** To strike or not to strike? Here are the arguments
Next Post: Daley unveils new gun restrictions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So the General Assembly and Governor did not follow the requirements of the US Constitution, which was pointed out and argued almost immediately and they failed to listen and act…and you’re blaming one of the people who tried to point this out? The blame for this rests solely with the General Assembly and Governor(s).
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Agree, drop it already. but, the judiciary could have acted
faster…the case was argued last year. shouldn’t they
realize that elections take time to set up?
Marty, the point is moot. move along.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:11 pm
===but, the judiciary could have acted faster===
Totally agreed. It’s the height of stupidity to wait until June to issue that moronic opinion.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:14 pm
Isn’t it pretty obvious that the point of the lawsuit is to prevent the governor thinking he can just appoint whomever next time there’s a vacancy? That seems like a pretty useful thing to me. If the law that is being established here had been established two years ago Blagojevich wouldn’t have been able to try to sell the seat.
Comment by enn Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:15 pm
Also, the “confusing, long-winded and obtuse appellate opinion” link is broken.
Comment by enn Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:17 pm
enn, thanks. Fixed.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:37 pm
He should drop the lawsuit. And now that the newspapers have repeatedly printed his name, perhaps his need to be heard will be sated and he will drop the suit.
Comment by FillB Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:40 pm
Democrats failed to hold a special election simply for partisan reasons, they feared losing the seat. The decision is long winded, but summed up it is pretty clear (and so is the 17th Amendment). An appointment is valid until an election is held. Had they done their jobs in the first place in reponse to repeated requests and warnings from the get-go, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm
I’m just glad we had Roland Burris to see us through this constitutional crisis.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:53 pm
I agree that the timing of this ruling is awful and I don’t see a sensible way to remedy what’s been done with the general election a few months away. Let’s just go forward.
But, the 7th Circuit’s opinion is rather important nationwide. I think 5+ sitting senators were appointed and no special elections were held when the sitting senators took jobs with the Obama Admin. Massachusetts, with lots of pretzel twisting, ultimately had a special election after Ted Kennedy died. All those appointed to seats previously held by O’s appointees are able to sit until the next general election. This has been SOP nationwide. So, I think the constitutional concerns, while can’t be helped practically in this case, are important for the nation as a whole. I want this 7th Ct opinion to stand or at least go up the legal chain to SCOTUS.
Comment by Peggy SO-IL Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:01 pm
Condemning the Gov and GA for not holding the special election when the 7th Circ couldn’t even write a clear opinion saying why it’s constitutionally required is not exactly clear instruction, Anon, alas.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:04 pm
So if we had held a special election when we were supposed to do so, we wouldn’t be in this pickle right about now?
So, if the Appellate Court had acted expeditiously, we wouldn’t be in this pickle right about now?
Let’s not blame Oberman or those who demanded the scheduling of a special election when Obama vacated the office.
Let’s blame the whole mess on the group of individuals comprising the leadership of the Democratic Party of Illinois, who, fearful of losing a special election, decided not to have one.
They took away the voice of the citizenry in determining who the next U.S. Senator would be from Illinois, and left it in the hands of fomer Governer “Fxcccc golden.”
Thanks Democrats!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:27 pm
Maybe just maybe Quinn/Blago could of followed the law in the begining and this wouldnt be a problem. Why would Quinn let a little thing like a law get in the way who cares about elections or balanced budgets those laws dont matter.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 2:01 pm
Instead of a Special Election, I’d like to see the court give the legislature a relatively short deadline for changing the law so that in the future Special Elections would be have to be held in conjunction with the next regularly scheduled primary, general or consolidated election. The legislature should also consider doing away with special primaries to keep costs down.
I don’t think Oberman’s idea is a bad one, actually, because committeepeople are elected for the purpose of making these decisions on the voters’ behalf. There’s nothing stopping parties from holding some sort of advisory caucus at their own expense. The only problem becomes creating a process where new party and independent candidates can register.
Comment by PFK Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 4:13 pm
I think Marty did a great service for the state in bringing this suit and appealing it. We now have an important precedent that will prevent the Blago shenanigans in the future when this kind of thing next occurs, which it will.
That said, because the 7th circuit dragged its heals so long, as a practical matter, this decision is moot. And frankly, I can’t imagine how having party bosses nominate someone for an key job over a meaningless period of a couple of weeks over Xmas will somehow help the cause of reform.
Still, I’m glad he put himself out there with this suit.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 6:08 pm
This may become a national issuue real quick. If the court enters and injunction against Burris the President’s Agenda is backed up because he loses another vital vote in the Senate. To that end you cannot drop the suit now.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 8:04 am