Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Unfortunate rhetoric
Next Post: The pro-consumer governor raises Downstate electric rates
Posted in:
* As I told subscribers yesterday, Sen. John O. Jones has dropped out of his Republican primary bid after his inadequate petitions were challenged by fellow GOP state Sen. Kyle McCarter...
Jones, a 16-year veteran of the General Assembly, withdrew from his March 20 matchup against state Sen. Kyle McCarter, saying he wasn’t sure he could survive a challenge of his nominating petitions by his opponent. […]
McCarter challenged Jones’ nominating petitions and found enough potential problems that Jones exited the race rather than embark on a legal fight. To run in the Senate primary, a candidate must have at least 1,000 valid signatures from registered voters within the district. Jones said if each of McCarter’s challenges had been successful, he would have been dozens of signatures short of staying on the ballot. […]
It wasn’t clear Wednesday whether the move means an end to Jones career in Springfield, which began in 1995 when he was elected to the House. He moved into his Senate seat in 2003.
“I’m going to leave my options open,” Jones said.
Gathering enough signatures to run as an independent will be a whole lot harder than it was in a party primary, so he’d better get his act together if that’s what he’s going to do.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Adam Andrzejewski is alleging fraud. From an e-mail…
Furthermore, seven signed affidavits alleged petition signature forgery. Evidence of more forgery was gathered on five more petition sheets. Rather than fight these legal assertions, Jones decided to drop out of the race. In addition, the objector was prepared to allege that union reps circulated nine pages of petitions on government property: inside a state prison and a school.
* Only a relative handful of people, like Democratic Sen. Dave Koehler, had an easy time gathering petitions this year.
It used to be, candidates could just flood the Board of Elections with thousands of iffy petitions, making it very difficult if not impossible to find enough signatures to kick them off the ballot (that’s what happened with Scott Lee Cohen and his gigantic mountain of signatures in 2010, for instance). Now, there’s an upper limit, after which the Board stops counting. Candidates have to make extra sure they’re turning in their most valid signatures or face the boot.
* But the current political climate is so toxic for politicians of all stripes that just going out a couple of weekends and gathering tons of sigs is no longer a viable option. People are in no mood to cooperate, and lots of candidates ended up turning in petitions on the last day of filing this year because they weren’t prepared for the reaction at the doors.
“Hi, I’m running for the Illinois General Assembly, you know, the people who raised your taxes and your electric utility rates, haven’t solved the pension mess, can’t pay the state’s bills, are still handing out legislative scholarships, forced you to register with the government when you buy Drano, allowed Chicago to install speed cams…”
[Sound of door slamming.]
* And it isn’t just legislators and legislative candidates having trouble…
Chicago’s election board voted unanimously Wednesday to remove Ald. Rey Colon (35th) from the March 20 primary ballot for Democratic ward committeeman because he did not collect enough valid signatures from registered voters in the ward.
Colon has served as committeeman since 2004, and his exit leaves only one candidate for the top party post: Nancy Schiavone, a lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged Colon for alderman last year. Schiavone could not be reached for comment. […]
Colon is the third incumbent ward boss who has encountered trouble staying on the ballot for this year’s primary. Ald. Toni Foulkes (15th) dropped her re-election bid after her nomination papers were challenged. Raymond Lopez, who ran against Foulkes for alderman in last year’s election, will run unopposed for committeeman of that ward.
Ald. Howard Brookins (21st) is currently fighting to stay on the ballot after a preliminary examination by election board officials found he was about 100 signatures short of the required total.
That’s just craziness. These are ward committeemen. They’re supposed to have an organization. But, things are tough all over and sometimes people can get lazy.
Reformers thought the new signature requirements would work against challengers before filing started. So far though, more incumbents than usual are having real problems. Heck, even the Obama campaign didn’t file petitions on the first day, and, as of this moment, hasn’t filed yet.
* And this story probably won’t help, either…
A southwest side community activist who’s running for State Senate says he was offered a state job and money to drop out of his political race, and he said that offer was secretly taped by the FBI.
Democrat Raul Montes Junior is running in the 12th District, a job that is also being pursued by incumbent 11th District Democrat Steve Landek, who is also the mayor of southwest suburban Bridgeview.
Earlier this month, Montes says he got a call from a political consultant he believes was representing Landek. They met in a restaurant on Taylor Street, where Montes said the consultant tried to entice him to withdraw from the primary race.
“He said, ‘We could compensate you for your time,’” Montes said. “‘Thousands of dollars, and possibly get you a Chicago coordinating job, and you’ll be working for Senator Steve Landek. What do you think about it?’ I started smelling something fishy.”
Montes said he didn’t feel comfortable about the offer and called the FBI. On Christmas Eve, he said he received a voicemail from Landek asking to set up a face-to-face meeting.
Montes said the FBI equipped him with an undercover recording device when he met with Landek last Thursday in a suite at Toyota Park in Bridgeview. He said they talked for nearly two and a half hours, and at the end of the conversation, Landek asked Montes what it would take to get him out of the race.
“He said, ‘What if I offered you something to come on staff with me at the Senate? You’ d be making over $30,000 a year,’” Montes said. “I listened to him. He goes, ‘What about if I give you some money?’ I go, ‘Money?’ He says, ‘Yeah. I can give you a check right now for $3,000, but you gotta withdraw. Go on vacation. Go somewhere you want. Come back in a few days, and then you work for me on my campaign.’”
Sen. Landek insists he did nothing wrong. But, wow, what a story this is.
*** UPDATE *** Interesting…
Well-known election lawyer Burt Odelson says that he took a phone call from his friend Landek and advised him that it was perfectly legal for Landek to offer Montes a job for dropping out of the race.
“I talked to Steve in the middle of the meeting,” said Odelson, who is also representing a challenger to Montes’ nominating petitions. “Steve offered him a position on his campaign committee to help him in the campaign.
“Steve and I talked about this before he did it, because [Montes] did pass a lot of petitions and he did it all himself, and you can’t find people like that anymore who do that hard work.
“Especially, he lives in an area that’s new to Steve’s district. He’s Hispanic. It makes all the sense in the world to get young blood involved in the organization. Additionally, if you can get your opponent off the ballot, you get him off the ballot.”
Odelson said Landek did nothing wrong in offering Montes a job.
“It goes on every single day in politics,” Odelson said, “from every level of government including the judiciary. Steve offered a job on his campaign staff, and if that worked out he would consider him to work on his senate staff. … And it would save a lot of money not having to run against somebody run against him, even though Steve is going to beat him 80/20 or 75/25. He’s not a serious challenger. He lives with his parents in the basement.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:21 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Unfortunate rhetoric
Next Post: The pro-consumer governor raises Downstate electric rates
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
That’s going to be a hard spin if it’s all on tape. Wow. Just wow.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:27 am
Wasn’t Landek annointed by His Highness the Speaker? Now I know that what happened did not involve him per se, but electorate and politics in general are changing pretty fast in his neck of the woods…IMO, his power in his district can only wane in the coming years…is the end of the Madigan reign in sight? Stay tuned everyone!
Comment by Borealis Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:36 am
I passed petitions in October and November for a couple of sitting officeholders and it was not a pleasant experience. People are downright rude and many acted as though I was a Bible or vacuum salesman. I find this dynamic fascinating for a few reasons. First, in my line of work I hear a lot of complaints about candidates and officials not paying attention to the voters. Considering how tough it is to get petition signatures and the low voter turnout, I think the public has their rhetoric backwards. Second, it’s tough to recruit and keep good candidates. If you want good elected officials, sign a petition and help those who are willing to stick their necks out and (try to) get on the ballot. There’s no penalty for signing a partisan petition. You don’t get registered as an R or D. Yes, you might get a piece or two of mail from that candidate, but that’s a minor inconvenience.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:41 am
oops, my lawyer said it was ok, didn’t work for grod
Comment by Spring Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:42 am
I’m not sure the upper limit is overly punitive. The limit is 3 times the required number of signatures. State Reps need 500 and can turn in no more than 1,500 and it’s 1,000/3,000 for state senators. This limit is more permissive than it is for statewide candidates who are required to file 5,000 and can turn in no more than 10,000 so I’m skeptical about blame being directed towards the limit.
I’m sure the negative ratings for politicians is a factor. The petition process I was involved in this fall didn’t have a lot of trouble convincing people to sign but we had a hard time getting people to answer the door even in receptive, walkable areas. We spent a lot more time identifying group meetings where people were already congregated.
I think the real problem is the continued erosion of the party structure. Candidates just can’t count on party committeemen for help as much anymore. When longtime party regulars can’t get themselves on the ballot it just goes to show how much less effective the party organizations are becoming.
I looked at a number of candidates petitions this year and it seemed like there were a lot of candidates who had just a few circulators, close family and friends. The most effective were the ones who recognized they needed a personal involvement in the process, that they couldn’t take it for granted that the party would save them. I expect the trend to continue.
Some states allow candidates to pay a fee in lieu of petitions. It wouldn’t surprise me if this idea starts getting proposed in legislation in the next few cycles, but I don’t expect it to actually happen anytime soon.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:42 am
If it turns out you can do that, there is a whole new money making method for folks….
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:46 am
–“It goes on every single day in politics,” Odelson said, “from every level of government including the judiciary. Steve offered a job on his campaign staff, and if that worked out he would consider him to work on his senate staff. …–
Odelson’s take is interesting. I can see how offering a job on a campaign staff, quid pro quo, would be kosher. But consideration for the Senate staff, a state job? He’s the bigfoot lawyer, but I don’t think so.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:46 am
There was a time when knocking someone off the ballot was a step; 1) you try, 2) you annoy your opponent, 3) casue a stir in the area, then … they stay on the ballot and we all move on.
Over the years, the likes of Jaconetti, Rauchi, Odelson evoled this “task” into a true art form, so much so, that you had to hire one of those guys right away because your opponent has already hired one of the other two, and this is before you even circulated, one of those thre probably WROTE your petition, so the other two wouldn’t challenge the format!
Kasper v. Odelson, oops sorry, Objector v. Emanuel, again put this practice in the bright sunshine. Kasper has made “the trio” into the quartet of the finest election attorneys around (IMO) and Burt and Mike did not disappoint.
“Politics ain’t beanbag” is the quote you hear when someone asks about the “unseemly” way one objects to another’s petitions. But the undercurrent is that the old “armies” are not around anymore.
The “guy on the street” is now a laughed-at technique, and old school move, and a desperate attempt to get elected in this 21st century campaign world.
Really?
Field operations and “political armies” are worth their weight if used correctly, trained exceptionally, and committed unconditionally to the candidate or the cause.
A motivated field organization in this new climate will always be overlooked until its too late, or its too little … as in too little signatures to even BE in a “ground game” race.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:48 am
I always ask if the signer is a registered voter. I prefer asking people I know when passing a petition. You would be shocked at how many people don’t like to admit they aren’t registered to vote. So they sign any way. I find that most the people who are “fighting the man” never vote.
Comment by Lil' Enchilada Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:50 am
What I find interesting is that even the minority party incumbents are having problems getting signatures. They can’t argue as successfully as I would have thought that they are fighting against the “big bad Democrats”. This tells me the voters want more bi-partisanship lawmaking and less “us versus them”.
Comment by Its Just Me Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:50 am
If the lawyer claims Landek did nothing wrong, why did the FBI set up a wire interview? I notice Odelson doesn’t mention the cash offer.
He’s not a serious challenger because he lives in his parent’s basement??
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:51 am
Gotta wonder if the G actually wired the guy….usually the “advise” in strong terms not to discuss their efforts…could be a fairy tale
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:51 am
I don’t think voters’ concerns are the people who raised your taxes and your electric utility rates, haven’t solved the pension mess, can’t pay the state’s bills, are still handing out legislative scholarships, forced you to register with the government when you buy Drano, allowed Chicago to install speed cams….
Look at the polling. Illinois voters are worried about (1) jobs and the economy, (2) the state’s broken budget forcing cuts to popular and necessary public services at every level, and (3) how 1 and 2 are hurting regular people but not elites like the rich, big corporations and the politicians who protect them.
Those concerns cut across party lines, and candidates who fail to address them I’m sure are having a tough time. As they should be.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:53 am
Maybe Montes could double his take had he run for two offices.
Regarding nominating petitions, I refused to sign one for the first time. The signature gatherer claimed redistricting had already changed my State Senator — BEFORE the 2012 election.
The last time I collected signatures for a State Rep — as a volunteer — I had no problems. If they were home, they usually signed. That was in the pre-Ryan/pre-Blago trial era.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:53 am
In what amounts to an “insert word here” move by McCarter, let’s say the crafty Jones runs as a third party candidate. What do we think this does to McCarter?
Comment by Booger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:54 am
Really, Mr. Odelson????? Have to delve into details a bit further, but that appears to violate 18 U.S.C. § 600 / US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:59 am
I enjoyed the petitioning process this year and found folks, overall, personally very supportive. Our signatures were ironclad as, I believe, were the other candidate’s. We may be lucky to live in a district where a lot of voters still feel involved. The incidence of voters clearly turned off by the whole process was higher. And while voters want someone who will fight for change, many are skeptical of any such candidate or elected official being able to do so. And I don’t blame them.
Comment by Jeff Smith Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:00 am
-Booger,
If it gets down to a 3-way race, with Jones and McCarter running, the bottom line will be which of the three can identify their voters and get them to vote. Simple and dopey, right?
All 3 are fishing out of a new pool of fish, so who the heck has a bigger base to start from, and further, that “base”, is it a “party” base, or a “candidate” base…for ANY of them?
All 3 are going to mail the heck (money constraints aside) out of that district to get to at least 40%, of those voting in a 3 way, to win, minimum.
With the SGOP, I will be extremely interested how many “volunteers” will go “off the reservation” of McCarter and take “vacation time” in that district and find there way to the “Jones for Senate” office for a cup of cofee and a donut.
What will happen? A voter to voter contact sport, and a lot of angry Repubs if they split this thing and both lose.
Cullerton is a happy man today.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:03 am
And let’s not forget about 18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office.
This would be a violation of Federal law (if I understand correctly), which explains why the Feds. would have wired him.
Regardless, that tape alone is enough to do some serious damage to any candidate in the current climate.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:03 am
Dang. I misread. Appears that stuff only applies to Federal/Congressional candidates.
My apologies. Will check the state code.
Frustrating if that’s just the way business is done here, according to Mr. Odelson. Wow.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:05 am
Odelson: (and besides all my legal mumbo-jumbo) he lives with his parents in the basement.
Does that mean Montes lives in the basement of his parents’ house, or that Montes lives in a basement with his parents?
Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:06 am
i didn’t have a problem collecting signatures, especially for president obama. the president has his signatures and given the RECENT challenges of the president’s 2008 petitions in indiana and one other state (i don’t recall which, maybe virginia?) leads me to think that the campaign is both crossing their ts and waiting before filing.
from my little corner of the universe, we collected 2401 signatures to get the president on the ballot. i’m sure staff and OFA volunteers collected thousands more. in fact, i got the impression that the campaign was concerned about collecting too many signatures, not whether or not they’d get enough. that worry kept me from going full out to collect signatures for the re-elect…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:09 am
==Odelson said Landek did nothing wrong in offering Montes a job.==
Did I just miss the whole Blago trial or did he just get sent to federal prison for trying to arrange some sort of quid pro quo? We should change our state slogan to “Land of the Idiots.”
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:09 am
Jones’ effort to run as an independant will come up short. McCarter is being supported by a cross section of both business people and the Tea Party. Jones, not as a Republican, just won’t work.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:11 am
A couple years ago I was pounding the pavement in Cook County for signatures. I went to a family friendly festival on a Sunday afternoon in Bucktown packed with what I would categorize as younger, educated upwardly mobile families. I was surprised at how many refused to sign saying they didn’t know the candidate. When I explained that good candidates can’t get a chance unless they get on the ballot, it fell on deaf ears.
On the flip side, 9 out of day 10 people I approached at the el stop at 95th and the Dan Ryan were friendly and willing to help.
Comment by Because I say so... Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:11 am
Yeah it’s beyond tough times and laziness for “ward bosses” to be just about kicked off the ballots. Sounds like they need to organize better if they run into these types of issues. That or perhaps Aldermen nor elected officials shouldn’t be allowed to hold another political office.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:12 am
Oswego Willy: sorry, but i prefer rich means every time. he wrote the book…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:13 am
bored now -
That is why it’s In My Opinion. You can’t go wrong with Means, …and Odelson, Kasper, Jaconetti and Raucci … to borrow from Judge Smails, “aren’t slouches”, and at times, the four have helped “re-write” the book.
To each their own. I am a fan of Means too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:19 am
bored, means apparently got his hat handed to him this week.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:19 am
Two points can be made about the new 54th Senate District. First, the Senate GOP should’ve worked against McCarter in 2009 instead of sitting on the sidelines. Second, it’s a safe R district. So even if Jones were to win, he’d likely do what Lisa Murkowski did in 2010: run as an I and then switch back to R after winning (assuming he wins).
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:21 am
Re the legality here, I’m no lawyer but they might try arguing, choosing not to run is an -inactivity-; it’s doing nothing. Blagojevich wanted money for an unambiguous official act, an appointment. But even in federal law, candidates get offered jobs so they don’t run. We know the Reagan administration did it once (they said so) and very likely some kind of deal was floated by the Obama administration to Joe Sestak in PA back in 2010, not to run vs Specter. This is bad PR but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no illegality.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:22 am
Demoralized brings up a good point. However, by the time the Sandek affair made its way through either the civil or federal court, the primary and general election would be over.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:24 am
Like Jeff Smith, Kirk Dillard had absolutely no problems gathering the required 3000 signatures, which were handed in on the first day of filing. We did not turn in hundreds of additional valid signature because of the upper cap. Well over 100 people circulated petitions. The people signing were more than happy to do so, and there were no reported problems with rudeness or any other such events. All in all, I was rather surprised to hear that many candidates ran into any problems.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:24 am
===by the time the Sandek affair ===
Common mistake, but it’s Landek, not Sandack. Let’s keep it straight and not tar anyone else.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:25 am
Team Sleep -
Isn’t the fear of Jones/McCarter, in a safe R district, slicing it so evenly between the two that that “safe” district in now a “D” district, and further, the Dems have at least 2 years to keep it that way?
This is also a Presidental cycle, and the POTUS is from IL, and won’t the Ds be motivated in that district to pick up a seat while voting for Obama and their candidate gets 38% of the vote … and wins?
I am with ya, TS, just making another point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:28 am
“….Did I just miss the whole Blago trial or did he just get sent to federal prison for trying to arrange some sort of quid pro quo?”
======
The difference: elected officeholder solicited for cash/future family employment guarantee in exchange for making an appointment to the US Senate vs candidate dropping candidacy to work with elected officeholder.
It seems like more than a Blago hair split.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:33 am
In 2010 the major party vote in Senate 54 broke 70.4% for Brady to 29.6% for Quinn. A split in the GOP vote wouldn’t guarantee a Democratic victory by any means.
Just sayin…
train111
Comment by train111 Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:36 am
Downstate, would you be referrIng to the same cross section of Tea Party and Business that ultimately won Bill Brady the election and cost the GOP their best chance of returning the Gov’s mansion via a Dillard general election. No disputing the impact of the Tea Party, they did have some successes Sam McCann. But Stover ain’t exactly grade A meat for Cullerton to sink his teeth into? Without Adam A. where does McCarter get his backing?
Comment by Booger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:39 am
=== A split in the GOP vote wouldn’t guarantee a Democratic victory by any means.===
But its going to cost way more money than it should, and the uglier it gets between McCarter and Jones, the better its going to get for the Dem …and I know I didn’t “guarantee” a Dem win, but I guarentee a hostle race that could split the SGOP staff …
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:40 am
Sorry Rich. I should’ve double-checked the name. I accidentally married two names.
Willy, I don’t think Danny Stover is a serious candidate. He’s a hothead.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:41 am
Just as an FYI, Jones’ last D-2 had him sitting on almost $290K. http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/D2Quarterly.aspx?id=445634
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:42 am
Downstate, just because John Jones works in a bi-partisan fashion and is a nice guy to work with, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a Republican. Most people in this State like having an elected official who can compromise and get something done instead of just whining about everything all the time.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:42 am
Rich - Do you know what the current make up of the district and who represents the most. It would seem Jones would have an upper hand; McCarter second and Luechtefeld making up the last cross section of population.
Comment by Booger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:44 am
I can’t remember, but it’s about even.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:45 am
And do me a favor and change your screen name.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:45 am
===…where does McCarter get his backing?===
McCarter will, factually, be the GOP nominee, so I am sure McCarter would like some SGOP help …
Now, will the staff like helping McCarter over Jones, or will McCarter dump all the SGOP help, go alone with Adam A., leaving Jones, by defalt, a “volunteer” SGOP “volunteer base”, working against one of their own caucus member … in the General Election??? Do not think for one second that this senerio hasn’t been played out in some people’s heads over the last few weeks…
It’s a crazy world we live … and Cullerton is smiling more and more every day.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:45 am
McCarter is well-liked by the business community. And I do believe he has some hardcore supporters, although I don’t believe his supports are as helpful or as disciplined as McCann’s entourage.
I can’t imagine that President Cullerton will help Danny Stover. He couldn’t even win a mayoral race.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:46 am
All candidates really need to consult an election attorney BEFORE collecting nominating petitions. The Election Code provisions are always being tinkered with and tweaked. Obtaining ballot access is getting more difficult since signature requirements have been increased. Back in the day, you could run for state representative with 300 valid signatures or state senator with 600. Now, the numbers are 500 and 1,000.
Comment by Esquire Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:48 am
===Willy, I don’t think (he) is a serious candidate. He’s a hothead.===
I don’t think a ballot knows if someone is a hothead or not. If the D candidate is starting with the possible base of 29% to build from, and it gets ugly between Jones and McCarter, anything, albiet remote, is possible.
And remember, this is a D Map, if Cullerton is comfortable with 6 weeks to go with the map, whose to say an extra 2-3 mailings find their way there, explaining to voters, “They seem to be fighting each other, but I want to go to Springfield to fight for the district.”
I just don’t want this to turn into the typical GOP, “It’s ours, it’s fine”, to “How the heck did that happen?” This senerio is ripe for a pick-up, if a great many things turn bad.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:53 am
I have passed alot petition over the years, honestly I never had that many people act rude or hostile to. The most I have ever had was people worrying about getting calls from candidates if they sign.
Comment by RMWStanford Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:53 am
Aww man, can’t a guy love him some Revenge of the Nerds? Fine I will change…
Comment by HamburgerAKA Booger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:53 am
===I can’t imagine that President Cullerton will help…===
If Cullerton can “Veto-Proof” Radogno with that seat, you think Cullerton will pass up that opportunity? Really?
Never mess with a Leader’s caucus or a chance to “Veto-Proof” the minority.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:57 am
Oswego - How well is McCarter liked by staff? How well do they like Lauzen? Remember gone are the days of forced campaigning.
Comment by HamburgerAKA Booger Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:59 am
@ Lil’ Enchilada:
You have got it right. Collecting signatures from the general public is not too difficult, but gathering signatures from registered voters is the challenge. Many people who sign petitions are mistaken as to their registration status and there are many who are too embarrassed to omit that they neglected to register to vote. None of the signatures will count if the signer is not on the registration rolls maintained by the election authorities. What suprised me the most is the huge available pool of persons who are eligible to vote, but who have dropped out or become totally apathetic towards politics. There are even some people who imagine by not registering to vote that they will be excused from jury duty. Not true.
Comment by Esquire Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:02 pm
“too embarrassed to admit that they are not registered…”
Comment by Esquire Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:03 pm
H-
No staffer is forced … some MAY “volunteer”, but staff is rarely forced to show up on a campaign, stay weeks on end, live out of their cars, eat fast food, drink loads of coffee … that has yet to happen …
Captain Renault is more shocked at the gambling at Rick’s than I am about forced campaign work, but not too far off.
They “volunteer” …
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:03 pm
I had no problems passing petitions; of course, I followed rule #1: obtain a list of voters with a record of support for the party. The smart candidates contact their precinct committeepersons and send them petitions. A good PC knows their voters and will take around their own petition and collect for other candidates at the same time. I had a stack of petitions on a clipboard (my petition on top), and asked my voters to sign as many as they liked. I had very few people who did not sign the whole stack. Too many candidates (including incumbents) don’t take the time to work with their PCs.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:14 pm
I think they used to use voter registration lists to send out jury summonses but because so many aren’t registered they now use driver’s license/state identification card lists.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:14 pm
==…Steve is going to beat him 80/20 or 75/25. He’s not a serious challenger…==
He is now. LOL
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:15 pm
Don’t know if it was Mr. Odelson’s tone that this has become de rigeur in IL or what, but this stunned me.
As a result, I just dropped everything and spent the last hour and a half reviewing IL code. For what it’s worth:
1.) There appear to be very clear laws against promising employment in exchange for campaign contributions, buying votes, selling votes, intimidating voters, voting more than once, tampering with voting machines, etc.
Very little, however, appears to explicility address the compensation of one’s electoral competitors or buying of a candidacy / non-candidacy.
2.) One possible violation (it seems like a stretch):
“If 2 or more persons conspire to prevent by force… forgery or bribery… any person from supporting or opposing… the nomination or election of any person for public or political party office…or deprived of having or exercising any right, privilege or immunity… relating to the conduct of elections, voting, or the nomination or election of candidates for public or political party office, all persons engaged in such conspiracy shall be liable” (Source: P.A. 79‑1363.)
I also see nothing in state law explicilty preventing anyone from selling an appointment, as long as it’s not to a Federally funded position.
That’s equally disturbing, possibly moreso, and seems like it just can’t be correct.
Any insight from those with greater wisdom would be GREATLY appreciated.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:26 pm
Below are 4 of the most relevant IL statutes I found, unedited. This will be my last long post (apologies to anyone not interested in the Landek aspect of this thread).
Hopefully this saves others time and lends some helpful background. For interpretation as we each see fit:
- (10 ILCS 5/29‑18) (from Ch. 46, par. 29‑18)
Sec. 29‑18. Conspiracy to prevent vote ‑ Liability). If 2 or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, threat, deception, forgery or BRIBERY any person from registering to vote, or preventing any person lawfully entitled to vote from voting, or preventing any person from supporting or opposing, in a legal manner, the nomination or election of any person for public or political party office, or a proposition voted upon at any election, or to injure any person or such person’s property on account of such vote, support or advocacy, and if one or more persons so conspiring do, attempt or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property or deprived of having or exercising any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of Illinois relating to the conduct of elections, voting, or the nomination or election of candidates for public or political party office, all persons engaged in such conspiracy shall be liable to the party injured or any person affected, in any action or proceeding for redress. (Source: P.A. 79‑1363.)
- (10 ILCS 5/29‑2) (from Ch. 46, par. 29‑2)
Sec. 29‑2. Promise for vote. Any person who, in order to influence any other person to vote or register to vote or to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election, knowingly promises to (a) cause or support the employment or appointment of any other person to any public office or public position or (b) perform or refrain from performing any official act, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. (Source: P. A. 78‑887.)
- (10 ILCS 5/29‑3) (from Ch. 46, par. 29‑3)
Sec. 29‑3. Selling of vote. Any person who votes for or against any candidate or public question in consideration of any gift or loan of money or for any other valuable consideration, or for any promise to cause or support the employment or appointment of any person to any public office or public position, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. (Source: P. A. 78‑887.)
- (10 ILCS 5/29‑4) (from Ch. 46, par. 29‑4)
Sec. 29‑4. Prevention of voting or candidate support. Any person who, by force, intimidation, threat, deception or forgery, knowingly prevents any other person from (a) registering to vote, or (b) lawfully voting, supporting or opposing the nomination or election of any person for public office or any public question voted upon at any election, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.(Source: P. A. 78‑887.)
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:39 pm
The reporter needs to ask, What Landek Senate staff job? The State Senators I know are lucky to have a full-time receptionist. The staff budget for State Reps is next to nil and I don’t know exactly what the State Senators budgets are but it can’t be a whole heck of a lot. Sure there are the Senate staff gigs, but Landek doesn’t control those and individual Senators don’t really have “jobs” to throw to candidates they want to neutralize. That said, this kind of stuff is sickening.
It stands to reason that corruption is never going to leave politics as long as there are people like this who think they are too slick to get busted. The egos are here to stay regardless of BGA investigations or the perceived penalties for wrongdoing.
Comment by P Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:48 pm
P and others, to me, the legality is almost beside the point. It’s at least unseemly politics. But it’s also extremely lazy politics. Kick the guy off the ballot or go out and beat him. Sheesh.
Alao, after what happened to Rod, you’d think people would be more sensitive to this issue, whether or not their lawyer says it’s OK.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:51 pm
What Burt Odelson really said was, “my client is innocent and I will take every last penny he has to prove I am right.”
Comment by overcooked Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:52 pm
Regarding the point made that people don’t want to admit they’re not registered to vote, I concur. It’s been several years since I passed any petitions, but when I used to, we used to be given a walk sheet showing registered voters, and also showing whether or not they were an R, D or I. You knew in advance who you were going to ask to sign. Perhaps the organization I worked with was more organized than others, but we never were too concerned about people signing who weren’t registered. We knew that the people signing were registered voters (unless someone else at the door we knocked also asked to sign in addition to who we were asking for - we weren’t going to turn someone away).
I know people often go out blind to collect signatures, but they tend to generate a lot of signatures that are easily knocked off. The advance work of targeting usually paid off.
Just sayin’.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:51 pm
Anonymous, it’s now drivers license records, voters registration records, and effective this year, unemployment compensation records, that are used to select jury pools. So if you don’t have a license, don’t vote, and don’t have a job, jury service is still an option!
Comment by Zool Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:57 pm
==What Burt Odelson really said was, “my client is innocent and I will take every last penny he has to prove I am right.” ==
You should revise that to say: “…every last penny he has in his campaign fund…”
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:09 pm
==…we used to be given a walk sheet showing registered voters, and also showing whether or not they were an R, D or I. You knew in advance who you were going to ask to sign.==
If anything, those are even easier to obtain today. Precinct committeepersons have access to those lists and have to collect their own signatures, but, as I wrote above, many of these candidates don’t use their PCs. It takes a little work to contact them all, but it pays off with good signatures.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:13 pm
Pot, that’s a great point. I don’t know what the Dems use but the GOP has a program that maps out precinct walks and generates hard R info to make for easy petition signature collection(s). If you have a small handful of volunteers, a candidate could collect enough signatures to run for state rep by going out on his or her own and taking only 3-4 people with him or her. It’s not that tough. It may take time but it’s not quite like throwing darts at a bar after having 6 Irish car bombs.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:37 pm
There you go with the expecting people to think thing again…..
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:47 pm
Ooooh, more than 30 grand! Go on, big spender…
Comment by Bill F Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 3:54 pm
Hey, IP address 209.246.60.187, you’re banned for life. Go away or I’ll hunt you down.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 4:46 pm
The comments about working from precinct walking sheets is accurate, but oftentimes those materials are more readily available to candidates sponsored by the regular party organization. Independents and challengers do not always have access to such data or lack the money to purchase the information.
Sometimes, it is very difficult to obtain signatures on account of the election district: 2012 is a presidential election year and delegates and alternates are supposed to collect signatures in all of the Illinois Congressional Districts. How easy is it for a Republican to gather signatures in Chicago or inthe 1st, 2nd or 4th congressional districts? These are the people who go to shopping centers and train platforms to circulate petitions. You can reach the number of signatures with some effort, but how many of these sheets will withstand close scrutiny?
Comment by Esquire Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 5:28 pm