Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Which programs are the most vulnerable?
Posted in:
* I haven’t yet seen a full published opinion, but this is from Ballot Access News…
On February 12, U.S. District Court Judge Andrea R. Wood issued a one-page order, granting the Illinois Libertarian Party’s motion for summary judgment that the Illinois full-slate law is unconstitutional. The decision will be issued later. The minute entry says, “For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order to follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”
The full-slate law was passed in 1931. It was probably passed to thwart the Communist Party, which had a very popular activist named Claude Lightfoot, a leader of Chicago’s African-American community. He received 33,337 votes for State Representative in 1932, not enough to win, but a strong showing. At the time Illinois used cumulative voting for State House elections. Each district elected three candidates. Each party was permitted to run either one, two, or three candidates. Voters each had three votes, and they could give one vote to each of three candidates, or they could accumulate their votes to give two votes to one person and one to another; or they could give all three votes to a single candidate. Illinois had been using this system since 1870.
* WUIS…
The lawsuit dates back to 2012, when Libertarian Party candidates challenged a trio of state election requirements, including the full slate law.
“If the Libertarian party, or the Green Party, or the Constitution Party, or any other new party would want to run for governor, they would also have to find a qualified candidates for Attorney General, and a candidate for Secretary of State, Comptroller, etc.,” Libertarian Party Chair Lex Green explains. […]
“So we just asked that we be put on equal footing with the Democrats and the Republicans,” Green says.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Which programs are the most vulnerable?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Some times good things happen.
Comment by m Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:17 pm
Wow, according to the story this also applies on a local level. You would need to find candidates for all county-wide offices if you wanted to run for one.
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:21 pm
Rest assured, Mike Kasper will find a way to get around this decision.
Comment by Colin O'Scopey Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:22 pm
Easy to imagine a scenario where Trump is the nominee and there are a bunch of Libertarians on the ballot, could make it harder for Republicans.
I was surprised after 2006 that there wasn’t a bigger presence from the Greens. They won major party status after 2006, their Gov candidate, Rich Whitney, got more than 5% (got more than 10% actually). Facing easier ballot access I thought they’d field candidates all over the place and try to build a lasting party hurting the dems but it never materialized.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:38 pm
I believe ballot access laws are the new front lines in the battle for political control at many levels….when the public is feeling so disenfranchised (at historic levels) as well as faith and trust in government at all levels is so low, the courts may be the one to bring a ray of sunshine onto new levels of candidate (and hopefully voter) participation. IMHO, both current parties beware the wrath you’ve nurtured without even seeing it.
Comment by northernwatersports Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:43 pm
Yay! Fewer unimportant names to forget!
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:45 pm
Regarding full slates in local elections, I don’t think the Republicans had any candidates for the 2014 General election of Board President, Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk or Assessor.
Comment by Groucho Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:46 pm
But the two-party system works so well…!
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Interesting question - if 2 people file as the Libertarian Party (or any other party) for a particular office, do they both go on the ballot as “the” Libertarian Party candidate? There isn’t a primary to winnow them down to 1.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:34 pm
I’d like to see someone challenge the onerous signature requirements for independent candidates. The Lee v Keith decision was a start, but the new laws are only slightly less onerous and on their face, appear to be unconstitutional.
Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:35 pm
” I don’t think the Republicans had any candidates for the 2014 General election of Board President, Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk or Assessor.”
Did Peraica have to recruit a full slate of candidates when he ran for Board President, or does that only apply to “new” parties?
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:10 pm
NIU grad,
Only new parties.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:57 pm
1931?
Madigan and the time machine he controls.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:18 pm
walker - Madigan has been in office for half of those years since 1931. Do you have even one example of Madigan lifting a finger over those 40+ years to make sure our election laws are free and equal for all candidates that want to run for office? You know, democracy?
Comment by Jeff Trigg Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 4:39 pm
I think you’ve got it backwards. It’s actually Green Party Chair Lex Libertarian.
Comment by some doofus Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:26 pm