Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals in re Gonzales v. Madigan…
Four candidates were on the ballot for the Democratic primary in spring 2016: Michael Madigan, Jason Gonzales, Grasiela Rodriguez, and Joe G. Barboza. Madigan won with 65% of the votes cast; Gonzales received 27%, Rodriguez 6%, and Barboza 2%. Gonzales contends in this suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that Rodriguez and Barboza were stooges put on the ballot by Madigan’s allies to divide the Hispanic vote and ensure Madigan’s victory. The effort was hardly necessary, since if every non-Madigan vote had gone to Gonzales he still would have lost in a landslide. Nonetheless, Gonzales contends, the appearance of two candidates who served only as distractors violated the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and entitles him to damages (perhaps represented by the expenses of his failed run). Gonzales relies on Smith v. Cherry, 489 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1973), which held that a stalking-horse candidacy, in which the nominal contestant secretly planned to withdraw after winning the primary and permit a party committee to name the candidate for the general election, could in principle violate the Equal Protection Clause. […]
Because the voters were not deceived, the judge held, the conditions leading to liability in Smith have not been satisfied. The court granted summary judgment against Gonzales. […]
Gonzales’s response has been to file an appellate brief that treats the district judge as an extra defendant. According to Gonzales, the judge personally violated the First Amendment by penalizing Gonzales’s campaign speech. That utterly misunderstands the burdens of production and persuasion in litigation. To prevail, any litigant must establish the elements of a valid claim. One aspect of that claim, under the analysis of Smith, is that the voters have been hoodwinked. Gonzales’s own speeches and ads during his campaign show that the voters were not hoodwinked. End of case. Recognizing this does not penalize anyone’s speech. It shows, rather, that Gonzalez did not satisfy the governing legal standard. […]
Gonzales also accuses the district judge of violating the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Those assertions—advanced without elaboration in one-half page of the appellate brief—do not require independent analysis.
Great lawyering there /s
* In other news…
Here's an interesting one in the 7th Cir. After Janus, a public employee union tried to sue the Illinois AG on the theory that it would violate the *union's* First Amendment rights if it is forced to represent nonmembers for free (as a result of Janus).
Court: no standing. pic.twitter.com/MiQukMso59
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 8, 2021
The full opinion is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 3:54 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Before the past year, I had to explain to people the legal system allows you to sue somebody because they think you stole all the cheese from the moon.
All you need is the filing fee.
Winning, on the other hand obviously happens far less often.
Most of these cases don’t even seem to be designed to be winnable. The sole purpose appears to be generate campaign material, and the inevitable loss is then used to show how much of a victim of an oppressive government they are.
If the integrity of the judicial system wasn’t at stake, it would be funny. I’m not laughing.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:14 pm
=== Gonzales’s response has been to file an appellate brief that treats the district judge as an extra defendant. According to Gonzales, the judge personally violated the First Amendment by penalizing Gonzales’s campaign speech. That utterly misunderstands the burdens of production and persuasion in litigation.===
I don’t think anyone came to any conclusion that Gonzo was smart to any law or premise to find a legal means to win.
I do hope it was Anthony Peraica who wrote all what this ruling sees as… ridiculous.
It’s on brand for both.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:15 pm
If Local 150 feels having exclusive bargaining rights is too burdensome financially, they are more than welcome to leave the market. Another union, more familiar will the value of monopolies, will fill that very lucrative void in a heartbeat.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:15 pm
Peraica and Devore must have gone to the same law school.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:29 pm
From what I’ve read (not as a lawyer), it takes a lot to cause appellate courts to lose patience with a case. They certainly lost it with Mr. Gonzalezs…
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:34 pm
Gonzalez is operating on the legal assumption that his constitutional rights must have been violated because he did beat Madigan.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:43 pm
Agreed, great lawyering…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:45 pm
In the second opinion, on Local 150, I think the relevant quote from the opinion is:
The wrong reaction to today’s decision is to think Local 150 has advanced a losing position. Not so. The question at the heart of Local 150’s lawsuit is important to public unions and remains unsettled. It just needs to await resolution within the confines of a concrete and particularized dispute between a public union and nonmember demanding fair representation.
Seems like they’re basically saying it was all too hypothetical for the court to make a ruling, but give them one actual example and they’re ready to hear it.
Comment by I'm not a lawyer but... Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:47 pm
I agree with @ not a lawyer. Have a real case or a real life example and it might be a different story. I don’t blame them for trying.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 4:50 pm
“… The union needs to … identify a nonmember who has demanded representation in a grievance proceeding …”
I would think that by now, there has been a non-union public employee who demanded union support in a grievance proceeding.
This is a lawsuit just waiting to be filed.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 5:13 pm
Anthony Peraica Has been representing the former convicted felon Jason Gonzales thought this case. The take away is no one should hire Tony Peraica. BTY, isn’t Tony Peraica the one who was convicted of stealing signs?
Comment by Frumpy White Guy Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 5:28 pm
It is always a joy to read Judge Easterbrook’s opinions. He is does not tolerate minds that he considers weak.
I don’t always agree with his conclusions, but I love that he’s still on the bench and still churning out stuff like this.
Comment by Crash Monday, Mar 8, 21 @ 8:32 pm
The 7th circuit has a reputation for being salty somewhat often. Especially Judge Easterbrook.
Comment by Illiniwack Tuesday, Mar 9, 21 @ 6:36 am