Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* House Bill 5278 passed the House yesterday with 63 votes. Here’s the synopsis…

Amends the Election Code. Prohibits county clerks and members of boards of election commissioners from making public endorsements of candidates and public questions on ballots solely of political subdivisions within their election jurisdiction.

* And here’s the sponsor’s reasoning behind it…

State Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, first proposed the idea shortly after his first election to the Illinois House in 2000.

A call for a recount in Brady’s first primary election left him in a strange position: McLean County Clerk Peggy Ann Milton had endorsed one of Brady’s opponents. In cases where a recount is called, the county clerk oversees collection of the ballots for the recount.

“It’s a little bit of a nerve-racking position to be in when you’re going through a recount having ballots secured as evidence by an individual who has endorsed your opponent,” Brady said. […]

Brady said his aim is to give county clerks and some other election officials a way to excuse themselves from situations where they might have a conflict of interest.

Milton said restricting endorsements by clerks would unnecessarily limit their rights

* Question: Do you agree or disagree with banning county clerks from making political endorsements in their counties? Explain.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 10:53 am

Comments

I always vote according to the dictates of my county clerk - as does everyone else, right?

I’d rather tell county clerks they cannot endorse. It is for their - and our - own good.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 10:58 am
Does this mean that this new proposed legislation would infringe on their rights to campaign for their elected office as County Clerk (or County Clerk and Recorder)?

Obviously, that’s probably not the intent, but there’s the real possibility that a sitting County Clerk could be accused of violating the proposed law if they decide to run for re-election and campaign for themselves.

Comment by Judgment Day Is On The Way Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:01 am
I am torn on this issue, because I am not sure which is worse - being in Brady’s position and having a clerk recounting when they have openly endorsed your opponent or having the same situation, except the clerk is banned from publicly endorsing the opponent, so you do not know they are against you when they are doing the recount.

In some ways, I think the candidates would be better off if the clerk had to diclose their endorsement prior to the election so that they can (even better, were compelled to) recuse themselves due to a conflict if there is a recount or any other election problems.

Comment by montrose Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:11 am
Do we have any County Clerks currently serving as Party Chairmen?

Comment by God's Country Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:20 am
I am in agreement with montrose. Banning them from endorsements does not mean they still don’t have a favorite. I would rather have them publicly anounce who they are for, then you know where they stand and can respond accordingly.

Comment by Irish Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:25 am
This reform which requires public neutrality on contested races seems enitrely sensible to me.

The article does not indicate whether County Clerks are stripped of other individual political rights: volunteering, donating money, or other activities related to contested elections. The bill appears to preclude public endorsements, not other political activities.

Comment by Captain America Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:28 am
Disagree. In case of a conflict, the county clerk should recuse himself/herself and the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court should appoint someone to perform the recounts.

County Clerks have the right to free speech and political association and should be able to exercise those rights.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 12:03 pm
I can see both sides, and I think back to recent presidential elections where the state voting authorities in Florida and Ohio had strong ties to the Bush campaign, which raised serious questions about impartiality.

However, in our mostly two-party system, these situations will be impossible to avoid since elected officials who are almost certain to be leaders in their state or local party organizations are going to be in charge of counting (and recounting) the votes. Forcing or prohibiting endorsements won’t change the situation.

Any real malfeasance identified would be addressed through the courts, and I would hope there are already laws on the books to cover that.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 1:09 pm
How can you have a county clerk (esp. one who is THE election authority in one’s county) running around preventing illegal electioneering and then endorsing people? Lawful or not, I’d see that as a problem of trust for someone to endorse who is supposed to be a watchdog.

Comment by yinn Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 1:10 pm
Dan Brady is an idiot. If he actually had gone through a recount, he would know that all actual recounts are done by a circuit judge.

A discovery recount(which involves the election authority but cannot change the results) is available to a losing candidate to uncover evidence when seeking a recount by the court.

Maybe Brady should be familiar with the law he is seeking to change.

Comment by County Clerk Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 2:52 pm
Errr…why don’t we just pay the ACLU’s court costs up front. It’s an infringement of the 1st Amendment.

Comment by archpundit Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 4:39 pm
I guess I disagree with a partisan official administering elections.

Comment by Squideshi Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 6:13 pm
I agree with County Clerk, Brady is an idiot. everyone in McLean County knows the little fella holds a grudge and it may take him years, but he’ll find a way for retribution. The Little King has a sense of power now because he’s McCain’s Chair in the County (no one else would take it, and then the tide turned); he’s a Democrat in Republican clothing, his co-sponsors were all Dems.

Comment by Midwest GOP Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 7:26 pm
So then county clerk should run as nonpartisan candidates and not allowed to participate in party politics. give money just like the judges.
It does work to well kepping judges out of politics any more.

Comment by keepin up with jones Thursday, May 1, 08 @ 11:43 pm
Recount, Discovery Recount. Maybe in history, but not today. In Cook County we have both Optiscan and touch-screen totals for in-precinct votes for each precinct, we have a totals of absentee ballots counted in the clerk’s office - not in the precinct–, and we have tapes from early voting machines all over the county which are impossible to recount without an army. In my experience, unless someone tells you “where the body is buried,” forget a recount.

Comment by Anon III Friday, May 2, 08 @ 6:06 am