Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Gotion under fire
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
A state law essentially designed to prevent Republicans from appointing legislative candidates to the ballot after the March primary was ruled unconstitutional by a Sangamon County judge last week, but her ruling only applied to the 14 Republican plaintiffs in the case who are running for the Illinois House and Senate.
The law prohibited local party slating of legislative candidates when no candidate had run in the primary. But, as Circuit Judge Gail Noll noted, the bill was passed and signed into law after the 75-day post-primary candidate slating process had already begun. The timing, Noll declared, imposed a “severe restriction on the right to vote,” based on an earlier Illinois Supreme Court precedent. The General Assembly could have passed a bill to stop the practice in future elections, but not in the middle of the process.
A total of 15 Republicans were slated to the ballot and turned in petitions after Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the bill into law.
Another GOP candidate, Jay Keeven, filed the day before Pritzker signed the legislation. Keeven was widely seen as the target of the law because he is running against Rep. Katie Stuart, D-Edwardsville. Stuart represents a somewhat swingy district, but she outperformed every statewide Democrat on the ballot in 2022. No statewide Democrat lost the district, but some came close, losing by a fraction of a point (Kwame Raoul and Michael Frerichs). The district is one of the few pickup opportunities the Republicans have this fall.
Another Republican House candidate, Timothy Szymankowski, was not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, so the ruling does not yet apply to him. Szymankowski filed to run against Rep. Natalie Manley, D-Joliet.
The law is blatantly unfair and a prime example of super-majority Democratic Party overreach. But it’s extremely unlikely that any of the plaintiffs have even a tiny shot of winning. Pritzker defeated Darren Bailey in the 14 districts covered by the ruling by an average of 47 percentage points.
Most if not all of these candidates were apparently recruited by the Illinois Policy Institute. And the IPI-affiliated Liberty Justice Center filed the lawsuit.
Let’s go back to Republican House candidate Keeven, who was believed to be the target of the law.
“I got my petition filed before the Senate passed that bill and the governor signed it, so I am on the ballot,” Keeven confidently told the Alton Telegraph last month, not long after Pritzker signed SB 2412 into law.
The House Republicans were also convinced that Keeven’s candidacy would be safe after the law took effect. They had recruited Keeven, a former Edwardsville police chief, to challenge Stuart. He was not part of the Liberty Justice Center’s successful lawsuit, but few thought Keeven would need that protection.
However, Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, told me Keeven could very well be tossed off the ballot when the board meets next month.
Since Keeven wasn’t a plaintiff, Dietrich said, “he’s not going to get the protection if this order stands up,” on appeal. “Keeven could still be objected to based on the new law, and our board could say, ‘OK, it’s the law.’”
But Keeven filed the day before the law took effect, I pointed out.
“Doesn’t matter,” Dietrich said.
But Keeven got in before the law took effect, I again said.
“Yeah, but what does the law say?” he asked. “The law says no one is eligible for the 2024 ballot for the General Assembly unless there was a primary candidate from that party.”
Oh.
He’s right: “However, if there was no candidate for the nomination of the party in the primary,” the new law says about the local slating of legislative candidates, “no candidate of that party for that office may be listed on the ballot at the general election.”
So, the law doesn’t necessarily ban local slating. The statute bans listing those slated candidates on the ballot, which is what the State Board of Elections will decide about Keeven next month. And since Keeven wasn’t part of the lawsuit, he’s not protected from a legal challenge at the board.
If the board tosses Keeven next month, he could always resort to the courts. But Noll’s ruling carries no precedent, so a different judge might possibly rule a different way, unless or until an appellate court steps into the broader case.
Welcome to Illinois.
…Adding… Sara Albrecht at the Liberty Justice Center…
We are not affiliated with the Illinois Policy Center in any way. John Tillman was one of our founders but has left the organization in 2020. We have always been a separate 501c3. The extent of our relationship is that I do serve on the IPI board, but I also serve on the board of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Harris Theater and many others and I don’t think those would be considered affiliates of LJC. We litigate cases in 35 states and while we were founded in Illinois, our state of incorporation is Texas as of December 2023.
Regarding Jay Keeven—he was the first person we asked to join our lawsuit challenging the slating law. We felt that because he had filed before the law was signed, it was important to include him to protect his filing. He declined. When we added a group of candidates after we secured the PI, we went back to Mr. Keeven and asked him once again to join the plaintiff class. He again declined. We invited all the slated candidates to join the suit, many had their own attorneys and declined along with Mr. Keeven.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Gotion under fire
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What a hot mess!
Someday, I hope that Governor Pritzker will veto bad legislation like this when it is presented for his signature. This bill did not pass the smell test.
Comment by Gravitas Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 11:04 am
I’m all for this law in principal, but to me changing the rules mid-campaign season obviously seems bunk. This type of law should apply to elections post-2024, not the ongoing campaigns happening at this very moment.
Comment by TJ Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 11:15 am
I still don’t understand why it matters if a candidate is chosen in a primary or via slating by the party. The candidate is still representing a party on the ballot.
Who was this law meant to protect? I can’t figure it out.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 11:20 am
Political party committeepersons have exercised this appointment power to fill vacancies in nomination almost as long as established political parties have existed. Why was a change needed so suddenly?
Moreover, why weren’t similar appointments prohibited for vacancies at other levels of government such as county officers?
Comment by Gravitas Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 11:40 am
Very good column.
Button line IMHO is Governor Gerrymander strikes again.
Perhaps all folks involved in campaigns should take the Governor’s low road campaign style and use it to motivate their base to stop complaining and start campaigning.
I remember when getting voters to sign a petition was a great way to start a campaign and build a base of supporters and workers. Instead of complaining about the Pritzker’s change in the law, the Rs and Ds might want to think about stopping the whining and start putting in the hard work it will take for them to rebuild their organizations.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 11:43 am
I’m not being snarky on this but why can’t the GOP just prioritize recruiting candidates to run in the primary elections? I totally entertain a short walk-thru on this.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:16 pm
I guess I’m in the minority, but I don’t think asking candidates to run in the primary if they want to be in the general is unreasonable.
Comment by Illini123 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:20 pm
===is unreasonable. ===
Maybe not, but to change the law midstream is a pretty bogus thing to do.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:22 pm
The D’s defending this as an “ethics bill” and as a gift to third parties/independent candidates is a real grift, too.
Comment by WLDS News Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:25 pm
Yeah, the Liberty Justice Center is only associated with Liberty, Justice, and posting your personal information on the internet.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:30 pm
=== to change the law midstream is a pretty bogus thing to do.===
Fair. But is an otherwise good law with poor timing really a “bad law?”
Comment by Illini123 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:52 pm
=== I don’t think those would be considered affiliates of LJC. ===
=== The extent of our relationship is that I do serve on the IPI board, but I also serve on the board of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Harris Theater and many others and I don’t think those would be considered affiliates of LJC. ===
Affiliate does not mean “run by,” it means “associated with.” Through your service on Boards, organizations are in fact “associated with” their board members backgrounds and histories. Board members are chosen intentionally, not randomly.
Comment by H-W Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:56 pm
“”Illinois Policy Institute-affiliated “”
Why was that description, (a reasonable one given mutual history, connections and alliances), so objectionable to Libery justice Center?
Comment by walker Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 12:57 pm
We need to make everything about elections look more fair not less fair. Enacting this law midstream makes things look less fair.
Comment by EP1082 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:03 pm
===otherwise good law with poor timing===
It’s an otherwise meh law with timing that at least one judge says makes it unconstitutional. So, yeah, that makes it a bad law.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:06 pm
I tend to agree with Rich - it’s a bad law. Bureaucratizing the process by which one can run for office beyond reason, and unjustly so. Being included on a ballot should depend on a printing date, not a financially-dominated, six-month long advertising campaign. Working class and middle income citizens as well as poor people are being denied access to service via bureaucratic attempts by one party to exclude another part.
Bad law folks.
Comment by H-W Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:26 pm
I dont understand why Keevan didnt bother to be part of the lawsuit?
Comment by low level Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:42 pm
Stop the game…so I can change the rules…won’t fly far.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:04 pm
“We are not affiliated with the Illinois Policy Center in any way,” she said as she explained all the many ways in which she and they are intimately affiliated.
Reminds me of all of the elected political officials in political bodies defending their political positions by admonishing their political opponents for “bringing politics into this!”
Comment by Glock21 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:28 pm
Illinois Policy Institute, no relation.
Comment by Bigtwich Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:28 pm
1) if candidates want to represent their party in the general election, then they should be willing to run in their party’s primary election, and
2) if legislators want to change the election rules, then they should change the rules for the following election cycle
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:10 pm
“While we were founded in Illinois, our state of incorporation is Texas as of December 2023.”
Would she have preferred you write “the Liberty Justice Center, an out-of-state conservative group with continued connections to the Illinois Policy Institute that also has rising annual budget deficits caused by lower revenues and higher expenses, filed the lawsuit?”
Comment by DuPage Dad Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:18 pm
Thought the Gov said it was an ethics bill?
Comment by Eire17 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:51 pm