Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New Pritzker TV ad addresses gun violence
Next Post: Lawsuit mulled as Durkin primary takes more nasty turns
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
An Illinois State Board of Elections hearing examiner has recommended state Rep. Scott Drury be knocked from the Democratic ballot for Illinois attorney general because he filed an incorrect statement of economic interest — a charge the north suburban lawmaker plans to fight.
The recommendation is the first step in the petition challenge. While calls and emails to the board were not returned on Tuesday, Drury’s campaign early Wednesday produced another recommendation by the board’s general counsel, which “does not concur” with the initial recommendation. That recommendation says the statement Drury filed is sufficient since it “relates to the State of Illinois,” not just the district he represents.
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday in Chicago, where the board will hear both recommendations.
According to the initial hearing examiner’s recommendation, Drury filed a statement of economic interest, required to run for office, but submitted a statement from April 2017 that he submitted to the Secretary of State for his role as state representative.
Drury’s attorneys claim his statement is accurate because it was filed within a year, which is required. And they argue that even if he had filed one for the attorney general post, it would have been identical to the one submitted.
* But…
The good news for Drury: The board’s general counsel says he should stay on the ballot, according to board documents. “The statement of economic interest that the candidate has on file as a state representative relates to the state of Illinois, not only the representative district that he represents,” it reads.
Either way, those are both just recommendations. Drury’s fate is up to a vote of the elections board, which meets Thursday. If the board votes to kick him off the ballot, the former federal prosecutor could head to court to get back on. You can read about the case on p. 394 of this document.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 11:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New Pritzker TV ad addresses gun violence
Next Post: Lawsuit mulled as Durkin primary takes more nasty turns
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This issue was perfectly avoidable and he should have just filed a new version.
Comment by Anonish Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 11:27 am
No matter what Drury did, the Dem establishment was going to challenge his petition. They are terrified of Drury becoming the AG. The fact they are trying so hard to bounce him indicates they know he can win.
Comment by Disgruntled Laborer Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 11:38 am
Couldn’t have happened to a better man.
Comment by The 647 Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 11:42 am
In other Drury news he challenged Renato Mariotti’s petitions and failed. If you read the hearing officer’s decision (even worse in the hearing officer’s longer report) it’s pretty brutal on Drury and basically says his objection failed because he’s bad at being a lawyer. Mariotti had plenty of valid signatures so Drury went with a Hail Mary and tried to allege a pattern of fraud but the only evidence he introduced was inadmissible hearsay and he didn’t file the paperwork necessary to call the witnesses that could actually provide admissible evidence. You’d think a “former federal prosecutor” wouldn’t be so bad at this.
The reports can be found here, the hearing officer’s recommendation is on pages 481-482 and the longer report is on pages 483-489.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 12:16 pm
–In other Drury news — Renato, is that you? You probably shouldn’t be highlighting this matter. There was no finding that a pattern of fraud does not exist - just that there wasn’t enough of it to get you below 5,000 signatures. Only in Illinois would a candidate or his surrogates see this as a positive.
Comment by Disgruntled Laborer Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 12:37 pm
@Disgruntled
I am not Renato and I whole heartedly concur with the Capt. A law student (who hadn’t fallen asleep during evidence class) could have done a better job here. You hire 2 investigators and then you can’t even properly get in their testimony? I know the AG isn’t really a “lawyering” position, but my goodness this is an absolute embarrassment to anyone with a law license.
Comment by Undiscovered country Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 12:48 pm
Yes, I am Renato Mariotti. You got me. Great work on the objection, you nailed it.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 1:01 pm
It’ll be a belated Festivus miracle if we’re rid of Drury.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 1:04 pm
Sounds like Drury is paraphrasing Quinn here: “I’m not going away.” Heck of a battle cry.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 1:16 pm
Captain and Disgruntled — da both a youse –
We frown on sock puppetry here, and/or on unidentified snark. They don’t lead to better understanding of who’s who, and what’s what.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 1:27 pm
=== No matter what Drury did, the Dem establishment was going to challenge his petition. They are terrified of Drury becoming the AG. The fact they are trying so hard to bounce him indicates they know he can win. ===
Who exactly is the “Dem establishment?” Name names.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 1:45 pm
Mr. Former Federal Prosecutor is fighting to stay on the ballot because he may have made a mistake in his paperwork? It looks sloppy or careless, which isn’t a good look for somebody running to be the state’s top lawyer.
Comment by Trapped in the 'burbs Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 2:29 pm
The appellate decision in Miceli v. Lavelle (1983) laid this out years ago. Separate jobs or elected offices require separate statements of economic interests. In part, it is to aid the citizens interested in viewing the statements.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 3:05 pm
@Trapped. its worse than that, Mr. Former Federal Prosecutor was summarily dismissed because he failed to provide proof of his claim in accordance with fundamental rules of evidence. Not a good luck for somebody wanting to be ANY lawyer.
Comment by Undiscovered country Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 3:17 pm
Ballot access laws, early filing dates, signature challenges… all designed for the benefit of entrenched politicians.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 3:46 pm
*****Who exactly is the “Dem establishment?” Name names.****
Are you freaking serious? Kwame is in bed with them. So is Nancy…
Comment by allstar Wednesday, Jan 10, 18 @ 8:02 pm