Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rep. Feigenholtz files bills “to give strength to more victims”
Next Post: Ives release new ad, endorsed by Susan B. Anthony List, slams Trib endorsement of Rauner
Posted in:
* From today’s opinion…
Defendant, Scott Drury, is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of Illinois Attorney General in the general primary election to be held on March 20, 2018. Plaintiff, Thomas J. Rottman, Jr., objected to Drury’s nomination petition. The State Officers Electoral Board (Board) overruled Rottman’s objection. Rottman sought review of the Board’s decision in the circuit court, which reversed the Board’s decision and ordered that Drury’s name not appear on the ballot. Drury appeals, contending that the Board correctly found that he satisfied the requirements of section 7-12(8) of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-12(8) (West 2016)) when he submitted a receipt with his nomination petition that showed that within the preceding year, he filed his statement of economic interests with the Secretary of State in connection with his position as state representative. We reverse the circuit court’s decision and conclude that Drury’s name should appear on the ballot.
Drury has been a state representative in the General Assembly. On November 27, 2017, Drury filed a nomination petition with the Illinois State Board of Elections for nomination as the Democratic candidate for the office of Illinois Attorney General. The nomination petition included a statement of candidacy and a receipt from the Office of the Secretary of State dated November 17, 2017, which stated:
“Please accept this receipt as acknowledgment that our office has received and filed your Statement of Economic Interests pursuant to the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. Your statement was filed on April 10, 2017 for the following agencies:
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.”On December 11, 2017, Rottman filed an objection with the Illinois State Board of Elections, contending that under section 7-10 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 2016)), Drury should have filed a statement of economic interests “ ‘in relation to his candidacy,’ to-wit, his candidacy for Illinois Attorney General, not later than December 4, 2017.” Rottman continued that the Election Code only excused this requirement where, within the last year, a candidate filed a statement of economic interests in relation to the same governmental unit for which the candidate now sought office. However, state representative and attorney general are not in the same governmental unit because the positions are in two distinct and separate branches of government. According to Rottman, Drury should have filed a new statement of economic interests and receipt, and by not doing so, Drury failed to comply with the Election Code and should be removed from the ballot. […]
Our supreme court has stated that “access to a place on the ballot is a substantial right not lightly to be denied.” Jackson-Hicks v. East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929, ¶ 32; Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 56 (1992). Further, we must tread cautiously when construing statutory language that restricts the people’s right to endorse and nominate the candidate of their choice. Lucas v. Lakin, 175 Ill. 2d 166, 176 (1997). We believe that our interpretation of the relevant enactments comports with those principles. Drury complied with section 7-12(8) of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-12(8) (West 2016)) when he relied on his previously-filed statement of economic interests for his position as state representative.
No word about an appeal.
*** UPDATE ***
Earlier today, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, in a unanimous decision, declared that Scott Drury’s name should appear on the ballot for the March 20, 2018 primary election. In the opinion, the appellate court makes clear that Drury fully complied with the requirements of the Illinois Election Code and properly filed all necessary paperwork. In reaching its decision, the court noted that the legislature did not intend “absurdity, inconvenience, or injustice” in drafting the Election Code. According to the court, the objection at issue merely wanted Drury to fill out a form he already completed – “we do not believe that the legislature intended that result.”
“I am obviously delighted with the decision,” said Casey Westover, Drury’s attorney. “I have known all along that Scott fully complied with the Illinois Election Code. The court’s opinion is complete vindication for him, and I’m glad he can now turn his focus to winning this election.”
Drury said he is extremely pleased with the court’s opinion and hopes the havoc machine insiders have caused to the primary election based on their fear of Drury being the attorney general has finally come to an end. According to reports, several counties delayed the start of early voting because of the pending objection to Drury’s candidacy.
“Mike Madigan and the political machine have come at me with everything they’ve got – and lost,” said Drury. “It’s time for Madigan to act graciously in defeat, focus on real issues like the sexual harassment scandal roiling his political organization and threatening the Democratic Party’s success in November, and get comfortable with the fact that Illinois is going to have an Attorney General who works for people, attacks corruption, and is not scared of him.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:10 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rep. Feigenholtz files bills “to give strength to more victims”
Next Post: Ives release new ad, endorsed by Susan B. Anthony List, slams Trib endorsement of Rauner
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rough week for Mike Madigan.
Comment by Wildcat Wayne Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:17 pm
Great, can’t wait to vote against him!
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:21 pm
This is the right decision based on the law but Drury still wasted a lot of time & money by not just doing this the way any election attorney would have told him to.
That’s why you pay an election attorney before you file, otherwise you’ll pay 10x more later.
Comment by Fax Machine Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:23 pm
“Access to a place on the ballot is a substantial right not lightly to be denied.”
Well, we know that standard doesn’t apply to constitutional amendments. But good for the court on this one for knocking down a BS attempt to deny someone the chance to lose to Madigan’s guy the right way.
Comment by JB13 Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:23 pm
Finally the ballots can be printed and early voting can commence. This uncertainty was a huge issue for county clerks trying to get the election materials into voters’ and election judges hands.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:25 pm
The court made the right decision.
Comment by Abraham Obama Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:25 pm
Let him stay. It will be fun to see how few votes he gets.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:30 pm
Kasper doesn’t win em all i guess/
Comment by Sugar Corn Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:37 pm
Mike Madigan is having a tough week lol
Comment by Appleseed Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 12:54 pm
Care to take the case to the Supreme Court and have old friend Judge Burke weigh in along with her colleagues?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:01 pm
Do the Russians have anything to do with this?
Comment by Keyser Soze Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:01 pm
Finally! I’m glad this nonsense is over with. Let early voting begin!
Comment by Gazzinga Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:05 pm
“But good for the court on this one for knocking down a BS attempt to deny someone the chance to lose to Madigan’s guy the right way”
Pat Quinn is not Madigan’s guy.
Comment by Bigtwich Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:38 pm
As a democrat who will for for Pritzker I believe it’s time for Madigan to go. A dem beating Rauner would be very easy if Madigan would just go. He is becoming a hindrance to the democrats winning elections.
Comment by Real Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:42 pm
Lobsters and the usual suspects are about as quiet as the Speaker was at the presser the other day.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:51 pm
Super Korn - Mr. Kasper wasn’t on this case. The objector was represented by James Nally (who did a pretty good job with the case, all things considered).
Comment by titan Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 1:58 pm
The biggest winner(s) with Drury on the ballot is(are)…
Pat Quinn / Kwame Raoul
Drury will get 3-5% and that will pull off voters from lesser known candidates.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 2:29 pm
titan, what are you talking about?
https://capitolfax.com/2018/02/07/local-150-hires-mike-kasper-to-kick-scott-drury-off-ballot/
Jim Nally was on this case, but did Kasper not join him for the appeal?
Comment by MissingG Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 2:50 pm
Our court system is such a joke.
Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 3:02 pm
Called it.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Feb 16, 18 @ 4:20 pm