On April 8, the Illinois House passed HB 5263. Currently, Illinois ballot-qualified parties nominate by primary. However, the law generously lets them nominate someone by party meeting after the primary, if no one had run in that party’s primary for that particular office.
The bill would continue to let ballot-qualified parties nominate by party meeting after the primary was over (if no one had won the primary). But it would require such nominees by party meeting to submit a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast for that office (or 25,000 signatures, whichever is less).
The bill passed the House by 97-13. The “No” votes included 9 Democrats and 4 Republicans. The Democrats are Mike Boland, John Bradley, John Fritchey, Paul Froehlich, Greg Harris, Lou Lang, David Miller, Cynthia Soto, and Wyvetter Younge. The Republicans are Elizabeth Coulson, Shane Cultra, Jim Durkin, and Keith Sommer.
It is possible that the Green Party, which is the only ballot-qualified party besides the Democratic and Republican Parties, could defeat this idea in court, if it is signed into law and if the Green Party chooses to challenge it. This year, the Green Party nominated more candidates by party meeting after the primary, then it did in the primary. Ballot access in the primary is somewhat difficult, requiring petitions of 3,000 signatures for statewide office, and typically 500 for U.S. House.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in New York State Board of Elections v Lopez Torres, issued January 16, 2008, “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” The decision also says that a state “has an interest in assuring the fairness of the party’s nominating process.” It seems unlikely that Illinois could argue that the existing system, which has been in place for decades, is “unfair” to the Green Party’s rank-and-file members. Although Ballot Access News has been critical of the Lopez Torres decision, this may be an instance when the opinion can be used to good advantage.
Thanks for interpreting this for me. Illinois Greens have taken their candidate recruitment for this election very seriously and have reasons to be concerned if this bill passes the senate as well.
From the Illinois Greens home page:
Since the slating period began in early March, the party has added 7 candidates for U.S. Congress and 1 candidate for U.S. Senate for a total of 15 federal legislative offices. Sixteen state legislative candidates were added for a total of 19. At the county level, the party recruited 10 new candidates, including 5 in Cook County, to bring the total to 26 county candidates across the state.
There is no doubt that the growing presence of the Green Party in Illinois has at least partially inspired HB 5263. And yes, the Green Party relied heavily on slating this year, because even though we’re now an “established” party, the ballot access requirements are still unreasonably high, and the other two political parties interfered heavily in our candidate nominating process — from challenging our candidates to obstructing Green voters at the polls.
But despite the Green Party’s reliance on slating this year, Republicans and Democrats across the state actually did much, much more slating. For instance, Republicans are extremely weak in Cook County, especially Chicago, and ended up slating many (if not most) of their candidates in those areas. The Democrats, trying to capitalize on their primary success in traditionally Republican DuPage County ended up slating a number of candidates to fill out their ballot.
I don’t know how much slating either of those organizations could have done had they had to go out and collect some outrageous number of signatures. Probably not as much, is my guess. Plus, having to submit signatures means that any slated candidate is in greater jeopardy of being challenged/removed from the ballot.
If their intent was to stop us, they’re doing it at their own expense, and it’s not going to stop us from running candidates, quite frankly.
So why would legislators support something like this? I guess they must really like their jobs.
Separate is NOT equal.
Brown v. Board of Education 1954.
Nominations for PUBLIC office are PUBLIC business by PUBLIC Electors.
Ballot access has been totally screwed up since 1968 — a mere 40 years — due to armies of brain dead MORON lawyers.
Demo Rep’s blaming ballot access failures on “brain dead MORON lawyers” totally misses the point. The lawyers that create and pass these blocks to fairness and third party representation are brilliantly fulfilling their purpose. Democracy is not their goal. Dimishing access is. And these “brain dead lawyers” are doing a great job. Underestimating an adversary is a poor way to bring about change.
“A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.â€
I wish SCOTUS had applied the same to the whole “top two” primary system we’re probably faced with in WA State.
#3 The brain dead MORON lawyers allegedly *work* for the ballot access plaintiffs — putting nonstop JUNK in their MORON briefs and losing LOTS of ballot access cases since 1968.
U.S.A. Electoral College gerrymander party hack Prezs nominate party hack Supremes (some more of those very special brain dead MORON lawyers) who get confirmed by U.S.A. Senate gerrymander party hack U.S.A. Senators.
The Fed and all 50 State regimes are EVIL from top to bottom — full of ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders and party hacks.
What else is new and different – since 4 July 1776 ?
Democracy NOW — regardless of ALL know-it-all New Age MORONS – private and public — especially the talking head TV media MORONS.
Abolish caucuses, primaries and conventions.
Equal ballot access via equal nominating petitions.
Proportional representation for all legislative body elections.
NONPARTISAN elections of all elected executive officers and all judges using Approval Voting.
NO vetoes.
OR — get ready for Civil WAR II and/or World WAR III — to happen because of the EVIL gerrymander party hacks in the Donkey / Elephant parties — like watching a deja vu buildup to the American Revolution, Civil War I, WW I and WW II.
Does ‘Lopez Torres’ really apply? Wouldn’t the SCOTUS be inclined to read the rest of the paragraph which says “These rights are circumscribed, however, when the State gives the party a role in the election process–as New York has done here by giving certain parties the right to have their candidates appear with party endorsement on the general-election ballot. … We have, for example, considered it to be ‘too plain for argument’ that a State may prescribe party use of primaries or conventions to select nominees who appear on the general-election ballot.”
In exchange for having the name of their endorsed candidate on the ballot, parties in Illinois are required to nominate by primary. Since Illinois doesn’t have party registration, I don’t see how it is fair to the rank and file members to not let them vote on their party’s nominees, and instead have some committee designate candidates. If the Green Party doesn’t hold primaries, would-be members might vote in other party’s primaries.
Re: #5 Deran, the rest of the paragraph goes on to explain that when the State makes a political party part of the official election process, they may dictate the method of nomination.
Since under Top 2, Washington no longer recognizes party nominations, the parties are quite free to “nominate” or “endorse” candidates in the manner they find appropriate. These “nominees” will still have to qualify for the primary ballot in the same manner as any other candidate.
HB 5263 was amended in committee to remove the petition requirements. Instead, it requires the vacancy committees to designate the party’s nominee within 16 days of the primary in which the party failed to nominate.
Am I misreading the atatute? There seem to be petition requirements, and they are the Independent petition requirements, not the (easier) party requirements.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09500HB5263ham001&GA=95&SessionId=51&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5263&GAID=9
Seems there’s a 16 day rule without petitions, then a 60 day rule with, but that seems a grey area. Please tell me I’m reading this wrong..
The Donkey/Elephant party hacks in the Congress / State legislatures will enact any party hack law possible to keep third parties off the ballots – primary and general elections.
The party hack Supremes are brain dead about the *equal* in the Equal Protection Clause regarding EQUAL ballot access for ALL candidates for the same office in the same area.
Take note — Italy just had another national regime election — 62nd (repeat 62nd) regime since 1945 — a mere 158 (repeat 158) parties involved.
The PEOPLE in WA State took control with the top 2 primary — driving party hacks even more EVIL crazy than they are already.
Bill, re #9 and #10
I misinterpreted the amendment. Illinois has “general” elections in November of even years, and “consolidated” elections in April of odd years, with a “general” primary and “consolidated” primary preceding each, respectively.
The 16-day limit applies to “consolidated” primaries. The petition requirement applies to “general” primaries. So Richard Winger was correct in his interpretation.
At the top of the link you posted, you will find a link to the introduced bill. You will see that it added an “or general”, and then added the petition requirement for both types (years) of primaries. The amendment made in the House committee simply split the two type of primaries, and made a 16 day period for “consolidated” primaries, and retained the proposed petition requirements for “general” primaries.
I think the Green Party would be better off challenging the petition requirements to get on the primary ballot. In many cases it is harder to get on the ballot for Illinois senate (59 members) than the US House (18 members).
In addition, the petition standard can actually be higher for parties that have not held primaries. Illinois does not have party registration, so the petition standards are based on past participation in the party’s primary for the district/office. For CD it is a not unreasonable 0.5%. But if a party hasn’t held a primary, it is an arbitrary 600. In CD 4 (the earmuff district in Chicago) a would-be Green Party candidate would need more signatures than a Democratic candidate, and 5 times as many as a Republican candidate to be placed on the primary ballot.
So Illinois is telling the Green Party to hold a primary, and then establishes a level of support for candidates to be placed on their primary ballot that is out of scale with the level of support needed to maintain their ballot access.
In the case of the legislative districts, Illinois uses the same 0.5% level, but also includes a hard numberic minimum. In NO district (of 177) is the 0.5% level used for either of the two major parties.
Since Illinois now has a filing deadline of early November in the odd year (eg 12 months before the general election), it could also be challenged in the case of congressional elections, since it effectively establishes a residency requirement. It also require a demonstration of support from among an electorate that is different than that will be doing the actual choosing in November, due to deaths, new 18-YO, migration, naturalization, felony convictions/restoration of voting citizenship, violating the 14th, 15th, and 26th Amendments. In the case of House members, it violates Article I, Section 2 that requires an election be held every second year, since the next election process begins less than 12 months after the previous ended.
#12 Separate continues NOT to be equal.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954) — NOT brought up in the first *modern* ballot access case of Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) — due to *just enough* MORON lawyers.
Result – 40 years of JUNK / MORON ballot access cases in the party hack Supremes — who would NOT know *equal* even it fell off the ceiling of the Supremes court chamber and hit them in their party hack MORON skulls.