On March 21, Allan Stevo, independent candidate for U.S. House in Illinois last year, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his ballot access case, Stevo v Keith. The case number will be assigned soon.
Illinois requires independent candidates for U.S. House to submit exactly 5,000 valid signatures in years ended in “2”, but requires approximately twice as many signatures in all other election years. This policy has existed for 30 years, and in all that time, no independent candidate for U.S. House has qualified in Illinois, neither in years in which 5,000 signatures were required, nor in years in which approximately 10,000 were required. Stevo argues that there is no state interest in ever requiring more than 5,000 signatures for that office, in light of this historical record. The brief highlights the fact that the 7th circuit decision upholding the law did not mention the leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent on cases like this, Illinois State Board of Elections v Socialist Workers Party. That 1979 decision said that there is no interest in requiring a candidate for Mayor of Chicago to get approximately 50,000 signatures, when a candidate for Illinois statewide office only needed 25,000.
Illinois law requires a certain percentage of the vote cast in the previous election for an office. This is specific to each congressional district. Following redistricting, there is no record for the newly drawn districts, so Illinois has set an arbitrary numeric value. At the time the law was written, the number was comparable to the typical percentage value.
Since then, the growth in the size of congressional districts, the aging of the population, and increased turnout, particularly in presidential election years, has made the 5,000 about 1/2 to 1/3 of the percentage value. The reason this happens in years ending in “2” is that the decennial US Census is conducted in years ending in “0”, and the reapportionment and redistricting that follows takes effect two years later.
Illinois could address Richard Winger and Allan Stevo’s equal protection concerns by simply basing the percentage on some other value, such as presidential or gubernatorial turnout, or on registration numbers, both of which can be calculated for newly demarcated districts.
This was not the case in the 1979 Supreme Court case, given that Chicago had fewer voters than Illinois, and would presumably always have fewer voters.
While there may not have been any “independent” congressional candidates in Illinois, there have certainly been candidates who ran as the nominee of their own party. There does not appear to be any relation between the number of signatures needed and the number of 3rd party candidates that have qualified.
The simplest solution would be for Illinois to go a Top 2 primary, which would eliminate the high standards for independent candidates or minor party candidates. Better yet would be to mandate this on a national basis.
Most Illinois minor party candidates for Congress in the past 20 years have been Libertarians who got on the general election ballot with just two or three signatures, and no one challenged them. Illinois is the only state in which someone can get on the November ballot by petition of only one or two signatures, and will appear if no one files a formal challenge. A minor party presidential candidate appeared in Illinois in November 2008 with zero signatures. Since no one challenged him, he was on. So the history of minor party candidates for US House in Illinois is tough to research, in connection with the petition requirement.
In 1990, Jim Wham was the candidate of the Jim Wham Party; in 1992 Louanner Peters was the candidate of the Louanner Peters Party; there was also an “Independent Congressional Party” candidate. In 1996, Chauncey Stroud was an “Independent” candidate.
Whether these candidates had fewer than the required number of signatures and were not challenged, I do not know. If this were true, then isn’t the remedy for Allan Stevo to have petitions counted by the State in all instances?
“If this were true, then isn’t the remedy for Allan Stevo to have petitions counted by the State in all instances?”
No, not at all, that would not accomplish anything. You really need to understand Illinois’ convoluted election laws to be able to talk about this from a standpoint of knowledge.
The examples you cite are all candidates that did not have their petitions challenged, No one (other than Rs and Ds), since 1980, has been able to get the required signatures and withstand a petition challenge in Illinois to get on a general election ballot for anything state level or above. Probably the county level also. The remedy is for the Rs and Ds to stop discriminating against “Others” as is obviously being done in Illinois. A Democrat might need 300 signatures to run for Congress but an independent might need 15,000 valid signatures in 90 days. Forcing a state to count petition signatures, contrary to their state laws, does nothing to change the blatant oppression by the Rs and Ds and their supporters. The state has no valid reason to require 15,000 signatures some years and 5,000 other years while only requiring 300 from the “chosen” party candidates.
The top two primary solves nothing and only emboldens the monopoly power the Rs and Ds have over our elections and our elected leaders. What Illinois has NOW is a top two primary system in which almost 70% of the elections for the General Assembly were unopposed over the last decade without a single independent candidate making the ballot. The problem is that we have too few candidates, not too many candidates which is the ONLY justification for a top two primary in Illinois other than political greed.
“No one (other than Rs and Ds), since 1980, has been able to get the required signatures and withstand a petition challenge in Illinois to get on a general election ballot for anything state level or above.”
Correction. No independent instead of no one. A few third parties have withstood petition challenges for state level offices and President/Senator, but never for US Congress. No independent has been on the ballot for Congress OR state level offices since 1980.
Why you think limiting the number of candidates on the general election ballot will improve anything is beyond me. You are trying to fix a “crowded” ballot problem that doesn’t exist and is imaginary.
You are quibbling over nomenclature. If Jim Wham runs as the candidate of the Jim Wham Party, he is every as much an independent as someone who wants to run as an independent. The only difference would be if the candidate of the Jim Wham Party, Jim Wham, received a certain percentage of the vote, then in the next election the Jim Wham Party could have a primary in that CD to determine its candidate.
Under a Top 2 system all candidates can easily qualify for an election in which all voters can vote for any candidate that they want to.
It is Illinois law that requires a certain number of signatures. It is pretty silly to consider it “force” for them to enforce their own election laws.
If Stevo wins, what does he win? Illinois will simply stop enforcing the percentage standard; or it will reword the standard so that it is consistent.
Separate continues NOT to be EQUAL.
Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954 — NOT brought up by armies of ballot access lawyer MORONS since 1968 — a mere 41 years ago.