Free & Equal holds a press conference in Chicago on Monday, August 3, at 1 p.m, to ask Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to veto HB 723. The event is at 407 S. Dearborn Street, suite 1170.
HB 723 restricts the ability of qualified parties to nominate someone by party meeting, after the primary is over. Illinois typically has one-candidate elections in November for half the state legislative seats, and HB 723 will make this lack of choice even worse. The bill does not eliminate the ability of ballot-qualified parties to nominate someone after the primary, but imposes petitions on such nominees.
Illinois Governors have the ability to use an “amendatory veto” as well as to simply veto or sign a bill. See this Chicago Tribune article of August 2, which explains that Governor Quinn is being pressured to rewrite another election law bill, one concerning campaign contribution limits. The Governor must act on HB 723 no later than August 26.
Illinois has no such thing as “ballot qualified” parties. Parties qualify to hold primaries at which voters who choose to vote in the primary (Illinois does not have party registration) choose the nominee of their party, rather than party insiders.
Illinois has quite modest petition standards for someone who wants to run for Congress in a party primary, and they may even file as a write-in candidate. HB 723 would simply provide that if no one is nominated in the primary, that a vacancy committee (made up of committeemen who themselves were elected at the primary) may choose a nominee and then file a petition with a modest number of signature of voters, the same as if the candidate had gathered them before the primary.
I believe for the Green Party around 30 or so signatures are required in a typical congressional district.
Illinois has “established party” status which is what is meant by “ballot qualified”, so while technically correct, Jim Riley just doesn’t comprehend or understand the applications of Illinois election laws enough to comment intelligently on this matter.
In fact, Jim Riley should probably stop trying to help the anti-Democrats in Illinois further eliminate political competition with immoral legislation like this. This legislation is not necessary at all. The ONLY purpose of this legislation is to make it harder for “other” candidates to run against the corrupt political machines in Illinois. Jim Riley apparently belives protecting corrupt political machines and limiting political competition, which is the SOLE purpose of this bill, will be good for us slaves without ballot choices.
What problem was Illinois having with cluttered and confusing ballots that this bill fixes? None! Name a single solitary problem with Illinois’ elections that this legislation seeks to improve or fix? There isn’t one. Tell us, Jim Riley, exactly how this will make Illinois elections more free and equal. You can’t because the ONLY thing this bill does is further restrict political competition in Illinois.
Republicans and Democrats used the slating option for decades without problem or complaint at all. But now that “other” candidates can use the same option the Republicans and Democrats took advantage of for decades, they are going to take away that option from the “other” candidates for ONLY anti-democratic purposes. Other than the Green Party getting 5% in a Gubernatorial election, exactly what has changed in Illinois that warrants this legislation Jim Riley? Nothing. THE ONLY conclusion for any rational, non-sycophant, democracy believing human being is that this legislation’s only purpose is to oppress political competition like the Green Party. The authors and voters on this legislation and Jim Riley should be ashamed of themselves that they endorse anti-democratic election laws that seek to concentrate power away from voters and into the hands of people like Rod Blagojevich and Michael Madigan. Rod Blagojevich was in favor of this legislation EXACTLY like Jim Riley is. They have selfish priorities that do not reflect American principles of democracy and instead seek to concentrate power toward regional dictators.
Illinois had 157 state legislative races last year, and in 86 of them, either the Democrats or the Republicans didn’t run anyone. So in over half the races, the voter had no leverage or virtually none. And HB 723 makes things even worse.
Richard’s point about the amendatory veto is very salient. Although it’s not our preference, as we’d prefer to see the bill vetoed outright, my preliminary discussions with people in the governor’s office suggest that an amendatory veto is a possibility, specifically to amend the post-slating petitioning period so that it’s equivalent to the pre-primary petitioning period.
As for Jim Riley, I don’t know who he is, but he sure sounds like a Democratic insider to me. He’s taking a bill few people know about and using talking points which are the same that were used on the floor of the Illinois Senate. It’s instructive that he’s referencing Congress and not General Assembly, for which the signature requirements are absolutely not “modest”. This is explained in the paper I’ve written which will probably be widely distributed next week.
10 ILCS 5/7‑2 A political party, which at the general election for State and county officers then next preceding a primary, polled more than 5 per cent of the entire vote cast in the State, is hereby declared to be a political party within the State, and shall nominate all candidates provided for in this Article 7 under the provisions hereof, and shall elect precinct, township, ward and State central committeemen as herein provided.
Article 7 goes on to define how primaries are to be conducted so that the ordinary voters affiliated with a party may choose their nominees, rather than the party bosses, committees, or nomenklatura.
There are quite modest petition requirements. For example, the Green Party could nominate a candidate in all 19 Illinois congressional districts with a total of 604 signatures, though they would to have these distributed by district (ranging from 19 to as many as 47). Illinois does not have party registration, so these could be from any voter.
Illinois also permits declared write-in candidates in primary elections. So a Green candidate could as a write-in candidate be nominated, so long as he got 21 votes, to be President Obama’s congressman.
And HB 723 simply requires that if the voters fail to choose a nominee, that a vacancy committee (elected at the primary) may nominate a candidate so long as they gather the signatures of voters.
Pat Quinn would not be governor of Illinois had he not been able to go directly to the Democratic voters in the primary. He would not have been picked by the party bosses, committees, or nomenklatura. Those who would want to exclude ordinary party voters from choosing the nominees of their party, are every bit as corrupt as Rod Blagojevich and his pay for play scandal. Hopefully HB 723 will save some party insiders from being indicted in some future scandal where a candidate seeks a nomination from insiders rather than from the voters.
I would hardly use the rationalization that the Democratic machine in places like Chicago and Republican machine in places like Cicero have used this loophole for decades as an argument in favor.
#4 If one were truly concerned about the difference between congressional and legislative signature requirements, one would address that disparity directly.
So I suspect that the Green Party insiders actually likes the current system system since it actually prevents reformers supported by rank and file voters from challenging their control of the party and its nominees.
Jim Riley has had a lot to say about HB 723, but he hasn’t addressed the point about the lack of logic for requiring a petition for someone who is the nominee of a party that has already shown a modicum of support (by having polled 5% for Governor at the last election).
The logic of a petition for someone trying to get on a primary ballot is to keep the primary ballot from being too crowded. But that logic doesn’t apply when a party nominates someone by convention or meeting. There is no primary ballot to be crowded. And there is no concern about the November ballot being too crowded, because the very strict law on which parties are automatically on the ballot handles that problem.
#7 The showing in the *gubernatorial race demonstrates that there is a mass of voters who can be considered affiliated with the party. Since Illinois doesn’t have party registration, voter turnout is used as a substitute.
As a political party, it is expected to nominate its candidates in a primary, where the voters who form the party may choose their nominees.
Your viewpoint appears to be more along the lines of recognizing the legal entity as constituting the party, that exercises all authority, including selecting the party nominees, so long as there is popular support for its actions. I see the role of the legal entity as merely administrative.
If you review the Illinois statutes, the role of the various vacancy committees is primarily oriented towards filling vacancies that occur after a candidate is nominated in the primary, to deal with unexpected contingencies such as death, disability, or disqualification. Since it is not possible to hold a new primary, committee members elected at the primary can choose a replacement candidate. But this is intended to happen only after the voters have chosen the nominee in the primary.
The use of a vacancy committee in cases where no candidate files (ie puts his name forward for consideration by the voters), or declares as a write-in and receives a small number of votes is more of a loophole. The petition serves to demonstrate that the candidate has the popular support of voters, and not just the support of insiders.
The party can simply contact voters who voted in the primary, and ask them to attend the meeting of the vacancy committee or sign the petition afterward. 600 signatures for all 19 congressional nominations is not much for a party that drew over 120,000 votes in last November’s senate election.
*Isn’t the basis for recognition last November’s senate election?