On October 14, the Illinois House voted to override Governor Pat Quinn’s veto of HB 723 by a vote of 107-9. The bill now goes to the Senate, which will probably also vote to override the veto.
HB 723 makes it more difficult for ballot-qualified parties to nominate candidates. Specifically, it says that when a party committee chooses a nominee after the primary (because no one had run in the primary), the nominee won’t be put on the November ballot unless he or she submits a petition. The petition has no logical function. A petition to get on a primary ballot has a certain purpose, to keep the primary ballot from being too crowded. A petition to put an independent candidate on the general election has the same purpose.
But in the case of a ballot-qualified party nominating someone by committee or convention, the general election ballot is protected from being too crowded by the state’s restrictions on how a party becomes ballot-qualified. Illinois is so strict on allowing groups to become ballot-qualified, there have only been two parties (other than the Democratic and Republican Parties) that have been ballot-qualified (for all office) in Illinois in the last 80 years: the Green Party 2006 to the present, and the Illinois Solidarity Party 1986-1990.
This needs to be legally challenged immediately if anyone has the resources. Especially if they plan to use this new tyrannical power in the current election. It should not apply to the 2010 elections because they have already started with the petitioning process almost over.
They shouldn’t be able to change the rules of the game in the middle of it. I know they do and can, but they don’t always get away with it. Just have the Greens “slate” a candidate (or 137) using the current laws (no sigs) with the opinion that they are still in effect until the next election.
It may work. Be interesting to hear the “states interest” argument in this one in any case. What problem is this law correcting? What is to stop the state from applying these laws on the Rs and Ds in the laws written specifically for them, without the new laws affecting the Greens?
In fact, why don’t the Greens now have their own set of election laws like the Rs and Ds have written into election codes? Lots of angles to this one perhaps. How many Republicans for Governor will make the primary ballot? And yet they have no interest in trying to limit the number of candidates on that ballot? How many more examples of them showing no “states interest” when several candidates are on the ballot in primaries, say 5 or more?
“Slating” candidates is something the Rs and Ds have enjoyed since at least 1980, but the very first time the Greens would be able to “enjoy” it, the Rs and Ds are forcing the Greens to instead have to petition anyway. Could it be any more obvious that any states interest here is obviously selective based on other examples and appears purposefully targetted at the Green Party? How does a court of smart judges sidestep the obvious on this?
If they could find the resources it could be won.
OK, I am really not sure I understand how the State’s election law seems to work.
1. How hard is it for a minor party to simply run its candidates in the primary? If its ballot-qualified?
2. If the party is not ballot qualified, then wouldn’t it have to submit a petition anyways to get into the general election ballot?
It’s a pain for ballot-qualified parties to run candidates in their own primary. Each individual candidate needs a moderately difficult petitions. For example, all the Illinois statewide Greens this year need 5,000 signatures each just to get on their own party’s petition.
Primary ballot access is also a problem for qualified minor parties in Maine, New York, and especially Massachusetts.
1. Number 1 should be why was this law changed to begin with and what problem is it fixing. Answer that before go any further. There is no such thing as a “minor party” in Illinois. Have you read the election codes? Established parties do not run candidates in their primary and have no power as a party to place someone on a primary ballot. Primaries are open to all primary electors who might wish to run in that party’s primary and all must get signatures. IF no one runs in that party’s primary, THEN an established party used to (not any longer) have the ability to then choose their own candidate for the election based on current laws written a bit differently for the Republican and Democrat parties. Gov, Lt Gov, AG, SoS, Treas, Compt. = 30,000 valid signatures in 90 days that were not necessarily needed before this legislation. That’s not counting the 137 of the 177 General Assembly races up this year and the sig requirements for those.
2. This ? has nothing to do with this legislation or these election laws for established parties. If the laws that were in effect were good enough for the Rs and Ds for 30 years, why do they have to be changed the very first time the Greens can use them? We’re talking about a state that hasn’t allowed a single independent candidate on the ballot for state legislature since 1980. This laws does nothing but make it even harder for the Greens to get on the ballot after they’ve already the jumped the other obstacles put in their place. So the anti-democrats and their partners in crime are throwing up this hurdle now. Its sick.
Governor Quinn’s veto was not based on any stated objection to the substance of the bill, but was an “amendatory veto” where he hoped that the legislature would adopt some totally extraneous amendment to the bill.
In Illinois, a governor may make a conventional veto, which can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in each House. But he may also make an amendatory veto, in which he suggests changes to the bill. The legislature may accept the changes by a simple majority vote, or may simply override the veto by a 2/3 vote.
What Richard Winger repeatedly misses is that parties in Illinois are not “ballot-qualified”, but rather “primary-qualified”. Illinois’s rationale is that they want candidates to be nominated by voters and not party bosses or committees.
If you are looking for qualification standards for political parties you will find them in the section about primaries (eg if candidate A of party Q gets X% of the vote in the general election, then party Q will hold a primary to nominate its candidate(s) for the next election). Illinois has a system by which parties may be primary-qualified in some areas (districts, counties, etc.) or statewide. In this case, the Democratic, Green, and Republican parties are primary-qualified statewide in 2010 based on their performance in the 2008 presidential and/or US senatorial election.
Illinois does not have party registration, and the state conducts the primaries. Each voter may choose a party at the time they vote in the primary. Candidates must file to run in the primary.
Illinois also permits write-in votes in primaries. However a write-in candidate can not be nominated unless he defeats all candidates that filed, or receives the number of votes that would be needed on his petition to be placed on the primary ballot.
Illinois has a system by which nomination vacancies that occur after the primary can be filled by a vacancy committee. For example if a nominee dies, or moves to another State, etc. This is not particularly remarkable, California and Texas have similar systems. If a party doesn’t nominate someone in the primary, they are out of luck except in exceptional conditions. And even the conditions for replacing a nominee are quite limited, such as if the nominee dies.
What is unusual in the case of Illinois, is that candidates can be nominated in the case a party had no one running for the nomination, or write-in winner did not qualify. This is done by a vacancy committee made up of committeemen who were themselves elected at the primary. In filling a vacancy, each committeeman gets to vote the number of votes cast in the primary in the area he was elected from (ward, precinct, township, etc). In effect it is an indirect primary.
HB 723 simply adds a requirement that a candidate nominated in this way, have the same amount of support that would have been required to get on the primary ballot or to secure the nomination in the primary. It is simply a matter of demonstrating rank and file support.
So let’s say that you want to run for Congress as the nominee of the Green Party. You could file a petition with signatures of about 30 voters (it varies from 19 to 47, depending on the district) and secure a place on the ballot. If you are the only candidate who files, you are the nominee. If there are multiple candidates you must of course win the primary.
Or you could run as a write-in candidate. You don’t need any signatures, but as long as you get the 30 votes or whatever is required in your district, and win the primary, you will be nominated.
Or if noone is nominated, then the vacancy committee can choose a nominee. But under terms of HB 723 the nominee would need a petition with 30 or so rank and file voters.
The simplest way for the Green Party to get around the new law would be to simply have candidates file as write-in candidates, and then have their poll workers encourage Green Party voters to write-in these candidates. Even for a statewide candidate, this would only require 5,000 votes, or less than one per precinct.
Well, thanks but I think I am still confused.
In Minnesota we have ‘major’ and ‘minor’ parties. The former nominated by an open primary where petitions are only if you want to waive the fees.
Minor parties (and Independents) dont participate in the primary but nominate for general ballot access and its generally ok, but too little time is alloted to circulate.
Today, we have three major parties and a bunch of minor parties.
If a party is ballot-qualified, that means it has the same ease of nominating candidates that the Republicans and Democrats do.
If a party is not ballot-qualified, that means it must do more tasks than either the Democrats or Republicans do, in order to place nominees on the November ballot.
The Green Party is a ballot-qualified party in Illinois because it is treated the same as the Democratic and Republican Parties. “Ballot-qualified” is a descriptive term, not a legal term.
#7 Illinois does not classify parties as “major” and “minor”, at least as far as nominating candidates. To a certain extent, it does recognize amount of support for a party, and a party that received twice as many votes might (based on the office) require twice as many signatures on its petitions.
The Green Party qualified to nominate by primary by receiving 120,000 or so votes for its candidate for US senator in 2008. Illinois, like Minnesota does not have party registration, but rather gauges the amount of party support based on its vote in the general election.
To run in a party primary for Congress, a candidate needs a petition with 1/2 of 1% of the party support in the congressional district. So in the case of the Green Party, congressional candidates collectively statewide would need 1/2 of 1% of 120,000 or about 600 signatures. The number required in each district depends on the votes cast for the party in that district, so it actually varies from 19 to 47. Because the Republicans garnered more votes, they need 99 to 880 signatures (they get very few votes in some areas of Chicago), and a Democratic candidate needs between 601 and 1208.
So the petition ensures that a candidate seeking the nomination has a modicum of support from among party supporters. If a candidate runs as a write-in candidate, he has to receive at least as many votes as he would have signatures to get on the ballot in the first place.
In Minnesota, if no one runs in a primary, the party is out of luck if it has no nominees. But in Illinois, there is a procedure so that immediately after the direct primary, committeemen elected at the primary may fill the nomination vacancy. The votes of the committeemen are weighted based on voters voting in the party primary in the committeeman’s jurisdiction (precinct, ward, township, etc.). So in effect it is an indirect primary.
The party is only permitted to do this if no one runs in the primary. The new law would not change this procedure, but would simply require a demonstration (by petition) of the same level of support required by a write-in candidate or a candidate filing for the office.
So if you wanted to be the Green Party nominee in CD 7, for example: you could:
Gather 21 signatures on a petition, and then win the primary (if you are the only filer, the office does not appear on the primary ballot and you are the nominee);
Or file as write-in candidate, receive 21 or more votes, and win the primary; or
If no one filed for the primary, and there was no successful write-in candidate, get the district vacancy committee choose you, and then get 21 signatures (these could even be by the committeemen who selected you).
#8 In Illinois statute – A political party is defined in 10 ICLS 5/Article 7. The making of nominations by political parties.
Under Illinois statute, a political party (within the state, district, etc.) is qualified (and required) to make nominations by primary. While “ballot-qualified” is indeed a descriptive term, it is not necessarily an apt description. If a political party does not have any candidates file for the primary, the party does not qualify to have a nominee on the ballot.
Is this any different than in California?
Illinois also permits write-in candidates in its primaries, but to be nominated, they must secure a certain number of votes. This is also the same as California, correct?
Illinois has an additional procedure by which if no candidate files for a primary, and no write-in candidate qualified, the party in effect has an indirect primary to fill the nomination vacancy.
California does not have the equivalent procedure.
HB 723 simply requires that a candidate chosen in the indirect primary has the same modest levels of grass-root support that a candidate would need to be nominated as a write-in candidate.