Trial Date Set in One of the Illinois Green Party’s Ballot Access Lawsuits

U.S. District Court Michael J. Reagan, a Clinton appointee, will hold a trial in Tripp v Smart, s.d., 3:14cv-890, on July 17, Friday, at 10 a.m. This is the Green Party ballot access lawsuit that challenges the Illinois law on how nominees of unqualified parties get on the ballot for legislature. The two candidate-plaintiffs, Tabitha Tripp and Gary Shepherd, tried very hard to complete the 5% (of the last vote cast) petition for the November 2014 election, in state representative districts 115 and 118.

They argue that in practice, these petition requirements are virtually impossible to overcome. The Green Party is strong in Carbondale, which is split between these two districts. Both districts are largely rural and very large physically. The party argues that the absence of high-density population centers, the confusion caused by the two districts splitting Carbondale, the need to notarize each petition sheet, and the short 90-day period for collecting signatures, taken together, are unconstitutional. Briefs on both sides were filed on May 26. Of course, the Green Party’s briefs mention that a U.S. District Court earlier this year found Pennsylvania’s notarization requirement unconstitutional.

This is one of three constitutional ballot access cases pending in Illinois. The other Green Illinois case, in the northern district, also challenges the notarization requirement, but it is not as far along. The Libertarian case that challenges the requirement that newly-qualifying parties run a full slate of candidates was filed in 2012 and still hasn’t had a decision on declaratory relief. A decision could come at any time. Thanks to Vito Mastrangelo for the news about the Tripp case.


Comments

Trial Date Set in One of the Illinois Green Party’s Ballot Access Lawsuits — 1 Comment

  1. Not only is Carbondale itself split between the two districts, but the districts also split Southern Illinois University in two as well, further adding to the confusion among candidates and voters. Now that couldn’t have been by accident; gerrymandering at its “finest”.
    Plus the brief mentioned the Pennsylvania decision on notarization; that combined with common sense could result in a victory here, depending on whether the judge is truly neutral, or pro-Two Party System like some judges seem to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.