On May 10, the Illinois Republican Party filed a lawsuit in state court to block the new law that eliminates the ability of parties to nominate candidates for state legislature after the March primary is over. Collazo v Illinois State Board of Elections, Sangamon County Circuit Court, 2024CH-000032.
The lawsuit says it violates due process to pass a bill that restricts ballot access and make it effective immediately.
NOOO DATES / TIME SPANS IN 14-1 AMDT
Surprisingly good on the Illinois GOP
I’m sorry, but if you didn’t bother with the recruitment of candidates for your goddamn primary, you have no business filing nominations in vacancy for those positions. It’s a good thing this law doesn’t affect third parties and independents.
In other words, get F’ed, Illinois GOP (or as it’s better known as the RINO Party, given their last three nominees for major office were Democrats pretending to be Republican)
The new law is fine. Making it effective immediately, that is effectively making it retroactive since that was not the law at the time of the primary, is not.
Exactly what Tom said.
The law doesn’t restrict ballot access. This is just another example of one of the major parties not filing their paperwork on time because they feel they should be allowed to nominate candidates “in post”.
But to pass the law and make it apply to primaries that have already taken place, is just evil.
Ideally, the outcome of the suit would be to make the law apply starting next primary. Although I’d settle for having it go into force going forward, i.e. blocking any further post-primary nominations but not voiding any nominations made between March and now.
The problem is ballots and candidates. The solution is election through standing count by party. Winning party picks officeholders.
The law violates the associational rights of political parties to fill vacancies on their ballot. Prior to the creation of state printed ballots, parties had the right to make nominations right up until the general election.
If there is an additional cost to prepare ballots with the names of the late nominated candidates, it would not be unreasonable for the state to charge filing fees to cover these costs. But, the state should not cancel the right of parties to make additional nominations.
The problem with that is that the names of those with whom they are filling the vacancies never appeared on the primary ballot. Even worse, if parties can nominate right up until the general election, that can deprive voters of sufficient opportunity to research those whom they nominated last minute (not to mention deprive the nominees of ample time during which to slip up and show their true colors while under public scrutiny).
Lots of things have changed around the election process. And unless everything else is also repealed, changes like requiring suitably early candidate certification or barring nomination of those not on the primary ballot are in the best interest of the electorate.
There’s no need to research any candidates, which very few voters do anyway and largely have no idea how to, if voting is exclusively by party.
“The problem with that is that the names of those with whom they are filling the vacancies never appeared on the primary ballot.”
So what? .
“if parties can nominate right up until the general election, that can deprive voters of sufficient opportunity to research those whom they nominated last minute (not to mention deprive the nominees of ample time during which to slip up and show their true colors while under public scrutiny).”
So, that makes it okay to deprive voters of more choices? Now, they have an opportunity to consider even more candidates. What’s the problem?
“Lots of things have changed around the election process”
In many cases, not for the better, IMO. The general trend seems to be to limit voters’ choices so that the general election is restricted to two candidates, at most, to prevent “spoilers”. But, spoilers are a problem mainly because of plurality voting. We need to consider alternatives to plurality voting.
Very few voters research candidates. They don’t have the time, know how to, or the inclination. Voting by party makes infinitely more sense. Stand up and be counted for your party.
Anyone who wants to vote straight ticket is perfectly free to do so now, with, or without a straight ticket device on their ballot. Nothing is stopping them. Many do, now, without even thinking about it. There is simply no reason to deprive voters who wish to split their tickets.
There should be no ballots. Voting should be public, on the record, because choosing politicians is political power, too, and should be public for the same reason politicians votes should be public: accountability. For a politician, the consequences of a vote may be losing a donation or their job. For a voter, it may be losing their friends or their job. In both cases, violence based on how anyone votes remains illegal.
Secret ballots are way to easy to miscount , accidentally or on purpose. With public, vote by party standing count, it’s easy to review the video and be 100% sure votes were counted correctly.
Of course, that can only be done by party. It would take way too long to vote this way for each office.
Which is ok, because very few voters have the time, interest, or skills to research that many politicians and would be politicians anyway.
Some parties may want to run without having to choose candidates, to get their message out, knowing they won’t win yet in that election. They should not be deprived of that opportunity.
How the winning party picks its officeholders should be up to that party. Some may select them before the election, in case they win.
“Which is ok, because very few voters have the time, interest, or skills to research that many politicians and would be politicians anyway. ”
Those who do are the decisive voters in an election. Why deprive them of that power? They have earned it thru their research.
Caveat elector – Let the voter beware.
They’re not the decisive voters in an election. They are a vanishingly tiny minority of hobbyists.
You have not addressed the vast majority of my arguments, either. They remain standing.
Those who vote blindly for party cancel out each other. Those who study the issues and investigate the candidates decide the election.
Look at the electoral landscape today: The Senate is evenly divided, the House nearly so, the Presidential election hang on a handful of electoral votes in a few swing states. The states themselves are nearly evenly divided. The straight ticket voters are NOT going to decide this election. It’s those handful of thinking voters who will.
Those who “study” the candidates are often looking at irrelevant fluff – looks, charisma, fake promises. The ticket splitters are not “thinking” voters. The thinking voters among them are a tiny minority of a tiny minority.
You’re still not addressing the vast majority of my arguments. Here’s another one: it’s putting too much power into a fickle person’s hands to have them hold an office. If the party, rather than any individual, holds office, it can substitute the individual politicians voting or exercising executive or judicial power on behalf of the ruling power out as needed, not just wait until the next election.
In fact, you don’t have to have professional politicians at all. You could have part time party volunteers serve in this or that office for a few days until they are substituted out for another volunteer.
ALL ABSENTEE MAIL BALLOTS — ESP FOR PARTY ELECTIONS – NATL / STATE/ LOCAL
CA/ OR/ WA/ ETC SURVIVE
Zero absentee mail ballots. All voting in person and public.