Illinois State Trial Court Grants Preliminary Injunction in Republican Ballot Access Case

Posted on by May 22, 2024

On May 22, an Illinois state trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the State Board of Elections, keeping the traditional Illinois “slating” process in effect for the time being.  The “slating” process is a method for qualified parties to nominate someone after the primary, assuming the primary didn’t nominate anyone.  Collazo v Illiinois State Board of Elections, Sangamon County Circuit Court, 2024-CH-000032.

The case had been filed by some Republican candidates who had been slated by the Republican Party.  The lawsuit was necessary because the legislature this month had abolished the procedure and made that change effective immediately.

Comments

Illinois State Trial Court Grants Preliminary Injunction in Republican Ballot Access Case — 78 Comments

  1. MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER HACKS (IN STATE LEGIS AND G COMMS) IN HOW MANY STATES TRYING TO HAVE ONE PARTY STATES ???

    OH / IL / CA / MORE ???

  8. This would not be a problem with standing count, vote by party.

  11. https://electionlawblog.org/?p=14322

    ELB – 710AM SC GERRYMANDER CASE

    LIKELY MUCH MORE LATER ON ELB AND MAIN MEDIA

    OK TO GERRYMANDER ON PAST ELECTION RESULTS

    MORE 1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4 MINORITY RULE >>>>>>> USA CIVIL WAR II COMMIES VS FASCISTS

    RUSSIA 1917-1921 CIVIL WAR / GERMANY 1929-1933 CIVIL WAR / SPAIN 1936-1939 CIVIL WAR / ETC ETC ETC

  15. TOTAL FILTER FOR STOPPING ALL TROLL MORON POSTS AND ESP THEIR JUNK/USELESS POSTS ABOUT EACH OTHER / FAKE NAMES / SEX HABITS / ETC

  25. I AGREE WE SHOULD PURGE TROLL MORONS FROM BAN. AZ WOULD BE AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST.

  26. Bots are not troll morons, they are programmed by trolls to simulate morons and stimulate responses from other morons.

  27. What does it mean when no one is nominated by a primary? How could that be?

    (not talking about things like the Libertarian Party’s non-binding presidential primaries)

  29. AC —

    NOOOOOO D OR R CANDIDATES IN MANY RIGGED CRACKE/PACKED GERRYMANDER DISTS —

    WHEREIN A GENL ELECTION LOSER WOULD GET UNDER 35 PCT OF TOTAL VOTES

    PROTEST = NONVOTE / WRITE-IN VOTE

  33. @AZ,

    In Texas, ballots are numbered in sequence. Ballots 5001-5500 could be sent out to polling place X. Multiple ballots are placed upside down on a table and a voter selects one at random, completes the ballot, and places it in a ballot box. At the end of voting, ballots 5001-5500 should be in the ballot box, or in collections of unused, spoiled, or provisional ballots. If some go missing or some extras are salted into the ballot box, that can be detected. It can not be determined which ballot any particular voter selected.

    But voting in Texas is no longer done using old-fashioned pre-printed ballots. Voters may vote at multiple locations over multiple days. There may be 100s of ballot styles. Instead of a printed roster with hundreds or a few 1000 names, there might be 100s of thousands or millions of voters in a county. A voter might sign on a printed label that is pasted in a poll book.

    Initially, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines were used. These could present the correct ballot style and preferred language. There was no paper trail.

    So now electronic poll books are used. These can prevent a voter voting at multiple locations, over multiple days, and even in multiple party primaries. A “ballot” is printed. This is not actually a ballot but rather a blank card. A voter takes this over to a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) and inserts the ballot. The correct ballot style is presented to the voter, just like on the old DRE, but rather than being recorded on am electronic device, they are printed on the ballot card. A voter can verify that they voted for “Cornel West”, “Literally Anyone Else”, or one of the other candidates.

    They take the ballot to a ballot scanner which counts the ballot, and drops the ballot into a collection box.

    Each ballot has a number printed on it. In some counties this might be a pre-printed sequential number, which preserves the auditing function. In the counties subject to the current lawsuit, a random number is printed on the ballot. The lawsuit asserts that this violates the law.

    But more significantly, it is asserted that the “random number” is not so random and can allegedly be tracked back to an individual voter. Ballot faces may be subject to a FOIA request, and it has been asserted that 1000s of personal votes have been determined.

    An electronic poll book is used to prevent a voter from voting at multiple locations and even in different party primaries.

  37. JR—

    HOW MANY BRIBED VOTERS IN TX —

    VOTE JR+AZ+MMM AND GET A BOTTLE OF BOOZE OR EVEN $$$ FROM MMM ???

  39. Well, the LNC is sure doing a good job at demonstrating how standing votes guarantee that far more fraud takes place than in any other form of voting besides voice votes.

    As for voting by party rather than for individuals, that is self-evidently backwards. During GENERAL elections (primaries should really only include those registered with that party!), voters should obviously be free to vote for individuals regardless of party affiliation. Voters are not pledged delegates. It should go without saying that disallowing people to mix-and-match their ballots, would be an intolerable restriction on the individual liberty of both the voters and the candidates, and thereby detrimental to the democratic process.

    Contrariwise, there is a very strong case to be made for requiring candidates to run for office independently without any officially recognized party affiliation, as some countries already do, at least, for the head of state. If nothing else, it will do away with both party primaries and all that tedious and costly litigation surrounding whether a certain individual should be allowed to run with a specific letter behind their name.

  40. Au contraire. The standing count votes are unimpeachable. Everyone is counted off, and everyone can see for themselves the count is accurate.

  42. Saying your position is self evident or obvious does nothing to prove it or bolster it. During the only election, voters should stand with their party. The individuals the winning party appoints are irrelevant, since they would be replaced effortlessly during the course of their term as many times as necessary by the party.

  43. The correct standing count is where the chair counts off everyone one by one. Once they went to that, there were zero problems with the count.

  44. Standing count gets rid of primaries as well as litigation over individuals running with this or that letter.

  45. Parties are even more fickle and unreliable than individuals. The party dictatorship you describe cannot work. Parties should never be allowed to pick who will fill an office after the election, much less be allowed to change it without new elections.
    At the end of the day, whoever fills an office is the one exercising power, regardless of whether they were elected by the people or appointed by the party, so they certainly do matter. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the individual wielding such power represents the electorate rather than the whims of their party at any given moment.

  46. You party dictatorship scheme would strangle any possibility of sensible individuals ever being elected, and force further mindless tribalism on voters, while also depriving them of the opportunity to change their mind when their insight improves.

  47. It’s not a dictatorship. It can be changed every year. Government as a whole would be very, very limited with most of what it does now outside of government hands altogether. The person in office would exercise no power, since somebody else could be in that office by the end of the day. The party could be changed at the next election, which would be annual.

  48. Voters would have every opportunity to change their mind every year at election time. That’s more often than they get input now.

  49. It is a party dictatorship. You even idealize the office holders as mindless husks, mere extensions of the whims of the party.

    Limited to no government that is change annually is fine, but it still requires voting on by individual candidate not by party.

    Tickets are bad enough. If I want to vote for a Republican president and a Democratic vice-president, a Libertarian Party governor and a Green Party lieutenant governor, I should be able to do so. Even the old system of make the runner-up in the presidential election the VP, made more sense than ticket deals like McCain-Palin.

  50. A party’s whims change far more often than once per year. It does not take someone like George Soros anywhere near a year to hijack a party. An individual on the other hand typically takes far longer to manipulate to the same extent.

    Fundamentally, requiring voting by party restricts the voter’s options. Taking away voters’ agency like that, limits their freedom and as well as their influence on the outcome of the election.

  51. Nonsense. Individuals can be manipulated instantaneously. Parties, having a platform and multitudes of individuals, are certainly less fickle.

  52. It wasn’t a true standing count until they actually counted one by one. Then it was completely accurate.

  53. Election of individuals is frequently biased by wanting to keep incumbents in so they don’t lose their jobs, looks, charisma, personal scandals and accusations thereof. There’s also no clear party to blame when things go wrong, as officeholders of different parties point the finger at each other.

  55. “It wasn’t a true standing count”

    Ah yes, that old chestnut. “It wasn’t true socialism”, “it wasn’t a true referendum”, etc. It was a whole series of standing and voice votes and (almost) all led to vote counts that bore no resemblance to the votes casts.

    “There’s also no clear party to blame when things go wrong”

    Unlike in your party dictatorship, where the party can never do any wrong and if worst comes to worst the current talking head can sacrificed as scapegoat to appease the masses.

  56. Voice counts and multiteller counts with the assistance of state chairs are not what I mean by standing counts at all. A standing count is where one person – the chair or a designated counter – counts off the voters one by one as they sit down as they get counted. Everyone in the room can see the count is true. As can anyone watching on video, concurrently or later.

    An elected party can certainly do wrong, which is the whole point of elections. The point is that when they do wrong, there’s no question of pointing fingers between different parties holding different offices as to who is to blame. When the winning party screws up, everyone knows they are to blame and need to be replaced.

  57. It doesn’t matter when the chair can decide the count.
    For comparison, when Obama was declared president in 2008, the speaker tried to skip past the requirement of asking whether there were any objections or questions that needed to be resolved first. When a Republican congressman from Ohio (his name escapes me – he had a nice full, dark beard), insisted on voicing a question regarding Obama’s eligibility, he was drowned out by shouting and the speaker refused to acknowledge him or hear his question.
    When chairman Mao tells you 2+2=5, it doesn’t matter that everyone knows that’s not true, they will just have to accept it.

    The party will never take the blame for any specific instance, and at worst a talking-head will take the fall. Even when the specific instance resulted from the party’s bad policy over which the talking-head had no power, rather than from a bad implementation of policy by the talking-head.

  58. The chair can be overruled. And a party can lose an election.

  59. If you’re dealing with Mao, it doesn’t matter what the voting method is. In normal circumstances, there’s some recourse against obviously erroneous vote counts.

  60. In which case, the party can blame who it wants, but the voters will know to blame and change out the party.

  61. Unfortunately, it seems like we are dealing with Mao all the time in recent years.

    It would take until the next election (up to a year) before the voters can change out the party.
    And if the voters are capable of blaming the party regardless of who the party tries to pin blame on, would they not also be capable of blaming one or more individual officeholders regardless of them pointing fingers at one another?

  62. If we’re dealing with Mao all the time, voting methods are irrelevant, as is who voters blame. If that’s the case, Mao explained what to do: power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    And, no, it becomes too confusing as to who is to blame. President? Congress? Which house of congress? Etc.

  65. @Stan from Standingstan,

    158 million votes were cast in the 2020 presidential election. If it took five seconds to count off each one, it would take 25 years for a standing count.

  67. “If we’re dealing with Mao all the time, voting methods are irrelevant, as is who voters blame. If that’s the case, Mao explained what to do: power comes from the barrel of a gun.”

    Thou sayest it.

  68. If I thought that’s where we are, why would I waste my time here?

  70. I don’t think that’s where we are, thus I don’t see it as a waste of time. But if you see it that way,why do you?

  71. Initially for news about my party’s national convention (Constitution Party), since this was pretty much the only source that was covering it. Then I stayed for news about the AIP’s nomination and now the LNC. While I certainly enjoyed and am proud of exposing a network of fed sockpuppets for not knowing even the most basic things about the places they pretend to have grown up, lived, have family and even fought, in passing, not to mention dunking on Trump’s uniparty RINOs and people arguing for insecure methods of voting [see my reply in the other thread, if Richard ever lets it through], I do not pretend like we are not “dealing with Mao all the time”.
    As I said before, barring more direct and miraculous divine intervention, the only hope of saving this country, and indeed the entire west, is liberation and denazification by Russia. We can make believe that our opinions matter or voting has any effect, but that is merely self-deceit in order to get that nice warm fuzzy feeling inside that we have done our civic duty and tried to improve the world. I am happy to indulge in such delusions, but only with the very keen understanding that it is merely an illusion.

  72. @Stan from Standingstan,

    Would all precincts vote simultaneously? How would you coordinate perhaps 100,000 precincts in the USA?

  73. LOL. The only one you exposed is yourself. You keep talking crap, and keep exposing yourself as everything you accuse others of. Your level of ignorance and denial is hilarious.

    https://gorod-lugansk.com/

  74. They would all vote in one evening. Past the precinct level, they would be coordinated same as now, I would think.

  75. @Stan From Standingstan,

    In 2020, my precinct had 1913 voters (2399 registered). How would this work?

    How big would the meeting hall be? You would have to room for all to sit, while others are standing.

    At 5 seconds per voter, it would take 2H 40M to count off.

    Would voters have to check in? What is the procedure?

  76. It takes about one second to count off, not 5. They make it work in Iowa. People would have to check in. If precincts are too large, they should be split up. Or, voting rights could be much more limited, although that’s probably much more long term than just the standing count, much like devolving government to the point that multiprecinct elections would no longer even be held.

  77. In 2024, the Iowa Republican caucuses used paper ballots. The Democrats used a separate primary. The caucuses only conducted party business.

  78. Nevertheless, they’ve made it work in Iowa any number of times, showing it can be done.

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.