Illinois Supreme Court Will Soon Rule on Whether New Ballot Access Barriers Can Go Into Effect Immediately

Posted on by July 11, 2024

According to this story, the Illinois Supreme Court will soon decide the lawsuit Collazo v Illinois State Board of Elections. The issue is the 2024 law that eliminated the ability of qualified parties to nominate after the primary (in races in which the primary didn’t produce a party nominee).

The Illinois Supreme Court has one of the worst histories on ballot access of any court in the nation. An Illinois Supreme Court ruling kept the Harold Washington Party off the 1990 ballot, but fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed it, in Norman v Reed. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the law that required newly-qualifying parties to run a full slate of candidates, but later the Seventh Circuit, a federal court, struck it down. The Illinois Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the ability of citizens to use the statewide initiative process. The Illinois Supreme Court kept Henry Wallace off the ballot for president in 1948.

Comments

Illinois Supreme Court Will Soon Rule on Whether New Ballot Access Barriers Can Go Into Effect Immediately — 14 Comments

  3. Interesting that the Democratic Party on the national level is talking about possibly nominating someone for President who may not even have run in any of their primaries.

  7. Since it effects federal elections, yes. The question is whether there is sufficient federal legislation preventing ballot access requirements for an election from being changed in the middle of that election. And I suspect that the answer is again yes.

  10. In that case, should we expect a federal lawsuit after the Illinois Supreme Court rules?

  11. Hmmm. I think that will depend a lot on how the Illinois Supreme Court rules – not only in whose favor they rule, but also what arguments they give for doing so. Because, like Justia’s Vikram Amar points out, the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief was based upon state law, but the Illinois trial court granted it based on federal law.
    If the Illinois supreme court does the same, then yes, I suspect a federal lawsuit will be filed – and according to Amar state supreme courts love passing the parcel to the SCOTUS, because it means that if it gets handed back down to them, they now have pretty much free reign to ignore the US constitution in interpreting their state constitution.
    On the other hand, the SCOTUS really doesn’t like getting involved in interpreting state constitutions whenever it can help it (see Michigan v Long, 1983). In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a federal appeal is filed but the SCOTUS refuses to hear it.
    It really is a big game and expensive game of pass the parcel in which nobody wants to accept the parcel so long as they hear it ticking…

    Mind you, none of this is legal advice. I am spitballing based purely on my understanding and that Justia article, which I highly recommend anyone with even a passing interest take a few minutes to read.

  13. Nuña — except cases don’t just go straight to the SCOTUS. That only applies should everything be exhausted through the federal court levels preceding SCOTUS. Every single lawsuit that has ever been brought up in Federal court by the Libertarian Party of Illinois has resulted in various ballot access restrictions and one campaign finance law being declared as unconstitutional.

    Just like that could very well be the case with the 62-day petitioning period for all third party and independent candidates beginning in 2026 with yet another Federal lawsuit on the books. And I’m sure that it won’t just be the Libertarian Party of Illinois in this lawsuit.

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.