It's a sad day for democracy in the 48th ward. Alderman Smith should be ashamed of herself
What I would like to see changed is only candidates and the campaign should be able to make a challenge.
Not some so call 'private citizen' acting on behalf of a candidate.
Did you get a load out of who was challenging Alderman Troutman's (20th ward) competitors petitions.
Troutman's sister. Under a false name no less.
The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers P
· 2 years ago
A quote from Medill News Service:
Iris L. Heard's name was on challenges to signatures of five candidates in the 20th Ward aldermanic campaign. Most people, however, know Heard by a different name: Iris L. Troutman.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Now that I am child-rearing, I have been told to ask myself this question whenever I had to make a decision, "Am I doing this for me, or for her?" This forces me to prioritize what is best for my child, and therefore actually best for me.
So, I ask, "Are they challenging candidates to serve opponents, or to serve voters?" The answer becomes obvious; this process was designed to serve the status quo - the opponents of ballot access - those who do not wish to be challenged - those who do not want to give voters a choice.
So having a crew of lawyers find fault with each petition of candidacy might satisfy those who believe that The Law is most important. However, those of us who understand that The Law is not as important as The Spirit, see this process as destroying The Intention behind Democracy and Elections.
Under no circumstances should we allow incumbants to go unchallenged. The idea that incumbants use this system to keep opponents off the ballot to run unopposed is immoral. These incumbants are not only unfriendly to Democracy, they are sacrificing Democracy; poisoning it with voter cycnicism that lasts generations. It is no wonder many have given up and demand term limits, no longer believing in Democracy.
Money is not the root of evil, but evil people are using it to destroy our government. They are using it to fund multi-million dollar smear campaigns, and fund legal buzzards to attack opponents. It is no wonder many have given up and demand limits on campaign funding, no longer believing in Democracy.
As long as we let lawyers set the tone and limits on something as important as our elections and campaigns, the further our elections and campaigns are dragged down from the potential the spirit of Democracy offers.
NO, politics ain't beanbags - but it shouldn't be the Second Coming of Pol Pot either.
NW burbs
· 2 years ago
To be honest, the candidacy requirements already are fairly loose (ie, small-l "liberal") on a local level. Requiring candidates to file an Ethics Statements and then include proof of same is not exactly a high bar to set (have you read the ethics statements? They're not too detailed)...
It takes only 50 signatures to run for any sort of library or school board (elementary, high schools, even community college districts) and even park districts or village boards only require a very few percent of the last elections vote totals.
Chicago mayoral candidates and a few other large cities might have a pretty steep signature minimum, but it's a rarity for the 'burbs and other locales to ever require more than a base of 1,000 signatures.
With 3 months at their disposal anyone can collect that quantity even without help. A dedicated candidate and/or volunteer can easily collect about 200-300 signatures a week. Might take some time and destroy a few frozen pens, but it's emminently doable.
Jeff Trigg
· 2 years ago
Democracy in Illinois? No, we can't have that. The Illinois Democrats are too proud of Illinois having the most anti-democratic democracy in the world to actually consider making our elections free and equal.
Chicago's requirement for Mayor is the highest of any democratic city in the world. Even after it was cut in half last year from 25,000 to 12,500.
Independent candidates for the General Assembly face the highest requirement of any democratic jurisdiction in the world also.
All historical evidence shows that if Illinois reduced ballot access requirements we would NOT have a "clutter" problem. Most states have MUCH easier requirements than Illinois and do NOT have ballot "clutter". Of course we can and should reduce requirements.
In fact, the GA may be forced to lower them pretty soon. Lisa Madigan asked for the full 7th Circuit to re-hear Lee v. Keith and they turned her down last week and upheld their original 3-0 ruling that says Illinois election laws are unconstitutional. We'll see if Lisa wants to waste any more of our money and her office's resources appealing the worst ballot access laws in the world to the US Supreme Court.
If she does, she will lose again and her daddy will have to change the laws. If she doesn't her daddy will have to change the laws.
As for the challenge business in Illinois, it's completely arbitrary and ridiculous and needs to be reformed. We should institute filing fees as an alternative to signatures, reduce the # of signatures and automatically check everyone's signatures by sample then full if needed. We also need to increase the petitioning period to at least 180 days. I'm game for any ideas to get rid of the whole challenge process and cottage industry for lawyers.
"All elections shall be free and equal." - Illinois Constitution Article III, Section 3.
Here's a better question or five. Why don't Illinois politicians obey the Illinois Constitution and make the requirements equal for all candidates? Why is Lisa Madigan trying to defend the worst ballot access requirements in the world? Why are the Democrats so afraid of political competition? If you can't trust your politicians to hold free and equal elections, what can you trust them with?
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
Illinois has some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the United States! We should definately reform ballot access laws to promote more competition in our political marketplace of ideas. People never seem to be confused by the number of candidates on the primary ballot, and it would be better than the huge number of candidates that run unopposed in Illinois every year.
Saluki Yayhoo
· 2 years ago
"... politics ain't bean bag." Sorry to sound ignorant ... I'd like to respond but I guess it would be even more stupid to do so when I can't figger out what the heck Raucci's bean bag reference means.
spintreebob
· 2 years ago
"I’m game for any ideas to get rid of the whole challenge process and cottage industry for lawyers ... Why are the Democrats so afraid of political competition?"
If you haven't noticed, it is the bi-partisan-combine (not just Dems) that supports the most restrictive laws ... and that is why IL has a combine and states with looser laws don't.
Some ideas? Have just one campaign finance law: An official, interactive internet site where the candidate files everything. No filing at an incumbent's office.
Full disclosure of all personal and political income from ALL sources for the past 5 years, including original source of money funneled through intermediaries. Complete IRS forms for 5 years.
Full disclosure of all real, personal and intellectual property in which one has an interest.
The same for immediate family and political associates.
The same full disclosure for all political advocacy groups and their officers.
The internet would have software behind it that would check the information for consistency. Candidate x says he got $1,000 from the township committeeman. Did the township committeeman say that he gave it? etc.
The discrepancies would be posted by the software for public viewing. The parties involved could then respond to the posted discrepancies.
Still require petition signatures, filed on the internet. The software checks the validity of the signatures. That way, everyone is held equally to the same standard.
I agree with Jeff, if a person can't collect signatures, he doesn't deserve to run. It is not that hard.
OPTION B. Eliminate half of the government bodies ... and eliminate their role in society without it being replaced by others. That way, the few elected officials left will get more public attention. The non-government sector will fill the void.
With 10 chains of private fitnes centers, plus private martial arts schools, private dance schools, etc, why do we need park districts that compete with these private providers? Often the park districts provide inferior service at a much higher total price when you consider that if their facilities were on the tax rolls, they too would be contributing to school funding and not sucking at the tax payers pocket.
Garp
· 2 years ago
Competition leads to responsive elected officials. Lack of competition leads to complacent and corrupt officials. I guess the answer to the question depends on whether you want corruption or responsiveness in government.
Jeff
· 2 years ago
The More 'amateurs' the better! The Land of Lincoln, the Land of Amateurs. He was one and did alright.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
Unless we eliminate any and all rules, potential candidates will still fail to follow them and then complain about the consequences being "undemocratic" or "burdensome" or "unfair".
I prefer that we have election rules, and that potential candidates follow them. It clearly ain't impossible, since we end up with ballots-full of candidates for every major election.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Here's an idea that just him me.
I figure four to six choices on a primary ballot is about right (in an "vote for one" situation).
Let's raise the signature threshold, but allow the top four signature getters on the ballot.
If the incumbent is running and only three opposition candidates file, they would all appear on the ballot as long as they had at least one valid signature.
If five or more candidates filed then all the candidates who achieved the higher threshold would appear on the ballot. Or the top four signature getters.
How's that for a reasonable compromise between allowing candidates on the ballot and keeping it clutter free?
BTW, complaints about clutter seem at odds with our theory of elections in Illinois. Illinois has a ridiculous amount of offices on the ballot. If you want to remove the clutter from the ballot, let's shorten the number of offices elected.
Or at least assume judges are automatically retained unless someone gets sigs to have them removed from office.
Easy as pie
· 2 years ago
Filing to run for Alderman is probably one of the easier things one has to do in the course of a campaign. If you can't do that right, I don't know if you're qualified to be an alderman. The quote in the article is true: politics ain't beanbag.
fedup dem
· 2 years ago
I hope this candidate in the 48th Ward is willing to file a declaration of write-in candidacy. I also hope the US Attorney starts looking into the cabal that has run the 48th Ward (Smith, the Volinis and the Ostermans) into a morass for a quarter-century. That community deserves a choice and it deserves more than that wrtetched excuse for a public official they have in office now!
Arthur Andersen
· 2 years ago
"spintree" you obviously have more faith in the capabilities of "the internet" than most people.
I would put some serious cash behind a software company that can electronically match signatures, as the major credit card issuers have been trying for years and can't get it done.
Your disclosure program is essentially a huge database and as such, more feasible (my blog Partner "Accenture" would know more about that) but would cost a ton of money to write and customize.
I think the remainder of both of your options, especially reducing the ridiculous number of government bodies in Illinois, has a lot of merit. Current economic disclosure for elected and appointed officials is very inadequate. (Exhibit A: "The Check.")
What?
· 2 years ago
So Mr. Trigg is upset someone who wants to oversee a $5 billion + budget can't figure an extremely simple economic interest statement and Spintree want to "simplify" the system by requiring more documentaton than most obsessive-compulsives maintain?
The rules are not hidden and they are not difficult. In fact, if you file on the first day and your documents are not complete the Board will tell you and you still have a week to get your act together.
This is not a conspiracy - it is an example of people who can't follow a half page of rules.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
Generally, Greens support decentralization (It's one of the party's Ten Key Values) but I agree that the number of local governments in Illinois is far too many. Not only does this create a good deal of confusion for many people, but it also results in the loss of economies of scale. I think that we could consolidate some of these functions, but I wouldn't want this to result in people having less opportunity to participate. I would favor abolishing Township government, for example; but I would like to see something similar to the Annual Town Meeting for municipalities.
Honest Abe
· 2 years ago
Sorry to tell you, but the number of signatures can be truly burdensome in many races. To run for a Cook County judgeship in Illinois now requires thousands of valid signatures. It used to take 500 valid petition signatures like everywhere else in the state, but the Democratic committeemen were displeased that a few independents managed to win a handful of primaries without paying $$$ for the privilege and the legislature rewrote the law to require a percentage of the total vote cast in the prior November election. Of course, the formula only works in Cook County as it is still 500 signatures anywhere else. It seems a shame that judicial candidates seeking office in a county need to gather as many signatures as statewide candidates.
Honest Abe
· 2 years ago
The "bean bag" reference is derived from a famous political commentary/satire column involving Mister Dooley, the Archer Avenune bartender, created by Chicago newspaperman Peter Finley Dunne. The quotation is almost a century old.
Loyal Whig
· 2 years ago
The ethics statement requirement for candidates was a "reform measure". It is humorous to see a reformer complaining about it.
Rich Guiney
· 2 years ago
There is an insider cottage industry for some connected lawyers like Nally and Kasper who do frivolous challenges. It is to waste time and money of other candidates. 25,000 signatures for mayor is unconstitutional. These technicalities are ridiciculous. It is incumbent protection and it's worse and lawyers abusing the system.
Jeff Trigg
· 2 years ago
What? - Read it again and THEN tell me exactly what I said because it wasn't anywhere close to the fantasy in your head. Since you ignored what I actually said in favor of making up things, I'll repeat. Illinois has the worst ballot access requirements of any election jurisdiction in the world. Is that something you agree with just like Lisa Madigan?
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
It's not just the ballot access restrictions, it's also, possibly more importantly, the short window of time allowed for collecting those signatures. In addition, giving established party candidates an early primary, but requiring new party candidates to petition much later to get onto the regular election ballot, gives the established parties a tremendous advantage, in terms of publicity.
All Comments
What I would like to see changed is only candidates and the campaign should be able to make a challenge.
Not some so call 'private citizen' acting on behalf of a candidate.
Did you get a load out of who was challenging Alderman Troutman's (20th ward) competitors petitions.
Troutman's sister. Under a false name no less.
Iris L. Heard's name was on challenges to signatures of five candidates in the 20th Ward aldermanic campaign. Most people, however, know Heard by a different name: Iris L. Troutman.
So, I ask, "Are they challenging candidates to serve opponents, or to serve voters?" The answer becomes obvious; this process was designed to serve the status quo - the opponents of ballot access - those who do not wish to be challenged - those who do not want to give voters a choice.
So having a crew of lawyers find fault with each petition of candidacy might satisfy those who believe that The Law is most important. However, those of us who understand that The Law is not as important as The Spirit, see this process as destroying The Intention behind Democracy and Elections.
Under no circumstances should we allow incumbants to go unchallenged. The idea that incumbants use this system to keep opponents off the ballot to run unopposed is immoral. These incumbants are not only unfriendly to Democracy, they are sacrificing Democracy; poisoning it with voter cycnicism that lasts generations. It is no wonder many have given up and demand term limits, no longer believing in Democracy.
Money is not the root of evil, but evil people are using it to destroy our government. They are using it to fund multi-million dollar smear campaigns, and fund legal buzzards to attack opponents. It is no wonder many have given up and demand limits on campaign funding, no longer believing in Democracy.
As long as we let lawyers set the tone and limits on something as important as our elections and campaigns, the further our elections and campaigns are dragged down from the potential the spirit of Democracy offers.
NO, politics ain't beanbags - but it shouldn't be the Second Coming of Pol Pot either.
It takes only 50 signatures to run for any sort of library or school board (elementary, high schools, even community college districts) and even park districts or village boards only require a very few percent of the last elections vote totals.
Chicago mayoral candidates and a few other large cities might have a pretty steep signature minimum, but it's a rarity for the 'burbs and other locales to ever require more than a base of 1,000 signatures.
With 3 months at their disposal anyone can collect that quantity even without help. A dedicated candidate and/or volunteer can easily collect about 200-300 signatures a week. Might take some time and destroy a few frozen pens, but it's emminently doable.
Chicago's requirement for Mayor is the highest of any democratic city in the world. Even after it was cut in half last year from 25,000 to 12,500.
Independent candidates for the General Assembly face the highest requirement of any democratic jurisdiction in the world also.
All historical evidence shows that if Illinois reduced ballot access requirements we would NOT have a "clutter" problem. Most states have MUCH easier requirements than Illinois and do NOT have ballot "clutter". Of course we can and should reduce requirements.
In fact, the GA may be forced to lower them pretty soon. Lisa Madigan asked for the full 7th Circuit to re-hear Lee v. Keith and they turned her down last week and upheld their original 3-0 ruling that says Illinois election laws are unconstitutional. We'll see if Lisa wants to waste any more of our money and her office's resources appealing the worst ballot access laws in the world to the US Supreme Court.
If she does, she will lose again and her daddy will have to change the laws. If she doesn't her daddy will have to change the laws.
As for the challenge business in Illinois, it's completely arbitrary and ridiculous and needs to be reformed. We should institute filing fees as an alternative to signatures, reduce the # of signatures and automatically check everyone's signatures by sample then full if needed. We also need to increase the petitioning period to at least 180 days. I'm game for any ideas to get rid of the whole challenge process and cottage industry for lawyers.
"All elections shall be free and equal." - Illinois Constitution Article III, Section 3.
Here's a better question or five. Why don't Illinois politicians obey the Illinois Constitution and make the requirements equal for all candidates? Why is Lisa Madigan trying to defend the worst ballot access requirements in the world? Why are the Democrats so afraid of political competition? If you can't trust your politicians to hold free and equal elections, what can you trust them with?
If you haven't noticed, it is the bi-partisan-combine (not just Dems) that supports the most restrictive laws ... and that is why IL has a combine and states with looser laws don't.
Some ideas? Have just one campaign finance law: An official, interactive internet site where the candidate files everything. No filing at an incumbent's office.
Full disclosure of all personal and political income from ALL sources for the past 5 years, including original source of money funneled through intermediaries. Complete IRS forms for 5 years.
Full disclosure of all real, personal and intellectual property in which one has an interest.
The same for immediate family and political associates.
The same full disclosure for all political advocacy groups and their officers.
The internet would have software behind it that would check the information for consistency. Candidate x says he got $1,000 from the township committeeman. Did the township committeeman say that he gave it? etc.
The discrepancies would be posted by the software for public viewing. The parties involved could then respond to the posted discrepancies.
Still require petition signatures, filed on the internet. The software checks the validity of the signatures. That way, everyone is held equally to the same standard.
I agree with Jeff, if a person can't collect signatures, he doesn't deserve to run. It is not that hard.
OPTION B.
Eliminate half of the government bodies ... and eliminate their role in society without it being replaced by others. That way, the few elected officials left will get more public attention. The non-government sector will fill the void.
With 10 chains of private fitnes centers, plus private martial arts schools, private dance schools, etc, why do we need park districts that compete with these private providers? Often the park districts provide inferior service at a much higher total price when you consider that if their facilities were on the tax rolls, they too would be contributing to school funding and not sucking at the tax payers pocket.
I prefer that we have election rules, and that potential candidates follow them. It clearly ain't impossible, since we end up with ballots-full of candidates for every major election.
I figure four to six choices on a primary ballot is about right (in an "vote for one" situation).
Let's raise the signature threshold, but allow the top four signature getters on the ballot.
If the incumbent is running and only three opposition candidates file, they would all appear on the ballot as long as they had at least one valid signature.
If five or more candidates filed then all the candidates who achieved the higher threshold would appear on the ballot. Or the top four signature getters.
How's that for a reasonable compromise between allowing candidates on the ballot and keeping it clutter free?
BTW, complaints about clutter seem at odds with our theory of elections in Illinois. Illinois has a ridiculous amount of offices on the ballot. If you want to remove the clutter from the ballot, let's shorten the number of offices elected.
Or at least assume judges are automatically retained unless someone gets sigs to have them removed from office.
I would put some serious cash behind a software company that can electronically match signatures, as the major credit card issuers have been trying for years and can't get it done.
Your disclosure program is essentially a huge database and as such, more feasible (my blog Partner "Accenture" would know more about that) but would cost a ton of money to write and customize.
I think the remainder of both of your options, especially reducing the ridiculous number of government bodies in Illinois, has a lot of merit. Current economic disclosure for elected and appointed officials is very inadequate. (Exhibit A: "The Check.")
The rules are not hidden and they are not difficult. In fact, if you file on the first day and your documents are not complete the Board will tell you and you still have a week to get your act together.
This is not a conspiracy - it is an example of people who can't follow a half page of rules.