Bush still not on the ballot in Illinois

[Dookus]

according to CNN just a few minutes ago. The Republican Party will likely ask a federal judge to allow him on the ballot.

Since I just read a big thread the other day in which many people said that Dems shouldn't challenge Nader getting on the ballot on as many states as possible, should I presume they all believe that we should stretch the law for Bush, too?

[No2W2004]

1. Bush will get on the ballot

not that it will do him any good in Illinois :) Shrubco has pretty much written off that particular state.

[benburch]

2. The Illinois Libertarian Party will likely challenge this.

This is a "State's Rights" issue, after all.

We in Illinois have the right to determine when you must accept your party's nomination to get on the ballot. Bush and the RNC decided to hold a cynical convention in NYC to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, and they knew in advance what Illinois Law required.

The Dems in this state are playing all nice-nice, even though they have not pushed through the legislation granting Bush a special exemption to Illinois Law, they will not challenge in court. (And it would not look good if they did.)

However, the LP (I used to be one, believe it or not) has a lot to gain by this; With no Bush on the ballot, they will absolutely garner enough votes to be assured a ballot spot next election without the usual GOP signature challenge crap. The GOP has been unrelenting to the LP in this state about keeping them off the ballot! And this is payback time. I wish them luck.

I have absolutely no desire to see a Bush on any ballot ever again. And this is the start.

[Walt Starr]

3. It also hurts the GOP next election

It raises the bar for them to get a presidential nominee on the ballot in 2008.

Add to that the humiliation factor of not being leigible to run for the office of president in one of the fifty states, and this would be a major loss for the Bush regime.

[benburch]

4. Here is the Illinois LP press release on the matter

< This is a press release, not a copyright work, BTW >

Illinois LP demands that Republicans abide by election law - LP NEWS



http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/illinois-ballot-access.html

Under Illinois law, President Bush should not be allowed to run for re-election on the Republican ticket in that state, says Illinois Libertarian Party Executive Director Jeff Trigg. Trigg is trying to convince state election officials either to uphold the law by keeping Bush off the ballot or to change the law to eliminate the obstacles for all candidates.

By law, the deadline for the Illinois board of elections to certify names for the ballot is 67 days prior to the general election. That deadline this year is Aug. 27.

And the Republican nomination of Bush (or another candidate) will not occur until Sept. 1 -- at the GOP's national convention in New York City -- so it will be too late, according to state law, for a presidential candidate to run as a Republican.

"They need to live by the rules which they wrote," Trigg said. "They made their bed and now they must lie in it by petitioning to get on the ballot just like they require of us."

Bush should have made sure his party's convention was held before the Illinois deadline, Trigg continued. Since that didn't occur, either Bush should be included on the ballot as an independent -- as the law allows -- or the law should be changed for all political parties.

Since April, 2003, the Illinois Board of Elections has been looking at ways the Republicans could either circumvent the law or that the law could be changed, he noted -- adding that in November, 2003, a bill that would have changed the deadline was defeated in the state House because it would have also forgiven about $1 million in campaign-related fines, mostly against Democrat campaign committees.

Then, on March 25, the state Senate unanimously approved a bill that would allow candidates from only the two major political parties to be nominated after the filing deadline, while leaving the requirements the same for all other candidates.

"This doesn't change the deadline; it just lets them ignore it for 2004," Trigg said. "To write this into our law just for one candidate and just for one election is nothing less than favoritism and a mockery of the principles of democracy."

Republicans knew about the deadline in Illinois before they set their convention date, but "deliberately ignored the rule of law and arrogantly expected the law to be changed just for them," Trigg said.

In a March 30 press conference, while demanding that the Illinois House and Governor Blagojevich reject Senate Bill 2123, Trigg also asked that the Legislature lower the petition signature requirements for independent and minor party candidates.

The Republicans and Democrats have written the law to make access extremely difficult for third-party candidates. For example, in the race for U.S. House District 1, the Republicans need 196 signatures to get on the ballot, while "new parties" and independents need 9,793 signatures, he said.

In neighboring states -- Missouri and Wisconsin -- 10,000 signatures "would allow a political party to run for every partisan office in the state, so our demand is more than reasonable," Trigg said.

"In fact, with two-thirds of all General Assembly races unopposed in 2004, Illinois should be copying those states' election laws so more voters in Illinois will actually have a choice on the ballot."

Current state law will force the Libertarian Party to collect about 50,000 petition signatures in 90 days just to run for the president and U.S. Senate seats, making Illinois's restrictive ballot access one of the worst in the nation, Trigg said.

Libertarians running in Illinois races in 2002 got enough votes that in 39 other states they would automatically have "established party" status, with full access to all partisan races.

Instead, due to the restrictive laws, Libertarians will spend thousands of hours collecting signatures for ballot access -- forcing "money and volunteer effort to be spent on getting on the ballot instead of educating voters and promoting candidates and policies," Trigg said.

And it gets even worse, he noted.

In 1998, then Secretary of State George Ryan, who was running for governor, used employees in his office on the petition challenge that knocked Libertarian candidates off the ballot. He was recently indicted for improper use of state resources.

"The Republicans have shown they will even break the laws … in order to remove us from the ballot, so they need to live by the laws they create without getting special rights," Trigg said.

[benburch]

9. I just dispatched an email to the chair of the Illinois LP

asking about their legal plans on this matter.

I will report what he replies.

[benburch]

40. Here is the reply from the vice-chair of the Illinois LP

Ben,

We are seriously looking into it. It may depend on finding a lawyer
knowledgable enough about this that is also willing to do it free, as all
our money and resources at this point are being used to get signatures so
our candidates are on the ballot. We are reaching out to others, such as
Nader, to see if we can work together on this.

But isn't that something. We have to get 25,000 valid signatures (40,000
total) in 90 days to put our Presidential candidate on the ballot, while
their ONLY requirement is to nominate their candidate before the deadline.
They can't even do that without then expecting the laws which they wrote to
be ignored just for them. I wish the media would start taking that angle to
the story. I letter to the editor of your paper about this would be very
helpful also if you are inclined.

Thanks for the suggestion and I hope we can figure something out on this.

Be Free,
Jeff Trigg
--------- end of letter -------
My comment;

Any good Democratic lawyers out there willing to help the Illinois LP monkeywrench W on this occasion?

[damnraddem]

15. I so many GOPers are against Kerry's delaying his nomination ...

in order to save his fed money for the same campaign period that Dubya will have, they must also be against changing the Illinois rules in mid-stream, just so Dubya can delay his nominating convention -- right?

;-)

[benburch]

17. Kerry would have the same issue with Illinois Law

And would expect to, if he delayed acceptance past the deadline.

The GOP knew this law up front. It is pure arrogance for them to try to set it aside in federal court. If they can do this, then no state election law is worth the paper it is written on.

[Dookus]

27. The illinois law

iirc, has August 27th as the cutoff date. I think even if Kerry delayed his acceptance, he had planned to do so in late august (perhaps for this very reason).

[benburch]

37. Exactly.

Kerry respects Illinois Law.

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Really, it won't be worth the Republicans' effort.

They aren't even running ads here in IL.

[benburch]

6. Nor is Kerry.

He leads here by over a dozen points right now with zero campaigning.

[Walt Starr]

7. The humiliation factor is the problem

Being absent from a state in the heartland would not play well on the nightly news.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. Heya, Walt!

Will you be more optimistic if IL is bushless? (teasing)

[Walt Starr]

11. Yes, I will!

It'll show me that at least for once, election laws will have to be followed by the evil regime currently holding power.

:D

[Joanne98]

28. Humiliating Bush is my favorite dream.

He could get disrespected by a whole state. His "will" is everything.

[mantis49]

35. Yes, they are running ads in IL.

I live in western IL and I see way too many. Our stations are watched in IA and MO. My sister lives in Belleville, IL (a St. Louis suburb,) and she is also seeing plenty of them.

[iconoclastic cat]

44. Wow, I haven't seen a single one in Chicago,

and I watch WAY too much television.

[supercrash]

45. Not true!

I am in Chicago

See Bush adds all the time

[Alpha Wolf]

10. Hold you horses folks...

We just fought long and hard on the other side of this issue in New Jersey.

[Walt Starr]

13. Different cases entirely

and different elections laws. Not to mention different states.

[Dookus]

14. Well

it was slightly different in New Jersey. The question was not whether a Democratic candidate appeared on the ballot - it was WHICH candidate appeared: the one who was running, or the one who had dropped out.

That being said, I'm not even expressing a position on whether Bush should be allowed on the ballot in Illinois. I'm asking whether all the people who believe we should accommodate Ralph Nader believe we should do the same for Bush, regardless of what the law says.

[benburch]

22. In that case...

a nominated candidate died. This is the sort of "act of god" that the courts exist to sort out.

In this case, a national party thumbed its nose at long-standing Illinois Law, hoping to bully its way onto the ballot anyway.

I see them as totally different occasions, and I hope that the Federal courts will notice the difference as well.

[Dookus]

24. No...

Toricelli didn't die. He dropped out.

You may be thinking of Minnesota, where Wellstone died just days before the election.

[benburch]

25. I misremebered.

Should have checked my facts before posting.

Still, quite different.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Torricelli didn't die.

But given a choice of him or Wellstone, that would be a no-brainer.

[Alpha Wolf]

47. The candidate didn't die...

He was losing big time and dropped out of the race so he could be replaced by another Democrat with better chances-- long after the date for getting one's name on the ballot. It went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

I think you are thinking of Missouri-- when Mel Carnahan died running for Senate, so his wife ran in his stead.

[indigo32]

12. Snicker

Way to go...
really looks like they care about Illinois doesn't it. Nice message to send.

[iconoclastic cat]

16. Especially in my neighborhood, I'd like to see anyone try to walk down the

street in a pro-bush t-shirt. You wouldn't last ten minutes without being aggressively heckled.

[Walt Starr]

19. I live in inbreeder country

Heavily Repuke in my neck of the woods.

[Walt Starr]

20. I live in inbreeder country

Heavily Repuke in my neck of the woods.

[The Magistrate]

18. With Any Luck, Mr. Dookus

The wretched reptile will remain off the ballot. The deadline of the law is clear, and his handlers knew, or ought to have known, what it was when they chose to delay the Republican convention. Any change to the law is currently tied up in the Legislature: the Democrats control that, but lack the three-fifths majority for action in extended session, and have Christmas-Treed the extension proposal with many things the Republicans would rather die than see pass; the Republicans insist they will not vote for an extension with these riders, and the Democrats will not vote for a bill of extension only. Springfield is a marvelous zoo!

"Politics ain't bean-bag."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[never cry wolf]

21. It's more than just bunnypants

If bush* is not on the ballot, it becomes an off-year election for the repubs. Turn out is typically much lower in non-presidential election years. There are those that only come out every 4 years and may skip this one, to the benefit of Obama and all our rep candidates, not to mention all the other lesser posts.

[benburch]

23. And I cannot think that's a bad thing!

We'll sweep Illinois anyway, but if we could do so more cheaply, the money could go to the Red State races!

[never cry wolf]

30. We'll sweep prez and senate but...

as far as the house races, shrubbie not being on the ballot could help quite a bit. I live in the 8th Dist. where Melissa Bean is taking on the sonambulistic, alcoholic, incumbent Crane. If 10% of the repugs in my district take a pass on voting because their boy king ain't on the ballot, that could be enough to do it.

[iconoclastic cat]

31. sonambulistic?

ROFLMAO

[terrya]

32. I'd love to see Phil Crane defeated this year.

And here's someone from Chicago who hopes Ms. Bean wins.

[never cry wolf]

39. Did you know Jan Schakowski is helping her out?

I believe she will be campaigning and donating from her own re-election fund for Missy Bean because Jan does not have a repg opponent.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

26. they should be consistant

all the dems trying to keep ralph off the ballot and force progressives to vote for kerry shouls be spending just as much time trying to keep bush off the ballot. instead, the democratic party changed the rules in the states where bush's late convention would be too late for the ballot deadlines.

here in wv, a democratic legislature changed the rules to enable bush's 9-11 exploitationfest/convention. not a word from the anti-nader activists, newspaper columnists, or anyone else.

[terrya]

29. I'm just hoping this will somehow help Barack Obama in the Senate race.

I don't know if it will, but...

[benburch]

34. Obama doesn't seem to need help.

Ryan is damaged goods.

His divorce (rumored to involve group sex allegations and other stuff) records are still sealed, but I expect the details WILL get to a hungry press by election time.

[JayS]

36. I think we should FIGHT HARD to get Bush on the ballot in Illinois

...after the election. :)

[AmericanErrorist]

38. Who cares?

Everybody knows that IL is a safe Kerry state.

[Dookus]

41. well

as others have pointed out, it matters for the down-ticket races, for future Republican candidates in Illinois and for voter turnout.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anybody to take the bait - all the Naderites who believe we should do what we can to accommodate getting him on the ballot in the name of "democracy". I wondered how they felt about accommodating Bush in the same way.

[Padraig18]

42. I'm an Illinoisan, and SCREW BUSH!

Our law is crystal-clear; if he f*cked, up, that's not MY state's fault!

:grr:

[benburch]

43. Amen, brother!

Know any lawyers who might help the Illinois Libertarians (see letter above) monkeywrench Bush?

[Yupster]

46. He'll get on the ballot

On the other hand, if he is competitive in Illinois, it will mean he doesn't need to win there anyway because he'll be sweeping the rest of the country.