RRSTAR.COM
Posted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s just drop all pretenses that we still live in a democracy. Let the two major parties pick the
people they want us to vote for and be done with it.
It still would be better than the old
At least we’d have two people to vote for instead of just one.
How else can we interpret the slew of petition challenges and candidates being kicked off the
ballot for, among other things, daring to vote in the other party’s primary?
Voting for good people if they’re not part of your clique must be a mortal sin.
At least one candidate had the gall — the nerve of the guy — to use a paper clip instead of a
staple to keep his petitions together.
This nonsense is why good candidates prefer to sit out elections. Voters are denied
choices because the political parties are more intent on winning their little games
than they are giving citizens options when they step inside a voting booth.
If you don’t bleed blue enough, you’re not a real Democrat. If you bleed the wrong shade of
red, you’re not a real Republican.
Oh, we’re sure that party hacks will call or e-mail us and tell us that rules are rules and exist
for a reason. It seems to us the reason is to keep the two-party status quo intact and to
continue to have a handful of people dictate decisions for the majority.
We’ll hear that if a candidate can’t fill out simple paperwork we can’t expect the candidate
to review budgets and make decisions for constituents. We’ll also hear that the rules help to
keep flakes and impostors off the ballot, but we’ve seen enough of those that we’d say the
rules have failed to do that.
Getting valid signatures on a nominating petition is not a trivial matter. If a candidate can’t
get enough signatures, he or she is in no way qualified to continue the process toward election.
But when paper clips — or what ballot you picked up in the last primary — are the only
reasons someone is deemed unqualified by an election board, then we have a system that is
not working. That’s especially true when the election board has members who have had past
feuds with the candidates deemed unworthy.
This silly game has spread from a few instances to every election, almost every race.
The game is played in all areas of the
It’s a game that will never end and a game that will only have losers, not winners.
==============================
A comment from Ed Langley --
Some thought I may not have filed my Nominating Petition papers correctly, but I certainly
have learned much this past week.
Magic words- "Substantial compliance". I found Illinois Appellate decision saying use
of a large metal paper clip to secure 6 to 8 pages is acceptable.
I read this to the Machesney hearing board. They ignored it.
I filed 5 pages with a large metal paper clip.
The day long hearing Thursday was a HUGE WASTE of taxpayer dollars. I was there.
It could have been done properly at considerable less cost.
I have filed appeal in Winnebago Circuit Court. Let's see what a proper interpretation
of election law really is.
If I get elected I'll make a goal of watching taxpayer dollars.
I'm a retired guy with time available to devote to being Trustee.
And I genuinely care about people and issues, whatever problems with local government.
I think the next few weeks will be interesting.
~Ed Langley
Candidate for Trustee; District One;
Comments? Call Ed 815.975.4763
=================================================================
Electoral challenge system in need of modernization
By Joseph Terrell
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER STAR
Jan 24, 2009
I think we can all agree the electoral challenge system at work in our community
is in need of modernization. Recent electoral challenges demonstrate this fact.
Challenges against candidates have become petty, political tools used to control
the election process.
Even if we disagree on the issue, it is important for citizens of good character,
with differing points of view, to sit down together and discuss solutions to what
we all acknowledge is a system in dire need of improvement.
With increasing frequency, electoral challenges focus on trivial issues.
Gone are the days of isolated challenges based on fraud, deceit and damage to the
electoral process. The trend has, instead, digressed toward blatant political attacks.
To illustrate, by example, the magnitude of the problem, a candidate submitted
his nominating petition bound with a large paper clip. He had case law supporting
his position. Nonetheless, he was removed from the ballot.
Another candidate paid an outstanding expense report reimbursement
nine minutes after filing his nominating petition. He was removed from the ballot
because any money owed would have to have been paid 10 minutes earlier.
Ten minutes! The candidate’s evidence indicated the city owed him money for
other expense reports — totaling more than the amount he owed the city.
Nonetheless, he was removed from the ballot.
These examples highlight a significant vulnerability in our system of election
administration. If political enemies can use minutiae to disqualify candidates,
then we have a system that can be manipulated to keep voters from expressing
real choice in determining who will lead the community.
This practice is unfair and un-American. The Illinois Legislature and appellate
courts have attempted to end this type of shenanigans by prohibiting an electoral
board from removing candidates for any issue not representing fraud, deceit or
damage to the electoral process. This is underenforced.
We need a renewed commitment to uphold the rights of voters and protect
candidates from political assassination. Positive results require true reform.
Talking about the problem is no longer sufficient. We need action.
I am certain we all agree on the ultimate goal. An electoral system where every
voter has the right and opportunity to participate in an open, honest election.
An election truly representing the will of the people.
Additionally, I am hopeful we can all agree on a way forward that moves toward
an electoral challenge system that seats one electoral board for an entire county.
That board, consisting of licensed attorneys appointed by the chief justice of the
circuit court, would hear all challenges for candidates in the entire county.
There would still be fail-safe procedures, such as removal of members with a
conflict of interest and judicial review.
This plan would have several advantages:
- Voters would have better sense of confidence in a system free from
political influence.
- It would dramatically reduce opportunities for imposition of trivial barriers
to ballot access.
- It would significantly reduce the number of frivolous challenges.
- It would streamline, rationalize and modernize the system, ensuring that
election officials do not have to process unreasonable numbers of challenges
in the weeks and months just before an election.
I believe it would be widely supported by voters.
Whether or not we pursue this particular proposal, we need reforms that
eliminate the ability to game the system. An electoral system that strives
to “knock out” political opponents before the polls even open is a
system in which we all lose.
In a system that focuses on informing the citizens and winning them over,
voters win and democracy wins!
<===================================================================>