Interactive List of General Assembly Filing Objections Now Available Online...

Chicago, Illinois – March 2, 2011 – Early last week, Rep. James Watson (R-97^th) filed an explosive statewide ballot reform measure, with the Illinois House Clerk; aimed at wiping away the expensive “blood sport” otherwise known as nominating petitions. This bill, as proposed, would require a simple filing fee of 1% of a public office’s annual salary, in lieu of the current requirement that potential candidates gather and submit hundreds, thousands, and for statewide Constitutional officers, like the Comptroller, Treasurer, or Governor, tens of thousands of voter signatures.

Almost as soon as candidates’ petitions are filed with local elections’ boards, as the system exists now, incumbent and establishment-backed candidates are already digging through those documents, looking for any line item, or signature, that they can invalidate, and, of course, remove. The eventual goal in this tedious process, is to reduce the amount of voter signatures below the legal threshold, and strip the candidate’s name from the ballot ahead of the election.

In recent weeks, voters have had a unique opportunity to learn about election law in Illinois; with Chicago Mayoral candidate, Rahm Emanuel, being tossed from the ballot by an Illinois Appellate Court, and then reinstated by the Illinois Supreme Court. But it shouldn’t take a regular household name, like a former White House Chief of Staff, to make Illinoisans aware that the law, as it exists today, is not working to the best interest of voters.

Journalists, columnists, political insiders, and incumbent politicians, especially members of the Illinois General Assembly, however, have known about the downfalls of our chaotic electoral process, if it can even be called a “process,” for years.

More than anyone in Illinois, members of the General Assembly have been affected by this problem; yet have continued to allow the current election code to stand, while benefiting from it at the voters’ expense:

To view an interactive list of objections filed in the 2010 Illinois House election cycle: click here.

To view an interactive list of objections filed in the 2010 Illinois Senate election cycle: click here.

Jay Rowell, head of the Senate Democratic Committee, viewed the petitions, or copies of the petitions, of every single Senate Republican candidate ahead of the General Primary; where Rowell is hardly just a concerned citizen with an eye on the execution of the rule of law. Instead, his job is to dig through the petitions of the opposing parties, and look for an excuse, any excuse, to use to challenge that person’s candidacy before the next election.

Watson’s bill, HB2854, could, however, force attorneys, like Rowell, to spend their time doing something more productive.

To view Rowell’s petition viewing activities: click here.

In the meanwhile, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s spokesperson, Steve Brown, is already calling HB2854 a move to “pay-to-play.”

My findings, based on the compilation of public records from the Illinois State Board of Elections, conclude otherwise; and I’d like for Mr. Brown, or Speaker Madigan, to prove me wrong….

There are 118 Illinois House “seats”; 24 (20%) of which were uncontested in the last election cycle. 94 “seats” (80%) were contested in the last election cycle, which included the 2010 General Primary [election] and 2010 General Election.

Next Cycle Objective: to contest 100% of district “seats” in the next election, including the recruitment and selection of candidates in the 3^rd, 8^th, 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, 24^th, 25^th, 28^th, 30^th, 31^st, 33^rd, 34^th, 38^th, 52^nd, 73^rd, 76^th, 80^th, 83^rd, 88^th, 93^rd, 97^th, 106^th, and 111^th districts [which were uncontested in 2010].

Out of 59 Illinois Senate “seats,” 21 elections were held in the 2010 election cycle. Out of 21, 18 “seats” (86%) were contested in the last election cycle, which included the 2010 General Primary [election] and 2010 General Election. The remaining three “seats” (14%) were uncontested.

Next Cycle Objective: to contest 100% of district “seats” in the next election, including the recruitment and selection of candidates in the 4^th, 16^th, and 37^th districts [which were uncontested in 2010].

House General Primary Election Findings:

Out of 118 Illinois House “seats,” three parties held primary elections in 2010: Republicans, Democrats, and Greens. Altogether, 118 x 3 = 354 contested elections were possible. But only 35 were contested in the General Primary, leaving 319 uncontested; 201 uncontested among the major two parties, Democrats and Republicans.

Synopsis: Objections were filed in 14 out of 24 competitive Democratic primaries (58%). Similarly, Objections filed in eight out of 11 competitive Republican primaries (73%).

Problem:With only 35 contested primary elections, 29 candidacy petition objections were filed. This problem significantly impacts the number of choices voters had in the General Primary.

Example: Four objections, against four candidates, were filed in the Democratic General Primary election for the 32^nd House District “seat.”

Not counting candidates that ran unopposed, 106 total candidates faced a challenger in the General Primary. And out of this pool of candidates, 27% had objections filed against them; while only 73% ran unimpeded.

House General Election Findings:

Out of 118 Illinois House “seats,” only 80 were contested in the General Primary, leaving 38 “seats” uncontested.

Problem: Objections were filed in 22 out of 80 competitive elections (27.5%). Conversely, only 72.5% of General Election candidates were allowed to run for office unimpeded.

These objections create fewer choices for voters in the General Election.

Example #1: Two objections, one each against two candidates, were filed in the 78^th district General Election.

Example #2: Two objections, one each against two candidates, were filed in the 86^th district General Election.

Not counting candidates that ran unopposed, 176 total candidates faced a challenger in the General Primary. And out of this pool of candidates, 12.5% had objections filed against them; while only 87.5% ran unimpeded.

Here’s how the objections break down, across party lines:

Objections filed against 6 Republicans

Objections filed against 6 Independents

Objections filed against 4 Democrats

Objections filed against 3 Libertarians

Objections filed against 1 Green

Objections filed against 1 Conservative

Objections filed against 1 Independent Conservative

Senate General Primary Election Findings:

Out of 59 Illinois Senate “seats,” three parties held primary elections in 2010: Republicans, Democrats, and Greens. Unlike the House, however, only 21 of those “seats” were up for election in this cycle.

Altogether, 21 x 3 = 63 contested elections were possible. But only seven were contested in the General Primary, leaving 56 uncontested; 35 uncontested among the major two parties, Democrats and Republicans.

Synopsis: Objections were filed in two out of four competitive Democratic primaries (50%). Similarly, Objections were filed in one out of three competitive Republican primaries (33.3%).

Problem:With only 7 contested primary elections, 6 candidacy petition objections were filed. This problem significantly impacts the number of choices voters had in the General Primary.

Example: three objections, against three candidates, were filed in the Democratic General Primary election for the 10^th Senate District.

Not counting candidates that ran unopposed, 17 total candidates faced a challenger in the General Primary. And out of this pool of candidates, 35% had objections filed against them; while only 65% ran unimpeded.

Senate General Election Findings:

Out of 59 Illinois Senate “seats,” only 21 of those “seats” were up for election in this cycle; and only 16 were contested in the General Election.

Problem: Objections were filed in four out of 16 competitive elections (25%). Conversely, only 75% of General Election candidates were allowed to run for office unimpeded.

These objections create fewer choices for voters in the General Election.

Example #1: two objections, one each against two candidates, were filed in the 43^rd Senate District general election.

Not counting candidates that ran unopposed, 33 total candidates faced a challenger in the General Primary. And out of this pool of candidates, 12% had objections filed against them; while only 88% ran unimpeded.

Here’s how the objections break down, across party lines:

Objections filed against 2 Republicans

Objections filed against 1 Conservative

Objections filed against 1 Independent Conservative

Objections filed against 0 Democrats

Objections filed against 0 Independents

Objections filed against 0 Libertarians

Objections filed against 0 Green