Illinois Senate Unanimously Overrides Gubernatorial Veto of HB 723

On October 30, the Illinois Senate voted unanimously to override Governor Pat Quinn’s veto of HB 723. Thus, the bill becomes law. It makes it more difficult for ballot-qualified parties to nominate candidates, after the February primary (the nation’s earliest Congressional primary in history) is over. Existing law lets ballot-qualified parties nominate by party meeting, if the primary didn’t produce a nominee. The new law still permits this, but says such nominees need a petition.

Most observers feel the bill was motivated by the fact that the Green Party became a fully-qualified party in November 2006. Major party legislators in Illinois are not accustomed to having a qualified party on the ballot (other than the Democratic and Republican Parties), and they are certainly not accustomed to having minor party or independent candidates running against them. The only parties, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, that have been fully ballot-qualified in the last 80 years have been the Green Party currently, and the Illinois Solidarity Party 1986-1990.

The petition for unqualified parties to run candidates for the legislature is 5% of the last vote cast, so generally, during the last 70 years, there have been very few minor party candidates on the general election ballot for legislature.

Candidates for Illinois primaries need petitions to get on the primary ballot, and those petitions are due November 2, 2009, for the 2010 elections.


Comments

Illinois Senate Unanimously Overrides Gubernatorial Veto of HB 723 — 15 Comments

  1. As an Illinois resident, let me give you my take on this.

    This is less about the Green Party and its efforts to become a state qualified party than it is about ending the outrage of lifelong politicians running in the primary–winning–then withdrawing and naming their son/daughter to the ticket to take their place. There have been several egrarious examples in the last couple of elections that have been pretty blatant.
    e.g. Bill Lipinski running in the 3rd Congressional Dist primary, winning, then dropping out of the race and having the party committee name his son as their candidate. This law will make that somewhat harder.
    Another: John Stroger as Cook County Board President suffers a debilitating stroke just before a hotly contested primary. His true medical condition is hid until he wins the primary, then he resigns his candidacy and the party bosses get together to name his son as his successor. Again the existing law was used as a path to get sons/daughters into office without actually having to go through any of the hurdles necessary.
    The list goes on–Emil Jones Jr, Bobbi Steele, Bill Beavers and so on.
    Changing the law makes it a bit more difficult for career Illinois politicians to drop their kids into their offices–however this being Illinois, I’m sure the politicians have already found a way around the law.

  2. From the sound of things it appears there are a few “monarchists” in Illinois! Not only do they hold office by “divine right” they can even pass it on to their children! What a concept.

  3. Sounds like the Congressmen Shuster in PA a few years back. Long time incumbent father wins reelection in November then retires in January after being sworn in, so the Republican Party Leadership can name his son as their candidate in the secial election to fill the vacancy. No Primary needed.

  4. Train111, your argument still maintains the two-party monopoly. And just as Tom points out, the big two will find a way around the law.

    Give the 3rd & indie parties a chance to compete…

  5. Illinois permits write-in candidates in primaries.

    And there is no reason that a party could not organize the vacancy meetings like a convention open to the party membership at large, and then after the committeemen have chosen the nominee have the attendees sign the petition.

  6. Let me provide the history since it is my bill that has become law. When I first ran for the Illinois General Assembly in 2006 there was no Democrat on the primary ballot, but two months later an opponent was slated against me. Many people told me that they thought it was unfair that I had worked hard to get signatures for my primary but my opponent got on only by selection by the party chair. This was before and unrelated to the Green party qualifying as an established party later that same year.

    In 2007 I did some research into recent Illinois elections and found that this process was not proving a path to election. No one for the last few elections had won in the General Assembly without the party getting signatures for a candidate prior to a primary. When a party had won through slating after a primary it was because the primary winner for that party who did get signatures on a petition dropped out after the primary and was replaced with a slated candidate. It made sense to me that a candidate or party who got signatures was making contact with voters and naturally seemed more likely to succeed in the November election.

    In February 2008 I filed HB 5263 to require slated established party candidates to get signatures when no one had filed and ran in the primary. The intent was to insure that all parties had to demonstrate support the signatures on a petition. That year I did face a Green Party opponent who was placed on the ballot by slating, but that slating happened a couple of months after I had filed by bill, so the Green Party had no influence on the contents of my bill.

    The 2008 bill passed the House but was hung up in the Senate, as were many bills that year due to infighting between the chambers. In 2009 I refiled the bill as HB 723. The Senate passed it this year with amendments that eased signature requirements for the parties after the primary, and I agreed with those changes. As amended that is the bill that became law today.

  7. Nice work, Mike! How about easing up on ballot access requirements to encourage more people to participate? Just a wild random thought.

  8. According to a brand new book “Reforming State Legislative Elections” by Professor William Salka, Illinois has the 5th least competitive legislative elections of any state in the country. The chart is on page 115. The only less competitive states are Arkansas, South Carolina, New Mexico and Massachusetts. I’ll be reviewing this book in the Dec. 1 2009 Ballot Access News.

  9. P.R. and nonpartisan A.V.

    ALL 50 State legislatures are currently ANTI-Democracy (i.e. monarchy – oligarchy) gerrymander regimes — as corrupt as anything in Europe in 1776 — with its EVIL hereditary regimes of kings, nobles, etc.

    Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule.

    Much worse due to primary math — i.e. the leftwing / rightwing special interest gangs picking the extremist nominees — of whom about 97 percent automatically win in general elections in the mostly one party safe seat rigged gerrymander districts.

    i.e. basically rigged elections in all State legislatures and in the gerrymander Congress.

    Armies of media MORONS, law school profs and polisci profs on the subject.

  10. This is an excellent story. Thank you for this.

    Glad to see the State Rep stop by site.

    This is a horrible law. It makes it more difficult to be on the ballot as a candidate.

    That is NOT healthy for democracy, the Republic, or citizen voices.

    The noble thing to do is get rid of such laws.

    Expand participation.

  11. Rep. Fortner, as a resident of Wheaton and one of your former constituents until I moved a few blocks east last year, it makes me sad to hear this bill chronically misrepresented by you and your Senate sponsor Terry Link.

    I watched the floor proceedings on this bill, and when it was discussed on the floor and in the hearings, it was always presented as making the slating requirements THE SAME as the pre-primary requirements. That’s blatantly false.

    Before the primary, candidates have 90 days to collect the signatures. In your original bill, that time period was shortened to 60 days, and it was only lengthened to 75 days after Green Party members testified in a Senate hearing and called you out on it. This still falls short of the 90 days. What’s also unclear is when the petitioning period can actually begin, because the newly elected committee can’t meet until one month after the primary. The law is unclear as to whether the slating can be made by the old committee (elected in 2008) or the new committee (elected at the 2010 primary), although if it can only be done by the new committee, then the signature gathering time is really only 45 days instead of 75 days.

    In your introduction of the bill in the veto session, you alluded to technical changes that need to be made as suggested by the Board of Elections, and suggested that these will be addressed in a follow up bill. This admission proves that your bill is flawed and not very well thought through, and will jeopardize the legitimacy of any candidate that gets slated.

  12. Honorable, Rep. Fortner,

    So you say this legislation was required to fix a problem you say you saw in our elections. OK, fine, if we accept that, then here is another problem you have ignored in Illinois much, much more important than this one, Mr. Fortner.

    In Illinois, no independent candidates for the General Assembly have been able to get onto the ballot since 1980. It’s been 30 years Mr. Fortner. Is that a problem that needs to be fixed Mr. Fortner? What have you done about that problem Mr. Fortner?

    Mr. Fortner, why is it harder to run for office in Illinois under YOUR laws as an independent than it is in Iran or Iraq?

    Mr. Fortner, why does your legislation look like it was written by Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

    State Representative Mike Fortner of Illinois writes election law legislation that would make petty dictators and communist party bosses proud.

    I can’t wait until the history books 80 years from now show a picture of Rep. Fortner as an example of an anti-democratic lawmaker that wrote anti-democratic laws for the sole purpose of discriminating against political minorities. Rep. Fortner will be a poster boy for the era when the Democratic Party completely gave up believing in democracy.

    History will look at Mr. Fortner and the election laws during his time and judge Mr. Fortner as being little different than Rod Blagojevich or George Ryan. Mr. Fortner’s great-grandchildren will be shamed knowing that their forefather held such ignorant and hateful and discriminatory positions on the issue of free and equal elections. Mr. Fortner is embarrassing the entire future of his family.

    STATE REPRESENATATIVE MIKE FORTNER OF ILLINOIS
    SUPPORTS DISCRIMINATORY ELECTION LAWS THAT WOULD MAKE IRAN AND IRAQ PROUD! I will make sure his grandchildren and their grandchildren know that.

  13. State Representative Mike Fortner,

    If YOUR legislation is ruled in the courts as being unconstitutional, like Lee v. Keith, will you resign from the Democratic Party for failing to adhere to their principles of democracy, and resign from the Illinois House for failing to protect and defend the Constitution as you took an oath to do?

    I’d suggest a real man of character would make that promise. Writing legislation and getting it passed that ATTACKS and DESTROYS our Constitution is what you have done Mr. Fortner, and it will be remembered long past your expiration date UNLESS you fight to restore your honor and integrity now. Otherwise, history will know you as a power-hungry fool that discriminates against human beings different from you.

  14. #11 Prior to the primary, candidates are not running with the official backing of the party, and may be competing for signatures. For example, there are 3 declared Green candidates in CD 2, and it is almost a year before the election.

    During the primary, your poll workers may be able to identify party affiliants as they vote. After the primary, you will have the newly elected committeemen from across the district, whether it is congressional or legislative, and there is no reason that the rank and file party members could not be invited to these meetings as well. You have a great organizing opportunity. Assuming you actually want to win elections, rather than simply to qualify in order to qualify in order to qualify …, you welcome this legislation.

  15. A couple of posts seem to suggest that this law will make it harder for independents to get on the ballot. If you look at the law as originally filed, you will see that the language would make the Democrats and Republicans live under the exact same standards as independents both in terms of the number of signatures and the time needed to collect them.

    In the Senate there were objections to the fact that the petition signature requirements for the major parties would then be higher after the primary than before the primary so they reduced them by amendment and changed the timeline as well. Since the amendment put the requirements for major parties closer to the requirements for independents, I agreed to the amendment. As I noted in my presentation of the bill I support reducing the independent’s signature requirements to match that of the established parties.

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.