Today's Chicago Tribune:
The challenge to Calabrese was filed by Patrick Devaney, a local Democratic Party official who is president of a firefighters union that has donated $54,500 to the campaign of Madigan's daughter, state Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan.
The lawyer representing Devaney is Michael Kasper, the treasurer of the state Democratic Party as well as the legal specialist Madigan routinely turns to in election-law cases.
Neither Jakobsson, Devaney nor a spokesman for Madigan responded to requests for comment. Kasper denied Madigan or the party was behind the challenge, which centers on a complaint that GOP officials failed to affix their names to Calabrese's paperwork by an April 7 deadline.
Discuss.
"who is president of a firefighters union that has donated $54,500 to the campaign of Madigan's daughter"
Those union folks must really hate choice. Kudos to Frank on the article! I suspect there will be a post with the word "tank" in here shortly. : )
Union folks like choice, just not your kind of choice.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Union folks say they like choice, then lobby to eliminate choice. Standard operating procedure. It's funny that they would go so far to sue Frank from Chicago. The chicago unions are lobbying to to eliminate our choice in who we can vote for our own state rep. One more great example to demonstrate how unions like choice.
So how about when the local Republicans were lobbying to have someone removed from the County Board race? Clearly the Champaign County Republicans despise "choice" as well, therefore I expect you to vote only for the Democrats! Oh, I forgot, you're selective in your definition of "choice".-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
I'm not attracted to the practice whatsoever and will gladly go on record as saying so. I vote for both democrats and republicans. You might be able to guess what side I vote for more.
So how about when the local Republicans were lobbying to have someone removed from the County Board race? Clearly the Champaign County Republicans despise "choice" as well
When has the Champaign County GOP gone after someone from another party? I only recall local Democrats challening the petitions and candidacy of local Democrats on the County Board. Please, show us a specific example of the Champaign County GOP trying to manufacture an uncontested election on the County Board.
Go to www.frankcalabrese.com for more info
"So how about when the local Republicans were lobbying to have someone removed from the County Board race?"
Please refresh my memory - which race are you talking about here?
I mis-spoke. Comment retracted.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
"I mis-spoke. Comment retracted."
No worries. I'm sure such challenges by the Champaign County GOP have happened before, but it hasn't happened recently.
And kudos to you for being willing to retract.
I'm not 100% retracting, because I do recall at one point local Republicans worked to have candidates removed from the ballot. I read this at home over lunch, but can't remember exactly where I saw it for citation purposes now.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
"I'm not 100% retracting, because I do recall at one point local Republicans worked to have candidates removed from the ballot. I read this at home over lunch, but can't remember exactly where I saw it for citation purposes now."
Oh, I'm sure it's happened before. But I've been pretty active here for almost a decade, and I can't remember an instance, so I think it's been some time.
Individual republicans may have said that they wanted someone off the ballot but not the party in an organized way. Just like saying "Unions" would also be inaccurate, although I think that there is enough of a connection to the Democrat party to drag them in. It is interesting that the Democrat Candidate really seems to have no clue as to what's going on.
4 years ago when I was nominated for the position of Democratic Party nominee for Coroner of Champaign County, the Republican chair filed a complaint against me based upon my voting record. ( I had voted Republican at some time in the past) The election board chose to disallow the complaint and to allowed me to be on the ballot.
That was 4 years ago, not a decade ago as some have suggested.
That was 4 years ago, not a decade ago as some have suggested.
True - however, the original comment was referring to County Board races, of which the last Republican challenge to a candidacy was Patty Busboom challenging Ron Bensyl's petitions in the late 90's or 2000 - all Republicans a decade ago.
I had voted Republican at some time in the past
Mark - how quickly we forget. You voted Republican in the 2004 primary, just weeks before becoming the Democratic nominee, thus the challenge.
Those union folks must really hate choice. Kudos to Frank on the article! I suspect there will be a post with the word "tank" in here shortly. : )
He also brushes his teeth daily lending further fuel to the theory that toothbrushers hate choice. Do you brush your teeth? Do you? Do you?
Choice hater!
"4 years ago when I was nominated for the position of Democratic Party nominee for Coroner of Champaign County, the Republican chair filed a complaint against me based upon my voting record. ( I had voted Republican at some time in the past) The election board chose to disallow the complaint and to allowed me to be on the ballot.
That was 4 years ago, not a decade ago as some have suggested."
I stand corrected. In 2004 I was much too uninvolved, which is why I didn't recall this challenge.
The point had been made that the Republican Party doesnt do challenges to people on the ballot. My point was that they have in the past. I didnt realize that the posts were limited to comments about County Board races......
The real question is when is the last time the Champaign County GOP challenged the candidacy of a Democrat running in Chicago or Cook County?
Naomi any denies involvement, yet Chicago Dems are filing challenges downstate, (not on Naomi's behalf, but out of the goodness of their hearts).
What is right or wrong is not dependent upon what happened to some other guy. It is like arguing that murder is ok because someone else got away with it. Frank did nothing wrong.
The problem for Devaney is that he has not formed a political committee in violation of the same section that he complains about. Neither Jakobsen nor Madigan are permitted under the law to hide behind a 3rd party objector like Devaney. Devaney is entitled to get the information that he sought, which was a copy of a certificate showing the formation of the committee that nominated Frank signed and dated by the Chairman and Treasurer. When this was furnished to the candidate that filled the office (and Devaney's legal representative), Devaney is done. If there is a problem after that, the real parties in interest are Madigan and Jakobsen. Madigan for the dems and Jakobsen as the certified and sitting opponent. Both have denied involvement. Devaney has objected as a citizen, not as a union rep and although he has had to have expended over $3000, he has not yet formed a committee in opposition to Frank's candidacy..
There is a very good case (Brennan) that suggests that Devaney may be in for some real problems. There are some constitutional arguments that were raised by me below, that are preserved for appeal to Judge DiFnis or to the 4th district should it go beyond that. The standing of Devaney was also raised before the panel, so that issue is also preserved.
The problem for Jakobsen as I see it is that she appears like a poor representative. In the first place, no one consulted her before the objection was filed. This is what she told me when I sent her the information and asked her to withdraw her objection. If Madigan does not even bother to check with her before he does something that effects her candidacy, you have to wonder how much influence she has. Now maybe you can understand that Madigan got too busy with Blago to bother to ask her, but------ when the information is sent to her with a nice letter to please withdraw her objection, and it turns out she is powerless to withdraw it or to stop the appeal-- then this shows she is really powerless. If this is so, why shouldn't people vote for Frank for no other reason than to protest the Chicago control over our district.
None of this would be an issue if Calabrese had either submitted his name as a primary candidate or had the GOP prepared the paperwork carefully and in a timely manner. Election challenges usually point out sloppy practices, on a bipartisan basis.
"None of this would be an issue if Calabrese had either submitted his name as a primary candidate or had the GOP prepared the paperwork carefully and in a timely manner. Election challenges usually point out sloppy practices, on a bipartisan basis."
I agree. They're also usually overzealous nitpicking, on a bitpartisan basis.
The election law in this state is unconstitutional, and in the parts it is legitimate, it provides unjust avenues for people to rig elections without having to face the difficulty of having to run a campaign. The only causes to strike names from the ballot should be clear and convincing fraud, perjury or unintelligibility. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to subvert democracy.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The election law in this state is unconstitutional, and in the parts it is legitimate, it provides unjust avenues for people to rig elections without having to face the difficulty of having to run a campaign. The only causes to strike names from the ballot should be clear and convincing fraud, perjury or unintelligibility. Anything beyond that is merely an attempt to subvert democracy.]
I totally agree with you John. What especially is troubling too is how convuluted election law is worded and structured. It is no wonder we see less people being involved in te political process as candidates because of these terribly confusing and archaic election laws.
I think one could argue too that primary nomination is an internal party matter and should be handled internally rather than by the government (as it may interfere with an organization's freedom of association right); or to the very least have a closed party primary assisted by the government.
Does anyone know if Naomi has disavowed or condemned these bad faith challenges?
I read one of those on line quizzes talking about Sen. Obama. It pointed out that when he ran for office the first time, he managed to get everyone else running against him kicked off the ballot for irregularities
"Does anyone know if Naomi has disavowed or condemned these bad faith challenges?"
She's implausibly claiming no involvement, though the overlaps between the challenge and House Democratic staff (who also provide her legislative and campaign staff) are overwhelming.
I looked into Naomi's connection with Devaney. She passed two resolutions congradulating him on the birth of his child. This was about 40% of her legislative activity. It might be more today, but back at the time of the first challenge he found that she had presented about 5 resolutions and was the sponsor of one technical bill about how the U of I would designate itself on its stationery. I know that a lot of work on this stuff goes on behind the scenes, but if Madigan does not involve her (or even tell her) before he objects, you wonder if he isn't trying to replace her with Devaney. His union sure gave a lot to Lisa. They say you should dance with then that brung you, but Madigan has never cared to dance with Naiomi. I wonder why?
"Does anyone know if Naomi has disavowed or condemned these bad faith challenges?"
She doesn't have permission.
Does anyone know anything about a radio piece that she stumbled through recently where she sounded really bad in the process? The theme of the conversation was that when she finally did have something to say, she fumbled. Any truth to that?
I don't know about that, but I was just at a Champaign County Chamber meeting at which it was stated that Rep. Jakobsson declined to provide answers to the Chamber's issues questionnaire, which is one of those things that that various groups sometimes send to candidates asking for positions on issues of interest to that group.
The reason she gave for declining to respond: she felt it was a conflict of interest, as she is a Chamber member. I couldn't help but laugh.