Election Law

In a small indicator that people still haven't gotten it, the Senate Elections committee passed the bill  sponsored by Mike Frerichs requiring early voting on campuses of public universities.  No link yet to the News-Gazette website

"I think if there were more money in the state treasury, I would love to help out.  But I don't think that's a sufficient reason to not do something that would improve voter turnout among young people," said Frerichs.  Just remarkable.  We're broke, but if it's a good idea by golly, I'll force someone else to foot the bill.

Frerichs then points to the Champaign County voters guide that as an example of a good thing that we were able to do in the past that I guess he points out wasn't necessary, but which helps turnout.

The problem with Frerichs's point is that it buttresses my argument.  We've not done a voter guide the last two elections precisely because we are broke.  We had to cut our budget.  The voter guide was an obvious place to save.  Of course, the voter guide went to every household in the County and was not isolated to just particular areas so it would be hardly analagous anyway.

SB 2925, sponsored by Mike Frerichs,  requires every county to set up early voting sites on college campuses.  For Champaign County that would mean setting up early voting at Parkland College and the University of Illinois.

It’s hard to find a justification for this law beyond purely partisan motivations.  Does anyone really believe that a student at the University of Illinois has a more difficult time getting to a polling place than a working mother or father who may work as far as an hour away from their polling place?  Is there a single student at the University of Illinois who has a difficult time getting to a polling place on election day? 

Those of you who have voted at our office prior to the election are aware that our early voting center requires 12 ballot boxes to be set up to cast votes as well .  To replicate those items at at an early voting center is going to cost $75,000 alone.  Staffing and the technical issues of getting our voter registration information to the two sites will drive costs up even higher.

This question has come up in the past.  No doubt, a number of voters, be they on campus, in southwest Champaign, Mahomet, Rantoul, or Homer would like to see expanded opportunities to cast early voting ballots closer to their homes.  I’ve told everyone the same thing.  If those opportunities are expanded in one area, then in fairness they must be expanded to other areas.

With up front costs nearing $100,000 to implement and ongoing costs of $20,000 to $40,000 this bill flies in the face of the fiscal problems of the State of Illinois and Champaign County.  Ironically, state reimbursements for election judges and early voting judges have been reduced already.

Hopefully, this bill, which has already moved out of the Senate Assignments Committee, will be killed by Senators who can recognize it for its unfairness to the vast majority of  voters and its outrageous fiscal impact.

A suggestion is being made that even if Scott Brown wins the special Senate election in Massachusets on January 19th that he won't be seated for at least a month.  We've had experiences with special elections in Illinois as well.  In 2008 I recall being at a State Board of Elections meeting discussing the seating of the replacement for Denny Hastert. 

Discussion then moved to the request from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives for unofficial election  results of the March 8 special election. Member Brady indicated that he spoke with the Clerk’s office and it is their practice to evaluate unofficial results. If it is clear from the unofficial results who the victor is they would act immediately and seat the member.

The House Clerk had submitted a letter requesting a pre-Canvass certification of results which I've attached below.

By unanimous vote the Board decided to submit to the House Clerk the unofficial results of the election.  The vote was not without ramifications according to Foster's wikipedia site.

Although it was initially thought that Foster would not be sworn in until April due to the need to count absentee ballots before the first election would be certified, he took the oath of office on March 11. On his first day in office, he cast the deciding vote to keep from tabling an ethics bill that would create an independent outside panel to investigate ethics complaints against House members.

I have no doubt that a call from our post partisan President will expedite the seating in a similar manner should Brown win.

The Illinois Fair Map Amendment is an opportunity for individuals on both sides of the political aisle to benefit from a more democratic solution when determining political districts.   While we look to springfield with a sense of helplessness, there is something that we can do to make a difference.   Let's work together and get the 500,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot.  

For the last three decades, legislators have created their own districts after drawing a name out of a hat!

Illinois is the ONLY state in the nation that allows this magic trick to determine such an important issue.

We need your help to change this process and take it from the legislators and put it in the hands of an independent commission in order to make redistricting more transparent, fair, and accessible to the public.

In order to do this, we need to collect 500,000 signatures in Illinois by April 1, 2010!

How you can help:

• Download Petiton Forms
• Organize a Petition Party in your community
• Invite an organizer to your community event

Resources:

• Nuts and Bolts of this Citizens’ Initiative
• Current System vs. IL Fair Map
• Read the IL Fair Map Amendment
• View a PowerPoint Presentation about the Fair Map Amendment

 Become a fan of this effort on Facebook.   Also on Twitter.  

According to the State Board of Elections, and their attorney, the Illinois Attorney General, the answer is NO.

I wrote last month about the new absentee voter bill.  Two professors from the Institute for Government and Public Affairs also wrote about this in the News-Gazette also.  Their article is now available on line as well.

Additionally, while the bill will increase costs for local governments, it appears likely that our offices will receive reduced amounts for election judge reimbursements in the upcoming budget.

Occasionally a bill slides through the legislature with barely a murmur, even though its ramifications are significant.  Such is Senate Bill 2022, sponsored by our own Senator, Mike Frerichs.

SB 2022 essentially ends absentee voting as we know it and turns the early voting period from a 23 day period to a 40 day period and allows people to vote early by mail.  Every person will be able to vote before the election without excuse, either in person or by mail.  In person no excuse voting (early voting) will continue until the night before the election.

It’s hard to minimize the drastic change this can bring to the election process.  First, we’re going to see already overtaxed election staffs around the state struggling even more to prepare for elections.  The number of people voting early will increase dramatically and if these voters decide to do it through the mail it will add costs to the budgets of every election department.  The night before the election

Second, the early voting period will now overlap the last day to register to vote creating administrative problems and raising the problem of how to deal with those who move after they’ve voted.

Third, and most importantly, this is opening up the door to fraud in this state like we’ve never seen.  Historically, absentee voting is the most common area for fraud and the easiest to execute.  Here's an excellent summation of an article from  University of Illinois law professor Jessica Fay on the topic.  As a corollary, absentee voting by mail opens up a greater possibility of one spouse voting for another or parents voting for children. I’ve wryly noted that the all-mail ballot doubles the votes of every guy who beats his wife.

I’m not sure if this bill can be stopped, or at least modified to make it more palatable.  Republicans supported it unanimously in the Senate, but the bill received a partisan roll call in the House Elections Committee.  Hopefully, the House sponsor, Jakobsson, will be asked tough questions about why this bill is necessary and what safeguards are in place to avoid the problems that are sure to occur.  If members from both sides of the aisle understood this bill, I think it would have a tough time passing.

HB 4077, which extends the acceptable IDs for some first time voters to leases and mail has passed the Senate and is on the way to the Governor.  It was discussed earlier here and I blogged about on the my Clerk blog in 2005. 

This is a fair and equitable way of addressing this issue and should solve most election day issues for first time voters.  The bill was sponsored by Jakobsson and Frerichs.

The discovery recount for the Unit 4 School Boad race has showed no change from the computer count.  Stuckey will now decide whether to pursue a full recount.

More details later.

UPDATE from the County Clerk's blog:

With the caveats below applying today, the redundant recount of 4395 ballots in the Unit 4 school district race showed no change in results.

It's my understanding that Tomlinson, Lockman and Lanesskog were sworn in as new Board members prior to last night's meeting.

From County Clerk Mark Shelden:

As the Election Authority, I supervise the discovery recount. In that capacity, I faciliate the review of ballots and other election materials for the person requesting the discovery recount. We also conduct a redundant hand count of ballots. Nevertheless, my observations are just that; observations. What I say here in no way is binding upon a candidate or a court and is not dispositive.

With those caveats, I can tell you that my observation is that the hand count of ballots in Bondville was the same as the computer count reflected in the final canvass. WDWS was here and interviewed Karl Kennicker. You can listen to them to find out what he is going to do from here.

The Unit 4 Board discovery recount is tomorrow.

There were some questions regarding discovery recounts.  I answered a few questions on my County Clerk Blog.

Didn't see this anywhere but the DI:

Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden has announced that a recount will be held for the Champaign School District's School Board election.

Lynn Stuckey, who was one of seven candidates competing for three spots on the board, finished fourth, leaving her one spot away from being a member of the board.

“By statute, Ms. Stuckey has the right to request that a discovery recount of 13 of the 52 precincts in the Champaign Unit 4 School District,” Shelden said in a press release. “While we are confident that the voting equipment used in Champaign County produces true and accurate results, this process allows us to confirm our beliefs.”

The recount is being held Friday May 1 at 8:30 a.m.

From Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden's blog:

The City of Champaign Township also failed to hold a lottery and will be conducting one tomorrow at 8:30.  As with the City of Urbana, we will suspend early voting with the guidelines as stated below.

The City Clerk also misspelled the name of the GOP candidate for Township Supervisor, Pam Borowski.

Last November, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and local Democrats falsely accused County Clerk Mark Shelden of asking student voters for unnecessary extra proof of address to vote.  Shelden correctly stated that he was merely following the laws as written, and that he had supported changing the law.  And he still does:

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, and supported by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden, would allow first-time voters who have registered to vote to offer as proof of identification a college-issued identification card along with either a piece of mail or an apartment lease.

"I think it will be excellent," said Shelden, a Republican. "We've discussed this after the elections in 2004, 2006 and 2008, and it's finally percolated to the legislative level."

Yet another myth about Shelden suppressing votes on campus dies a deserving death.

At the Republican caucus in Mahomet, Chad Coit challenged Chris Doenitz for the Road Commissioner nomination.  Coit was not in attendence - instead having his representative vouch that Coit wanted the position.  Coit lost the caucus vote.

Now Coit is running for the position on the April ballot as an independent.  It is my understanding that this would not be possible if Coit had actually attended the caucus - if you attend a party caucus, you can't run as an independent.

So, Coit found a loophole.  He got to run in the caucus, and now has the independent run as a backup plan.

Does this bother anyone else?  I think either election law should change so that if you run for a position in a caucus you can't run in the general as an independent, or caucus rules should change so that you can't run in the caucus unless you are present.

I posted something at my County Clerk Blog regarding changing the primary date next year.  I'd love to hear people's opinions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033766467736451.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-boycott14-2008nov14,0,4880904.story

LOS ANGELES -- Soon after California's passage of a initiative banning same-sex marriage last month, dozens of gay activists descended on the El Coyote restaurant with signs and placards. They chanted "Shame on you," cussed at patrons and began a boycott of the cafe.

I found this very disturbing.   In the past presidential primary election a friend who works in a unionized environment was scared to admit publicly that he wanted to vote for Ron Paul.  He feared he would lose his job and would would face harassment at his work.   I advised him that if he absolutely didn't want people to know his political views, he should not vote in the primary where it is public information if you pulled a R or D ballot.

It is sad that people pretend that this type of intimidation doesn't exist.   If a business get picketed, they try to put you out of business by not allowing suppliers to cross the picket line.   The business might even have a giant inflatable rat on the public sidewalk outside the business.   This is nothing more than harassment.

As we learn that there are efforts to eliminate the private ballot in convenient situations, we can see more examples where people will harass others who disagree with them.   After the recent Prop 8 vote in California, community organizers sought to harass the people who financially contributed to that campaign and even cussed at the patrons of the businesses where owners contributed to the campaign.  I find this unbelievable and like this perspective:

""No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said."

The line needs to be drawn so that exercising one's rights does not trample on the rights of others.   Can you imagine if a company pulled your voter records when determining your employment?!   Or determining whether to do business with you?!   Or promoting people who are "good republicans"?!   It seems crazy, right?  So how can anyone claim that it is appropriate to allow for the harassment or support systems that better faciliate the harassment of other people?

I don't think it is right for people to know what party you voted with in a primary.   I don't think it is appropriate to use campaign contribution data to harass inviduals for participating in the democratic process.   I think this issue needs to be looked and that people who infringe so grossly on the rights of others should go to jail.

We should have anti-harassment laws that prevent this type of behavior or better enforce them if they currently exist.

A little more on the topic that I just can't let die.  :)

I was recalling the special election of Harris Wofford from Pennsyvlania in 1991 (which was something of the canary in the Republican coal mine as it turns out) and went to look for the Pennsylvania law on filling vacancies.

 § 2776. Special elections for United States Senator; nominations     

Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator, said vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by the vote of the electors of the State at a special election to be held at the time of the next general or municipal election, occurring at least ninety (90) days after the happening of such vacancy, and it shall be the duty of the Governor to issue writs of election to the various county boards of elections and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth within ten (10) days after the happening of said vacancy. Candidates to fill vacancies in the office of United States Senator shall be nominated by political parties, in accordance with the party rules relating to the filling of vacancies, by means of nomination certificates, in the form prescribed in section 630 of this act; [FN1] and by political bodies, by means of nomination papers in accordance with the provisions of sections 951, 952 and 954 of this act. [FN2] Said nomination certificates and nomination papers shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of said special election. Until such time as said vacancy shall be filled by an election as herein provided, the Governor of the Commonwealth may make a temporary appointment to fill said vacancy.

Anyway, this is the type of law that I think could work well in Illinois, not just for this vacancy, but for future vacancies.

If you look back at the timeline surrounding the resignation of Denny Hastert you can get a sense of how things need to work out in the Rahm Emanuel vacancy.  The short of it is that if Emanuel wants to avoid socking the taxpayers with a multimillion dollar special election bill, he ought to submit his resignation very soon.

Denny Hastert resigned on November 26, 2007.  7 days later Blagojevich issued a writ of election for a February 5th primary and March 8 general.  Blagojevich wanted the special on a Saturday and apparently didn't want to do it the weekend of Palm Sunday.

State statute then kicked in

(10 ILCS 5/7-12) (from Ch. 46, par. 7-12)
    Sec. 7-12. All petitions for nomination shall be filed by mail or in person as follows:
    (1) in the case of petitions for nomination to fill a vacancy by special election in the office of representative in Congress from this State, such petition for nomination shall be filed in the principal office of the State Board of Elections not more than 57 days and not less than 50 days prior to the date of the primary.

This meant that the first day for filing of the petitions was December 10 and the last day was December 17, providing just one to two weeks to circulate and file petitions.  If Blagojevich had decided immediately (and there was no reason since the Hastert appointment was known weeks before), he would have given candidates an extra week to circulate.

So how can the Emanuel seat fit into the current election schedule?  If the primary for Emanuel is to be held on the same day as the February 24th primary, then filing for the seat would have to begin on December 29th and end on January 5th.  To fit into the same schedule that was implemented for the Hastert vacancy, Blagojevich would have to issue a writ of election on Monday, December 22nd, making today a good day for Emanuel to submit his resignation.

Emanuel could quit later and Blagojevich could still issue a writ of election that includes the February primary.  If Blagojevich does that after January 5th, then it would prevent candidates from filing.  This type of scenario has played out in the past with other vacancies and caused people to be nominated with write in campaigns.  But a new state law requires write ins to file 61 days prior to the election, which would be December 26th.  So that option appears to not be viable.

While it's never been done before, the Governor could adopt my idea and just issue a writ for the general election and create a vacancy in nomination that would be filled by the Congressional Committees of the three established parties.  Judging by the response I've received so far, I don't think it's likely he'd adopt that method.

That leaves us with two possibilities.  The first is that Emanuel resigns in the next few days and the Governor, who's got his mind on other things at the moment, issues a writ of election for the February 24th primary by December 29th, hopefully sooner.

The second possibility is that Emanuel resigns after the window closes for a February 24th primary and thus forces a special election to be called outside of the current election schedule.  If it's just one election outside the current schedule, you can anticipate the cost to Cook County taxpayers of $2 million.  If it's two elections outside the window, double it.

The 2009 election calendar made it prudent for Emanuel to hold off his resignation.  But the same calendar makes it prudent for him to announce that resignation in the very near future.

For a little Champaign County history you can see the writ of election that was issued by Jim Edgar when Ed Madigan was appointed in 1991 to be Secretary of Agriculture.  And the election results are available at the Champaign County Clerk website.  Primary results (1% turnout) and general results (13% turnout).

The News-Gazette had a nice editorial in support of the idea of having a special Senate election with slating of candidates instead of a primary.

Then how about a compromise offered by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden? It would certainly be much less expensive, and it would give voters the final say on Obama's successor.

Shelden proposes that leaders of the three qualified parties (Democratic, Green and Republican) each slate a candidate this winter in time for the April 7 consolidated election – when all Illinois voters are eligible to go to the polls anyway. Depending on how the special election law is written and when it is passed, there's even a chance that independent candidates could get on the April 7 ballot. Shelden estimates the additional cost statewide at about $25,000 (the expense to print special ballots).