Well, there wasn't much in the way of fireworks at the James R. Thompson Center today as the hearings convened by the State Board of Elections for primary petition challenges got underway, so with a brief summary (dutifully provided by official TA correspondent Lou Atsaves), we will get back to our regularly scheduled coverage of the 10th District race tomorrow. Atsaves reports:
There were 28 pending cases on the call. The Johnson v. Link (07SOEBGP515) case was assigned to Hearing Examiner Barbara Goodman. She will also be hearing contests filed by Andy Martin (Anthony Martin-Trigonas before the name-change) against Norm Hill and Psak for US Senate/Republican. Representing Link will be Michael Dorfman (Sp?)/Chicago. Representing Johnson is Michael Lavelle/Chicago. Michael Lavelle is an extremely well known expert in election law.
The hearing officers then conducted brief case management hearings outside of the hearing rooms in the hallways(!) [no explanation as to why the many conference rooms in the building were not available.] With the Link matter, a legal argument broke out between the two attorneys and the hearing officer. The document examination phase of the hearing according to hearing officer Goodman is supposed to be held in Springfield. The lawyers argued that many of the documents (voter registration signatures, etc.) are in Lake County, and requested a Lake County or Chicago venue for that purpose. The original signatures and petitions are in Springfield. The Hearing Officer was going to go upstairs (14th Floor where the Board of Elections sits) and find out if this would be possible. According to the rules, the case management hearing is to consider the number of witnesses to be presented and any discovery to be performed and briefing schedules, which I did not hear being raised, but the document examination question seemed to occupy all of their (Hearing officer, two attorneys) time. A hearing/status date has been set for 11/28 at 4:00 p.m. at the State of Illinois Center. This may have already changed based on the document examination resolution of this matter. The issue of witness numbers, briefs, etc. may be raised then or may have already been decided on the 14th floor where everyone was headed, so my summary may be a little outdated as to these matters. The lawyers indicated no additional motions would be filed and a set date and time was necessary to bring in witnesses and evidence. It should be noted that most hearing officers were new to the process or were recent appointees and they admitted as much to the more experienced election attorneys. According to their rules, all objectors who have not previously verified their objections will be given the opportunity to do so. Johnson has already filed a verification which has been notarized with his signature. Hearings will have a court reporter present. The hearing officer is supposed to arrive at a recommendation and a proposed decision for the Illinois State Board of Elections to consider and rule on at their next meeting, which is December 6, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. The recommendation must be accompanied by a transcript of the hearing, an outline of the evidence, issues and arguments presented. The parties also receive copies prior to December 6, 2007 (but have to pay for the transcripts). The parties can file "exceptions" to the recommendations, which can be in writing or oral. The Board may grant the attorneys the right of oral argument on 12/6/07. (Within their discretion to do so). The Thanksgiving Holiday seemed to be causing a severe strain on everyone's schedules, which appeared to be a new thing, thanks to the early primary date this year.
Objections to individual signers are (1) signer's signature is not genuine, (usually compared to voter registration card), (2) signer not registered at address shown (unless signer can show he/she resided there during part of the time the petition was legally circulated), (3) signer resides out of state, (4) signer's address missing or incomplete (reasonable determination standard used), (5) signature not legible and cannot be compared with voter registration card signature, (6) signer signed petition more than once (first signature only is valid), (G) signature not identical to registration record (missing middle initial example - usually objection here is denied), (7) voter registration record of signer cannot be located (usually objection overruled if signer can be located and still on voter registration lists), voter no longer registered at address (but see #2 above).Objections to circulators include (1) circulator did not sign petition sheet, (2) circulator is ineligible to act as one (not 18 years of age, not a U.S. Citizen, not at address claimed), (3) circulator's signature is not genuine, (4) circulator's address incomplete (reasonable determination standard used), (5) circulator did not circulate sheet, (6) sheet not notarized, and (7) notary did not notarize the sheet in question.
An attorney friend of Atsaves who is an election law expert explained: "If the Board determines that a pattern of fraud exists based on an inordinate number of invalid petition signers and/or petition circulators, such that the integrity of the entire petition or the petition sheets of individual circulators is sufficiently compromised, the Board may strike the entire petition (or individual petition sheets) on this basis." When informed of the circumstances of the Johnson v. Link objection (i.e., approximately 2,800 of 3,200 signatures were being contested), this same attorney responded, "Whoa! Incumbents are supposed to know better!"
Yep, they are.
Back to Seals/Footlik/Kirk tomorrow with updates on Seals new website and Footlik's mailers and walk pieces.
UPDATED 11/20/07 9:45 a.m.: In his syndicated newspaper column for this week (discussing the impact of the blogosphere on politics), Rich Miller of Capitol Fax notes that the Link story was broken here at Team America, which was then picked right up by the local media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Try to remember that a challenge is not the same as a victory. I seriously doubt, as in all official challenges, that all those challenges will hold up.
Hi Rich!- thanks for stopping by, and as a long-time Capitol Fax fan, I truly appreciate the nods that we here at Team America have gotten on Cap Fax over the last few weeks.
That being said, I'm wondering why you seem to have taken up the position of defending Senator Link, or at least, trying to diminish the potential seriousness of the situation. We all are aware that the simple fact that the petitions have been challenged does not mean that those challenges will be successful, and as we have pointed out in detail here, Link has a number of options to regain his place on the ballot (e.g., run as a write-in, appoint himself after the primary). So by that standard, has Team America 'overstated' the seriousness of the issue? Perhaps.
But, even you have noted that privately, the Senate Dems have acknowledged that half Link's sigs may be bad (if I remember the statement in Cap Fax correctly), and while a succesful challenge to even half of Link's sigs would still not result in Link getting kicked off the ballot, there is still the possibility that the Board will consider the 'pattern of fraud' issue and potentially reject all or some of the petitions passed by the two primary Link signature-getters. If the petitions passed by either of those guys get bounced en masse, it's a whole new ball game.
And, this is to say nothing of the damage to Link's reputation. When a politician like Link starts making allegations that unnamed "Republican Operatives" are to blame for problems with petitions that HE certified (do we detect echoes of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" allegations here?), and he did not catch the issues, at best, it makes him look like he paid little or no attention to a very important aspect of his office.
Between dead guys and a former opponent appearing on Link's petitions, not to mention the huge number of other "bad" signatures that otherwise are apparent, Link has given Jerry Johnson a rare opening against a firmly entrenched incumbent. It's up to Johnson's team to capitalize on it, and we will have to wait and see how this all turns out. Given the stakes, though, I don't think we have over-dramatized the seriousness of the situation by any means.
TA, as a reader of both Cap Fax and your blog, I don't think you've been overly dramatic. It's hard to believe that 2 circulators collected roughly 2800 signatures -anyone that has ever circulated petitions going door to door or standing in front of a post office knows that is pretty darn hard. Is it unreasonable to believe they got tired and forged some signatures? I think it's pretty bizarre that the Chairman of the Dem Party in Lake County didn't have every committeemen circulating petitions for him. Link is a seasoned politician and should know better - give me a break.
TA:
Thank you for exposing Senator Link's corruption. You have proved that dead people signed his petition, signatures of Chuck Fitzgerald were forged and one of his two circulators lied about their home address.
Coupled with his employ of convicted felon Cythia Alexander and irregularities at the Genesee Theater (more coming), you are doing the public a favor.
Only wish you could expose what else Link has done to African-American leaders like Pat Jones and Eddie Washington who did not follow the orders of Sen. Link and his recently bankrupted friend, Pete Couval.
Congrats T.A. on your notice in the MSM.
It's interesting that you publish informative fact based content and are quickly noticed in the Sun-Times while such anti-Israel hate factories as the Daily Kos and whatever Ellen is whining about these days take years to get attention in the Trib.
We have a terrible dearth in solid political writing in town right now and glad to see you and Rich stepping up to fill a big void. Steve Neal was great, Carol Marin is ill informed and who knows what anyone at the Trib does other than investigate the Governor or Mayor, who I like. A grad student at Northwestern could write a sweet thesis about how Lynn Sweet has become a synchophitic organ of the Obama Senate press operation and never gives any sort of even coverage to state Republicans.
Wow, this blog is certainly silent on Scott McClellan's book excerpt implicating the top five political folks in the White House with a disinformation campaign.
I'm not saying he's right, but the silence is deafening.
Man, Team America's blog is deafeningly silent on Scott McClellan's excerpt.
This blog is also deafening on the various Britney Spears shenanigans.
McCellan's actions and charges have credibility.
TA's charges against Link also have credibility.
Well, folks, not only is McClellan trying to sell a book (which makes his narrative somewhat suspect already), this Blog is about Tenth District, Lake County and sometimes Illinois-wide issues. We can't address everything, and we are certainly not taking on the role of the grand defenders of everything Republican (or Britney Spears, for that matter).
Scott McClellan's assertion that there was a Nixon-like coverup around the treasonous CIA agent exposure should be upsetting to true patriots.
As it relates to the 10th District, where is Mark Kirk on this? It must be a bit inconvenient for his campaign.
But let's be trivial about it and compare Scott McClellan to Britney Spears.
Anon 5:22- you tell us how it relates to the 10th District, and then we can ask Mark Kirk about it. Ellen's old trick was always to take any issue out there where she thought Republicans or conservatives in general looked bad (i.e., Ann Coulter) and assess blame on Mark Kirk, no matter how tenuous the connection. I'm not biting unless you can tell me why McClellan is relevant to what this blog is about.
Post a Comment