.jpg)
A federal appeals court has rejected an attempt by Illinois state elections officials to undo a court order cementing a deal they had struck with Illinois’ non-Democratic or Republican political parties, to ensure those “third parties” would not be blocked from the November ballot by Gov. JB Pritzker’s COVID-19 shutdown orders.
On June 21, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the request from the Illinois State Board of Elections for a stay on the order from a federal district judge, relaxing some of Illinois’ ballot access rules for the 2020 election.
“… Nowhere in its motions papers does it (the state elections board) explain what, if any, changes it would make to the statutory petition requirements to ensure that independent candidates are not excluded from the ballot,” the court wrote in the appellate order. “Nor does it acknowledge the serious safety concerns and substantial limitations on public gatherings that animated the parties’ initial agreement and persist despite some loosening of restrictions in recent weeks.”
The case dates back to early April, a few weeks after Pritzker began implementing a series of emergency executive orders to combat the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. Among those orders, the governor issued his so-called stay at home order. The order essentially directed Illinois residents to remain at home, unless they needed to venture out for activities the governor deemed “essential.”
The list of essential activities did not include political election-related work, such as gathering signatures on nominating petitions for political candidates or parties to place their names on the ballot for this year’s November general election.
On April 3, the Libertarian Party sued the state, asserting the governor’s orders infringed the constitutional rights of its candidates to place their names before voters in the fall.
In that litigation, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer sided with the third parties, finding the governor’s restrictions, “which started at nearly the same time as the window for gathering signatures,” had created a “nearly insurmountable hurdle for new party and independent candidates attempting to have their names placed on the general election ballot.”
Ultimately, the state and the Libertarians, along with the Green Party, reached a deal. Under that deal, the state agreed to allow the Libertarian and Green parties to “nominate candidates without petitions in any race in which they had nominated a candidate in either 2016 or 2018;” that, in other races in which the parties had not nominated a candidate in 2016 or 2018, candidates would need to collect only 10% of the signatures that would ordinarily be required; that petition signers could sign petitions electronically; and that the petition filing deadline would be moved from June 22 to August 7.
However, shortly after agreeing to those terms, the state officials asked the court to reconsider. They claimed local election officials had notified them that the Aug. 7 filing deadline would make it too difficult to run an election in November.
The main problem, the state asserted, centered on the need to give others ample opportunity to challenge the submitted nominating petitions and knock the candidates off the ballot, if possible.
The state asked the court to move the filing deadline back to July 6 and set the “minimum petition signature threshold at 25%,” rather than 10%.
On May 15, Pallmeyer largely denied the state’s request, but agreed to move the deadline back to July 20.
The state then waited until June 6 to file an appeal.
The state has been represented in the action by attorney Michael Kasper, an ally of Illinois House Speaker and state Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan. Kasper was designated as an Illinois Special Assistant Attorney General for his work on this case.
Also designated as special assistant attorneys general on the case were attorneys Adam Vaught and Lari Dierks, of the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago. Vaught has represented Madigan personally in other legal matters.
On appeal, the state asked the Seventh Circuit to put a hold on Pallmeyer’s order. They argued Judge Pallmeyer did not have the authority as a federal judge to tell the state how to run an election.
The Seventh Circuit, however, refused. They noted Judge Pallmeyer’s order only put force behind the terms to which the state had agreed.
Further, the appeals court noted, it did not believe the additional two weeks would make it overly difficult for the state of Illinois to run an election. The court noted “at least 37 states have candidate filing deadlines later than Illinois’s current July 20 deadline,” and have no trouble meeting election-related deadlines.
By contrast, the appeals court said, moving the deadline would harm the ability of the independent candidates and third parties to place their names on the ballot. They noted five such candidates had provided “declarations saying they would be excluded from the ballot if they were required to collect a larger number of signatures as a result of current restrictions on public gatherings and voters’ reasonable apprehension about close contact.”
The plaintiffs have been represented in the action by attorneys Oliver B. Hall, of the Center for Competitive Democracy; Mark R. Brown, of Columbus, Ohio; and Samuel J. Cahnman, of Springfield.