16 votes

Illinois Democrats speedily change candidate law; Republicans call measure ‘election interference,' "undemocratic"

19 comments

  1. [15]
    MimicSquid
    Link
    Wait, until this law passed candidates could entirely skip engaging in the primary at all? That seems like a remarkably uneven playing field. How does this "stifle the democratic process"? Can...

    Wait, until this law passed candidates could entirely skip engaging in the primary at all? That seems like a remarkably uneven playing field. How does this "stifle the democratic process"? Can someone steelman the Republican's stance on this one, because I just don't get why this isn't an entirely good change.

    36 votes
    1. [2]
      nacho
      Link Parent
      I think the idea goes something like: Anyone should be able to stand for election There should be as few limitations as possible for this Traditionally, many don't want political parties...

      I think the idea goes something like:

      • Anyone should be able to stand for election
      • There should be as few limitations as possible for this
      • Traditionally, many don't want political parties acknowledged/empowered through election laws
      • Being enacted so close to this autumn's election, one couldn't plan for this requirement, so it's an unfair "gotcha" for the 2024 elections, specifically.

      Illinois is an "open" primary state, so non-party members can essentially try to nominate a candidate for a party that the party democracy itself doesn't want, which creates some legitimate reasons to be able to put your name to the ballot irrespective of the results of the primary.

      28 votes
      1. updawg
        Link Parent
        Yeah, IIRC, I've seen some elections where it was two Democrats competing to win and a Republican trying to just get 20% of the vote. But maybe I'm thinking of like Georgia where two Democrats...

        Yeah, IIRC, I've seen some elections where it was two Democrats competing to win and a Republican trying to just get 20% of the vote. But maybe I'm thinking of like Georgia where two Democrats were competing to get into the runoff.

        3 votes
    2. [10]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      Political parties aren't official organs of the government to begin with. People should be able to run for government positions regardless of the political party process they did or did not go...

      Political parties aren't official organs of the government to begin with. People should be able to run for government positions regardless of the political party process they did or did not go through. In terms of who parties want to support, that's their business.

      20 votes
      1. [2]
        PuddleOfKittens
        Link Parent
        The word "official" gets blurrier by the day, but at this point the e.g. Democrat presidential primary is closer to an election than the actual election (which is more like a referendum on whether...

        Political parties aren't official organs of the government to begin with.

        The word "official" gets blurrier by the day, but at this point the e.g. Democrat presidential primary is closer to an election than the actual election (which is more like a referendum on whether to abolish democracy).

        Political parties ideally should not be official, but thanks to the wonders of FPTP they effectively are.

        If there's one thing that Trump has taught us, it's that unwritten laws need to become written laws if they're actually useful.

        21 votes
        1. blindmikey
          Link Parent
          I strongly disagree with this, not only was it part of a winning argument in court that the DNC that runs the primary could arbitrarily choose the winning nominee if they wanted to, regardless of...

          Democrat presidential primary is closer to an election than the actual election

          I strongly disagree with this, not only was it part of a winning argument in court that the DNC that runs the primary could arbitrarily choose the winning nominee if they wanted to, regardless of how the vote shakes out, the very structure of the primaries, where handfuls of states take turns to partake in the process is strategic and purposefully skews the results vs. the fairer simultaneous national vote of the actual Presidential election.

          5 votes
      2. [7]
        MimicSquid
        Link Parent
        Right, that's my point. County-level organs of the Republican Party were putting candidates on the general election ballot without them being approved of by the voters in the primary. This law...

        Right, that's my point. County-level organs of the Republican Party were putting candidates on the general election ballot without them being approved of by the voters in the primary. This law puts a stop to that. It seems we're in agreement that it's good?

        5 votes
        1. skybrian
          Link Parent
          At one time, parties actually decided on candidates. For example, at political conventions. But it became more and more of an extended election and parties gradually lost control over who their...

          At one time, parties actually decided on candidates. For example, at political conventions. But it became more and more of an extended election and parties gradually lost control over who their candidates will be. It’s not necessarily a good thing. If Republican party leaders were in control, they probably wouldn’t have picked Trump.

          In California for statewide offices, the process seems to have reached its logical conclusion and parties don’t have any formal control at all. There are many candidates of many parties in the primary, and the top two go on to the general election. It’s essentially the first general election, and in November there’s a runoff.

          It seems like the Illinois law that was repealed is a vestige of earlier times when parties actually decided these things?

          (“Superdelegates” are another vestige of party leaders having control over the party.)

          6 votes
        2. [5]
          stu2b50
          Link Parent
          That's the Republican party's business in the end, how they select candidates. I think the final, actual vote which actually determines the office should be in the hands of the voter, but the...

          That's the Republican party's business in the end, how they select candidates. I think the final, actual vote which actually determines the office should be in the hands of the voter, but the collection of people that collectively agree to support (monetarily or voting-wise) one of those candidates can determine which candidate it is however they want.

          3 votes
          1. [4]
            MimicSquid
            Link Parent
            But if you want the parties to not have any significant influence over who get elected, wouldn't you want them not not be able to let their candidates skip the primary?

            But if you want the parties to not have any significant influence over who get elected, wouldn't you want them not not be able to let their candidates skip the primary?

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              stu2b50
              Link Parent
              That’s not what I said, but also primaries are not part of the official election structure. They are processes invented by the parties to choose the person they want to support. In the modern day...

              That’s not what I said, but also primaries are not part of the official election structure. They are processes invented by the parties to choose the person they want to support. In the modern day they often are a facsimile of a voted election but that’s because that’s what their party members like. They are, in the end, arbitrary.

              Basically, laws around voting should be concerned about the actual official voting process, not what extra-governmental organizations like political parties want to do.

              If a political party wants to pick their candidate undemocratically, you do you, as long as the vote that matters is democratic.

              8 votes
              1. [2]
                MimicSquid
                Link Parent
                Interesting. I learned something new today. I had thought that the primaries were an official part of the electoral process, not an unofficial party action.

                Interesting. I learned something new today. I had thought that the primaries were an official part of the electoral process, not an unofficial party action.

                2 votes
                1. skybrian
                  Link Parent
                  It seems like it's kind of both, varying by state. It's not like the parties run their own primary elections, though I suppose they could. In most states, it's an official ballot and an official...

                  It seems like it's kind of both, varying by state. It's not like the parties run their own primary elections, though I suppose they could. In most states, it's an official ballot and an official election. The election infrastructure is run by the state. Tampering with the primary would be tampering with an election. It's become more and more a state-run thing. In California, the state decided that primary elections would work differently for offices within the state (not federal), and that was that.

                  But then you have places like Iowa where it's not an election at all, it's a caucus.

                  In presidential elections, rules about what what happens after the votes are counted are up to the party. Nationally, Democratic and Republican parties have different rules about delegates, which aren't decided by states at all.

                  5 votes
    3. [2]
      gary
      Link Parent
      It seems like some of the discontent has to do with the Democrats introducing it at this specific point in time, changing the rules of the upcoming election with not enough time for Republicans to...

      It seems like some of the discontent has to do with the Democrats introducing it at this specific point in time, changing the rules of the upcoming election with not enough time for Republicans to get candidates to primary because they were expecting to use the slate process. If the Democrats were going to pass this bill, they should have introduced it earlier to appear fair.

      14 votes
      1. blivet
        Link Parent
        I’m glad to see it looks like the Democrats are starting to play hardball. I thought they had forgotten how.

        I’m glad to see it looks like the Democrats are starting to play hardball. I thought they had forgotten how.

        1 vote
  2. updawg
    Link
    Article from the Chicago Sun-Times with more info: https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2024/05/03/pritzker-signs-slating-election-bill-candidates-primaries-republicans-stealing-election...

    In less than 48 hours, Democrats introduced, passed and signed an election reform package that could directly affect who makes it on the ballot this November.

    The bill ends a process called slating, which allows county party chairs to add someone to the ballot for a general election, even if they didn’t run in the primary election. The bill took effect immediately with the Governor’s signature.

    “We are used to seeing this kind of maneuvering on May 31st, but we don’t understand the sense of urgency right now,” House Republican Leader Tony McCombie (R-Savana) said. “Unless the end goal is to stifle the democratic process in the process of slating candidates.”

    Article from the Chicago Sun-Times with more info:
    https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2024/05/03/pritzker-signs-slating-election-bill-candidates-primaries-republicans-stealing-election

    Pritzker and fellow Democrats framed it as an ethics measure that would take “backroom deals” out of the equation when choosing candidates — with Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, calling it a “favorite tactic of a former legislative leader,” Mike Madigan, who was House speaker and Democratic Party of Illinois chair.

    [Madigan was widely known to be corrupt for his 18 terms as Illinois speaker and is going to be tried on federal racketeering charges this year]

    The biggest point of contention is that the new law will affect the general election this year, and Republican House and Senate candidates were already collecting petition signatures ahead of a June deadline to appear on the November ballot. The new law will give Democrats a win in races in which Republicans did not slate a candidate in the primary.

    Specifically, Republicans grumbled that it will help boost state Rep. Katie Stuart, D-Edwardsville. No Republican filed to run in the district in the primary, but the GOP was in the process of slating a November candidate.

    14 votes
  3. [2]
    updawg
    Link
    Update: https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/judge-issues-preliminary-injunction-pausing-controversial-new-illinois-candidate-law/
    5 votes
    1. zazowoo
      Link Parent
      Even as a strong democrat, I'm happy to see this. This does feel like changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I don't like seeing dems play that way.

      Even as a strong democrat, I'm happy to see this. This does feel like changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I don't like seeing dems play that way.

      5 votes