if hare wins the race gets competitive for zinga. if sullivan wins zinga has no chance, but republicans have a great opportunity to pick up a seat in 08.
Hare pulls much more from the south, contrary to what some folk are saying, than Boland does. It’s between Hare and Sullivan, and Hare’s labor ties will keep him in the fight to the end.
Hare and Boland both pull little to nothing from the South.
- yougotta-be kidding me - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:24 am:
Ron, ‘Republicans have a great opportunity to pick up a seat in 2008′ - with who as a candidate? They seem locked on running has-been newscasters with no real-life experience and no one in the wings. Is the Republican Party in the 17th smart enough to understand how to win - and capable of providing leadership to make this happen?
The nomination meeting is in Galesburg this Saturday. If we get through that without any problems, we will have a quick mail ballot and a nominee in short order. The one question seems to be if there will be a lawsuit regarding the exclusion of appointed Precinct Committeemen.
Is Amy Stockwell still in the contest?
Will she ever ask for the Support of the Macon County committeemen?
Is she a pawn for Sullivan?
Pay back for the Durbin money?
Does anyone really care?
- Clark the Shark - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:18 am:
I predict that John Gianulis discovers that his endorsement doesn’t mean what it did 10 years ago.
Sullivan is the best candidate. Enough Dem precinct committeemen and the County Chairs are smart enough to see that.
I hear efforts have been made to get the AG to make a quick ruling to help the 17th CD Dems avoid a major train wreck. But the AG and the State Board view this as a local political matter. I think the AG views this as too politically hot. Sad thing is, our party leaders always enjoy huge support in the QCs.
But when the QCs needs help, it’s, `Sorry, Democrats, fend for yourselves on this.’
I’m hearing that it will be Hare v. Sullivan. Boland has no chance in the matter. The only reason why he can stay alive is the fact that his wife is the Co-Chair of the 17th District Dems (I’m still suprised that hasn’t been brought up more). I forsee Hare taking the win. I still want Sullivan to run in the 18th against LaHood (since he lives in the 18th).
If Sullivan does win, he will be a one termer. It will be almost impossible for a pro life, anti gay marriage, dem to win a primary. Too bad, I like John, personally and professionaly.
Anyone who wins will be a one termer most likely. Too much discord in the 17th district. They will come together in the general to elect who ever is on the democratic ballot. Especially because of Zinga. There have been too many power struggles in RI county and too many contenders in this race. RI probably won’t be able to elect one of their own to the ballot this time so wait till next time… All of this is leaving a bad taste in most people’s mouths.
Elected only vote - SULLIVAN (85%)
Appointed also vote - SULLIVAN (55%)
hare (45%)
Legal Analysis of Why Appointed Committeemen must be allowed to vote:
10 ILCS 5/7-8(e) - In the organization and proceedings of congressional committees composed of precinct committeemen or township committeemen or ward committeemen, or any combination thereof, EACH PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his precinct by the primary electors of his party AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED ….
10 ILCS 5/7-9(i) - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever a vacancy exists in the office of precinct committeeman because no one was elected to that office or because the precinct committeeman ceases to reside in the precinct or for any other reason, the chairman of the county central committee of the appropriate political party may fill the vacancy in such office by appointment of a qualified resident of the county and the APPOINTED PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN SHALL SERVE AS THOUGH ELECTED.
The words, “AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED” identifies the date of the primary election. This is to determine the number of votes the precint committeeman shall have. In other words, the votes at the primary election in 2006 and not 2004.
TO SIMPLIFY : “…each (elected or appointed) precint committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted……at the primary (in 2006)…â€
TureObserver, Just one simple question. If your analysis is correct, why would the phrase “AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED” be included in the law? I would think that if the intention was that an appointed committeeman could vote, the phrase would not be required as the preceeding phrase indicates the number of votes each precinct committeeman has. Consequently, the inclusion of this phrase AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, would seem to indicated that the precinct committeeman would need to be elected.
Good point, Anon. The fact is that the language exists to prevent county chairmen from packing county conventions in order to get themselves re-elected. The same concept applies to this. Too bad the Evans folks didn’t do their research when trying to pull off their back door maneuver.
There are different types of elections taking place all the time. This language pins it down as to the specific date to calculate the voting strength of the precint committeeman.
LincolnLounger:
The terms of all precint committeemen come to an end on the date of the primary.
There are no precint committeemen between the primary and approximately a week before the county convention when the county clerks certify the primary results and distribute certificates to the newly elected precint committeemen.
The officers, such as county chairmen, treasurer, etc. continue in office until replaced at the county convention. Most of them, of course, are re-elected.
Between the primary and the county convention no precint committeemen can be appointed.
At the County Convention, the newly elected precint committeemen elect the new County Chairman.
The new county chairman can start appointing precint committeemen to vacant precints the day after the County Convention.
Appointed precint committeemen do not have to reside in their precint but must live in the County.
If you are an elected precint committeeman and move out of your precint, you are no longer a precint committeeman unless appointed by the County Chairman to that or some other precint.
Yes, I can’t even find out where my state rep Mike Boland stands on this issue. I hear he takes both sides of the fence depending on who he is talking to. The QC papers don’t are about where he stands on anything.
- Anon - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 7:52 am:
Hare is loosing ground from what I have heard. I think it will be between Boland and Sullivan.
- ron - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:06 am:
if hare wins the race gets competitive for zinga. if sullivan wins zinga has no chance, but republicans have a great opportunity to pick up a seat in 08.
- Phil Crenshaw - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:29 am:
Hare pulls much more from the south, contrary to what some folk are saying, than Boland does. It’s between Hare and Sullivan, and Hare’s labor ties will keep him in the fight to the end.
- anon - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 8:55 am:
Hare and Boland both pull little to nothing from the South.
- yougotta-be kidding me - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 9:24 am:
Ron, ‘Republicans have a great opportunity to pick up a seat in 2008′ - with who as a candidate? They seem locked on running has-been newscasters with no real-life experience and no one in the wings. Is the Republican Party in the 17th smart enough to understand how to win - and capable of providing leadership to make this happen?
- anon - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:10 am:
The nomination meeting is in Galesburg this Saturday. If we get through that without any problems, we will have a quick mail ballot and a nominee in short order. The one question seems to be if there will be a lawsuit regarding the exclusion of appointed Precinct Committeemen.
- TheGoodDoctor - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 10:36 am:
My guess is that Phil Hare pulls this one out with greater numbers than expected, Sullivan coming in a distant second.
- annie - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:00 am:
Is Amy Stockwell still in the contest?
Will she ever ask for the Support of the Macon County committeemen?
Is she a pawn for Sullivan?
Pay back for the Durbin money?
Does anyone really care?
- Clark the Shark - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:18 am:
I predict that John Gianulis discovers that his endorsement doesn’t mean what it did 10 years ago.
Sullivan is the best candidate. Enough Dem precinct committeemen and the County Chairs are smart enough to see that.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 11:21 am:
Annie, you’ve got it right–Amy Stockwell is a pawn for the Sullivan effort. Sad.
- Sparky - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 12:46 pm:
Uh, if there was a plant in this race to help the Sullivan effort wouldn’t it come in the form of a candidate from the QC’s?
Amy is not a Sullivan pawn. That’s just goofy.
- Anon sequitur - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 1:20 pm:
As much as I respect my good friends in Rock Island, Sullivan clearly is the best choice in this race.
- anonymous - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 1:53 pm:
I hear efforts have been made to get the AG to make a quick ruling to help the 17th CD Dems avoid a major train wreck. But the AG and the State Board view this as a local political matter. I think the AG views this as too politically hot. Sad thing is, our party leaders always enjoy huge support in the QCs.
But when the QCs needs help, it’s, `Sorry, Democrats, fend for yourselves on this.’
Such gratitude is heart warming, isn’t it?
- Scott - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 2:08 pm:
I’m hearing that it will be Hare v. Sullivan. Boland has no chance in the matter. The only reason why he can stay alive is the fact that his wife is the Co-Chair of the 17th District Dems (I’m still suprised that hasn’t been brought up more). I forsee Hare taking the win. I still want Sullivan to run in the 18th against LaHood (since he lives in the 18th).
If Sullivan does win, he will be a one termer. It will be almost impossible for a pro life, anti gay marriage, dem to win a primary. Too bad, I like John, personally and professionaly.
- george - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:01 pm:
Anyone who wins will be a one termer most likely. Too much discord in the 17th district. They will come together in the general to elect who ever is on the democratic ballot. Especially because of Zinga. There have been too many power struggles in RI county and too many contenders in this race. RI probably won’t be able to elect one of their own to the ballot this time so wait till next time… All of this is leaving a bad taste in most people’s mouths.
- True Observer - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:05 pm:
Elected only vote - SULLIVAN (85%)
Appointed also vote - SULLIVAN (55%)
hare (45%)
Legal Analysis of Why Appointed Committeemen must be allowed to vote:
10 ILCS 5/7-8(e) - In the organization and proceedings of congressional committees composed of precinct committeemen or township committeemen or ward committeemen, or any combination thereof, EACH PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his precinct by the primary electors of his party AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED ….
10 ILCS 5/7-9(i) - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever a vacancy exists in the office of precinct committeeman because no one was elected to that office or because the precinct committeeman ceases to reside in the precinct or for any other reason, the chairman of the county central committee of the appropriate political party may fill the vacancy in such office by appointment of a qualified resident of the county and the APPOINTED PRECINCT COMMITTEEMAN SHALL SERVE AS THOUGH ELECTED.
The words, “AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED” identifies the date of the primary election. This is to determine the number of votes the precint committeeman shall have. In other words, the votes at the primary election in 2006 and not 2004.
TO SIMPLIFY : “…each (elected or appointed) precint committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted……at the primary (in 2006)…â€
- Anon - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 3:51 pm:
TureObserver, Just one simple question. If your analysis is correct, why would the phrase “AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED” be included in the law? I would think that if the intention was that an appointed committeeman could vote, the phrase would not be required as the preceeding phrase indicates the number of votes each precinct committeeman has. Consequently, the inclusion of this phrase AT THE PRIMARY AT WHICH HE WAS ELECTED, would seem to indicated that the precinct committeeman would need to be elected.
- Lincoln Lounger - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 4:58 pm:
Good point, Anon. The fact is that the language exists to prevent county chairmen from packing county conventions in order to get themselves re-elected. The same concept applies to this. Too bad the Evans folks didn’t do their research when trying to pull off their back door maneuver.
- True Observer - Tuesday, May 9, 06 @ 5:51 pm:
Anon 3:51 pm:
There are different types of elections taking place all the time. This language pins it down as to the specific date to calculate the voting strength of the precint committeeman.
LincolnLounger:
The terms of all precint committeemen come to an end on the date of the primary.
There are no precint committeemen between the primary and approximately a week before the county convention when the county clerks certify the primary results and distribute certificates to the newly elected precint committeemen.
The officers, such as county chairmen, treasurer, etc. continue in office until replaced at the county convention. Most of them, of course, are re-elected.
Between the primary and the county convention no precint committeemen can be appointed.
At the County Convention, the newly elected precint committeemen elect the new County Chairman.
The new county chairman can start appointing precint committeemen to vacant precints the day after the County Convention.
Appointed precint committeemen do not have to reside in their precint but must live in the County.
If you are an elected precint committeeman and move out of your precint, you are no longer a precint committeeman unless appointed by the County Chairman to that or some other precint.
- Crazy Larry - Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 9:06 am:
I for one would like to know where these congressional candidates stand on the pork plant issue.
- Scott - Wednesday, May 10, 06 @ 5:34 pm:
You mean, the issue were Silvis completely shafted its neighbor?
- Crazy Larry - Thursday, May 11, 06 @ 9:42 am:
Yes, I can’t even find out where my state rep Mike Boland stands on this issue. I hear he takes both sides of the fence depending on who he is talking to. The QC papers don’t are about where he stands on anything.