Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Local union president says use of her photo by Illinois Policy Institute “a form of identity theft”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x3 - Pritzker campaign doubles down - Rauner campaign responds *** Pritzker to air brutally deceptive TV ad
Posted in:
Even after an appeals court ruled Streator resident David Cooke didn’t get a fair shake, the state Board of Elections again cast an inconclusive vote on whether Frank Mautino violated election law.
Tuesday, the elections board voted 4-4 on a pair of motions concerning Mautino’s disputed fuel, food and gas expenditures. It is effectively the same result issued last year and, barring another appeal or reversal, it could reduce the likelihood Cooke will get a prosecutor to open a criminal probe into Mautino’s missing campaign finance records. […]
“Obviously, we disagree,” said Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center in Chicago. “The evidence showed there were violations at both the gas station and at the bank. We’ll decide in the next few days whether to appeal. We’ll see.”
* Illinois News Network…
The case stems from tens of thousands of dollars in questionable campaign spending from when Mautino was a state Representative. The case has been going on for over two years, and started shortly after Mautino was approved by the Illinois General Assembly to replace retiring Auditor General Bill Holland beginning in early 2016.
Campaign expenditure records over a 16-year period of large round figures being paid to a service station in Mautino’s then legislative district and checks for cash from a bank in his district raised red flags for Streator resident David Cooke, who filed a complaint against Mautino’s now-defunct campaign committee to the elections board.
The case made it up to the appellate court, which sent it back to the state elections board. The elections board heard the case again Tuesday.
* WMAY…
Even if there had been a finding of a violation, it’s unclear what could have been done about it. The usual penalty is a fine, but the campaign committee was dissolved long ago and has no more assets.
* There was some heated debate…
This hearing is getting contentious. One Board member, William McGuffage, mentions that Mautino is also facing a concurrent federal investigation, which is why Mautino hasn't said anything.
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) July 10, 2018
Member Scholz notes the difficulty in levying fines against a defunct committee. Says "our big hammer here is ballot forfeiture." Says Mautino "can never run for office in the state of Illinois, we will not allow that." https://t.co/hql2co1WpG
— Monique Garcia (@moniquegarcia) July 10, 2018
McGuffage and Scholz are both Democrats. The board is evenly split with 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans. It’s that way by design, of course.
* The Question: Subject to confirmation by the Senate, should the governor be allowed to appoint a ninth member (and therefore a tie-breaking vote) to the State Board of Elections? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:21 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Local union president says use of her photo by Illinois Policy Institute “a form of identity theft”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x3 - Pritzker campaign doubles down - Rauner campaign responds *** Pritzker to air brutally deceptive TV ad
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Maybe compose a list of more understandable rules and an easier way to follow them first. Term limiting this group wouldn’t be a bad idea though. There are a few of them that don’t come across as highly intellectual people. A few others that seem completely reasonable. Rotating out every 6 years might accomplish more than creating a majority on one side or the other. That would make it even more political and inject more bias. It’s tough enough to deal with them and this convoluted system there.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:29 pm
Yes, if only because 4-4 panels that vote on anything are an inherently bad idea.
Comment by PJ Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:29 pm
You’re essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place, its even partisan split renders it essentially impotent but the idea of giving one side an advantage seems likely worse.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:29 pm
=Subject to confirmation by the Senate=
These are the key words here. I voted yes, because I think the idea of waiting to see if another governor is elected is bad form, just as it was in DC with the Scalia vacancy. The Senate, however, won’t be in until November and by that time we will know if a new governor will be sworn in and if that’s the case, this question would be rendered moot because no Dem controlled Senate will appoint a lame duck’s nominee anyway. ANd make no mistake, I think Rauner will be a lame duck.
But hey, this is Illinois and anything can happen.
Comment by Colin O'Scopy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:31 pm
There is no need to change the SBE structure. 4 - 4 votes are pretty rare, and can be reviewed by the Court (so that even a political deadlock can be adjudicated, albeit at the next stage).
If a party controls the Senate and gets its candidate elected Governor, then the SBE would be 5-4 to one party. If one wanted to add a 9th member with some degree of neutrality, it should be someone jointly selected by the Senate President, Senate Minority Leader, House Speaker and House Minority Leader.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:53 pm
Voted “No”
“Why?”
The ambiguity found in 4-4 decisions highlight the need for legislative oversight where that ambiguity was allowed to fester.
If the concern is that partisan decisions that are deadlocked… then look at the specifics and try to regulate clarity to another case following.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:56 pm
No. Possibility of an even split discourages partisanship and encourages collaboration.
Comment by Politix Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:59 pm
No. Important to keep the board strictly bi-partisan.
Maybe if the board was constantly deadlocked on votes, I’d have a different point of view. But it doesn’t seem like that happens a lot. If it does on an important issue, then the legislature can step in and change the law. This happened earlier this year with the debate on the state’s participation in the Crosscheck election database. I think that bill is on the guv’s desk.
Comment by Roman Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:09 pm
Voted “no”. Make one member an elected board member.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:16 pm
I voted no.
Are there a lot of 4-4 votes? If not, then bumping up to a ninth member would seem to be creating a big, unnecessary solution for a small problem. I’ve seen no evidence that having eight members is a problem.
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:19 pm
No. I think the only way this bill passed was precisely because a tied decision was better in the eyes of the General Assembly than the threat of partisan rulings. I think a lot of members would rather see ties than be on the receiving end of partisan witch hunts.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:31 pm
As someone who worked in Delegate Peter Tomei’s ConCon election (he was Chair of the Suffrage Committee), I recall his goal of wanting a “no party majority” on the State Board of Elections as a means of getting “independent” members appointed to the Board. Didn’t quite work out as Peter envisioned.
Comment by Mike Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:46 pm
No. A four-four vote is a good indication that the issue is more political than substantive. The laws and rules governing finance could be clarified, but a 5-4 board would invite partisan rulings.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:58 pm
Voted no.
How about we just get an Auditor who knows how to fill out disclosure report correctly.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 7:00 pm
Concur that the GA set it up this way to avoid partisan punishments, but instead now have partisan protectionism; give it a ninth deciding vote, so to speak, in that if a tie - then the ALJ recommended decision becomes final order in the matter
Comment by Yes Thursday, Jul 12, 18 @ 9:07 am