Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Attorneys for Jason Gonzales say they plan to fight a federal judge’s ruling to dismiss a lawsuit that accused Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan of putting “sham” candidates on the 2016 ballot. […]
But Gonzales’ attorney Tony Peraica on Monday said he plans to file a motion to reconsider the dismissal — while also vowing to file a motion with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals should that move fail.
“We are very disappointed by the court ruling. Illinois voters were defrauded by Madigan and his crew who got away with violating federal laws,” Peraica said in an email to the Sun-Times. “We will move to reconsider court ruling. If our motion is denied, we shall appeal.”
* I reached out to Peraica and asked which federal laws had allegedly been violated. His response…
The Civil Rights Act, Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985.
42 U.S.C. 1983 is the Civil action for deprivation of rights. 42 U.S.C. 1985 deals with Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.
“The price of political dirty tricks must be collected at the ballot box, rather than the courthouse,” the Seventh Circuit ruled last year in Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly relied heavily on Jones in his Friday ruling clearing Madigan of liability for questionable tactics used in his 2016 re-election race. […]
“Under Jones, the Court may not appropriately second-guess the voters’ choice ‘without displacing the people’s right to govern their own affairs and making the judiciary just another political tool for one faction to wield against its rivals,’” Kennelly concluded.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Huh?
No one is guaranteed a one-on-one race, as a protected right.
I’d suggest hiring Lt. Commander Jo Galloway.
When you object, please strenuously do so.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:31 pm
It’s amazing what some people want to do via the 14th Amendment in federal court. Everyone can laugh it this but who knows what some federal appellate court might say.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:38 pm
Please tell me Peraica is doing this pro-bono.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:38 pm
Hard to figure why to perpetuate this. Unless you just want to keep it going during a more visible and critical time.
I guess it might not be that hard to figure.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:39 pm
===but who knows what some federal appellate court might say===
“The price of political dirty tricks must be collected at the ballot box, rather than the courthouse”
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:39 pm
Magician: “I’m going to lie to you and trick you into picking the card I want you to pick.”
Volunteer to Audience: “See? He’s going to lie to me and trick me!”
[Volunteer picks the card the magician wanted]
Volunteer: “No fair! You tricked me!”
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:45 pm
As that old lawyer saying goes:
If you can’t pound the law pound the facts.
If you can’t pound the facts pound the law.
If you can’t pound the law or the facts pound the table.
Looks like we are at the pound the table stage.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:45 pm
Magician: “I’m going to lie to you and trick you into picking the card I want you to pick.”
Volunteer to Audience: “See? He’s going to lie to me and trick me.”
[Volunteer picks card magician wanted]
Volunteer: “No fair, you tricked me.”
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:46 pm
Sorry for the duplicate, I’m surprised the banned punctuation made it through the filter.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:48 pm
Ironic that the legal loss of one of Madigan’s loyal soliders (Jones), is what helped Madigan scoot past this.
Comment by Chucky Jay Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:51 pm
- Steve -
As far as trolls go, your concern for things… years from happening, years ago, settled law, made up worries…
It’s only tastier… your pride in not voting.
To this post,
It’s difficult to take Peraica seriously when the opinion is written as is, and thinking any court will want to limit democracy via candidates or deciding races based on how races are run and outcomes the plaintiffs don’t like.
Again, tell me where it makes sense that anyone is guaranteed a one-on-one race against anyone?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:51 pm
Nobody hates this tactic, think voters should hold the deceivers accountable, etc. but to the extent it’s -ever- actionable, it’s not in this case as the judge makes clear. Stop wasting court system resources.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:54 pm
(I meant hates this tactic more than me-not even Gonzales, who got a lot a mileage out of it!)
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 2:56 pm
Madigan won by almost 40 points, which means he could have run many more “sham” candidates and still won.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:03 pm
OW
I’m not defending the lawsuit. I’m just stating that the amazing 14th Amendment has been used for things like guns and abortion that no one could have predicted.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:04 pm
Any good attorney will tell you if you are trying to get a court to overrule precedent, you better have a pretty good test case (i.e. demonstrate extreme injustice). When Jason only musters 27% of the vote, and the sham candidates another 7% combined, MJM still doubles their combined votes. It wasn’t even close.
Comment by Henry Francis Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:06 pm
Jones was about a municipality beating a candidate to the box with the last of the allowed third referenda(um) (no intent shown)
-This case can be distinguished as an official ‘admittedly’ propping up two phony candidates (fraudulently disenfranchising voters)
Comment by not clearcut (even with a brush-hawg) Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:12 pm
===-This case can be distinguished as an official ‘admittedly’ propping up two phony candidates (fraudulently disenfranchising voters)===
… and yet Madigan, facing the intense scrutiny during the campaign of these allegations, still won with 65% of the vote.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:15 pm
===fraudulently disenfranchising voters===
Do you even know what disenfranchising voters actually means?
Which voters were not allowed to vote? Which voters had their votes illegally nullified? And how?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:19 pm
==Please tell me Peraica is doing this pro-bono==
I’d be interested to know how he can afford to do all of this pro-bono work. All the guy does is lose in court. Between this and the Krupa case and all the other frivolous right-wing grievance cases he handles, how does his firm pay its bills? Contributions from the IL GOP, or associated PAC’s? Regular searches through Dick Uhlien’s couch cushions? It has to be hard to make salary when you’re hitting below the Mendoza line (Mario, not Susana) in your chosen profession
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:45 pm
47th Ward,
Peraica is not doing the case pro bono.
It came out in discovery that Blair Hull is footing the bill for the suit.
Comment by Fax Machine Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:51 pm
==Please tell me Peraica is doing this pro-bono.==
Would be nice to know the answer to that.
==Hard to figure why to perpetuate this. Unless you just want to keep it going during a more visible and critical time.
I guess it might not be that hard to figure.==
Right. And there’s another step after the Seventh Circuit.
Comment by Anonanonsir Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:53 pm
What is the saying about a fool and his money?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 3:56 pm
===fraudulently disenfranchising voters===
yes - those voters who unknowingly voted for the sham candidates had their votes effectively nullified.
-there is an argument to made with respect to distinguishing the act of municipality as cited in Jones.
-apologies for civilly presenting another side of the discussion
Comment by not clearcut (even with a brush-hawg) Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 4:18 pm
===yes - those voters who unknowingly voted for the sham candidates had their votes effectively nullified.===
Yeah, ‘bout that, the judge covered that aspect, citing the Sun-Times specifically.
We’re now responsible for wholly educating every voter? Hmm.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 4:20 pm
Dude’s got nothing better to do do, I s’pose.
@steve Change your name to FUD. It suits you.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 4:25 pm
==fraudulently disenfranchising voters==
It’s hard to feel sorry for voters who don’t bother educating themselves about their choices at the polls. As the judge pointed out, Gonzales campaigned on this issue, and word got out through multiple media sites.
Comment by Bourbon Street Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 4:35 pm
Seriously — what does Jason get out of this?
Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 4:37 pm
I had my legal rights violated in the past. I talked to several plaintiffs’ lawyers who said I had a solid case for liability, but small damages. Despite my outrage, I decided to “move on” with my life instead of carrying my case around in a bag and shopping it to lawyers for months; I had a business to run. Jason has an advanced degree and a good future. The future is now.
Comment by James Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 5:25 pm
@Ron Burgundy -
I always heard:
If you can’t plead the law, plead the facts.
If you can’t plead the facts, plead the law.
If you can’t plead the law OR the facts, plead rachmones.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 5:30 pm
It appears like Rauner is still harassing Madigan with a bunch of lawsuits..
Comment by M Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 5:58 pm
The (very slight) variation of the aphorism are interesting. This is what I’ve heard:
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 6:59 pm
What if Gonzales had not publicized this issue to no avail? Who says these Latino candidates or any others don’t have a First Amendment to run for any reason or no reason at all, even if the reason is to stop another particular Hispanic they don’t like from winning?
Comment by Michael Westen Tuesday, Aug 27, 19 @ 8:21 pm
Bruce Rauner’s Democratic candidate, funded by Blair Hull, and represented by former Republican Cook County Board member Tony Peraica…
And who’s the alleged “sham”?
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Aug 28, 19 @ 8:54 am
I think its funny that Gonzales is crying fraud when he actually took one of the 13th Ward Sample ballots and doctored it to put his name on the sample ballot instead of Madigan’s.
=== yes - those voters who unknowingly voted for the sham candidates had their votes effectively nullified. ===
Both Madigan and Gonzales had dozens of mailers and walkers going door to door to educate the voters on the issues of the campaign. If a voter selected one of the other two candidates, who is to say that this was not intentional. Gonzales even admitted that these other candidates effectively did no campaigning. Voting for the other candidates could have been a protest vote.
Comment by Powdered Whig Wednesday, Aug 28, 19 @ 8:59 am