Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: State Board of Elections votes 7-0 to dismiss case against Mautino
Next Post: When voting against your district gets you reelected
Posted in:
* We talked about this last month, but here’s Hannah Meisel…
Campaign contributions from out-of-staters and so-called dark money groups will be banned in Illinois judicial campaigns beginning in January under legislation Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law Monday. […]
But making Illinois the first state to outright ban certain political contributions to judicial candidates is the biggest change contained in the law, which comes a year after an Illinois Supreme Court justice first elected as a Democrat became the first sitting high court member in state history to lose his retention bid — an expensive race fueled in part by dark money.
Republicans voted against Stuart’s legislation last month, with several members arguing during the House debate that the majority party was making another adjustment in state elections law to benefit their party.
“This is another effort for the majority [party] to change the rules of the game because they don’t like the outcome,” State Rep. Ryan Spain (R-Peoria) said before voting no on the bill. “And the voters of the state of Illinois are noticing that the policies and practices and elected officials that they’ve put in power have not served them well.”
I mean, I get it, but I’m still not sure how you can claim with a straight face that a bill to ban dark money contributions is a scary bad thing.
* There’s more to the omnibus bill…
The law also makes adjustments in deadlines and other technical requirements for candidates in next year’s primary election because it’s later. Pritzker signed a law in June moving the primary from March 15 to June 28 because late-arriving 2020 Census numbers delayed the drawing of new congressional district boundaries.
Under the law, which takes effect immediately, any polling place that is accessible to voters with disabilities and elderly voters shall include at least one voting booth that is wheelchair accessible. […]
Another change allows voters to designate sex on voter registration forms as “male,” “female” or “non-binary.”
…Adding… Republican gubernatorial candidate Paul Schimpf…
Out of all of the items included in SB 536, improving and increasing election integrity safeguards was not one of them.
If the Democrats are going to make voting vastly more accessible, they need to increase voting safeguards. Yet, they are so focused on their one-party control that they don’t even consider what the voters want—and Illinoisans want to know their vote will be counted fairly and securely. But Democrats couldn’t even reach across the aisle to make election integrity a pillar of our voting process. Good government and governance starts at the top and under JB Pritzker’s leadership deficit, Illinois voters will experience another election with a lack of safeguards that promote integrity in the system.
I would have VETOED SB 536 because of the lack of election integrity safeguards. Integrity and trust must be restored in our elections.
I’ve asked what specific safeguards he was talking about, since he didn’t mention any. I’ll let you know.
…Adding… [The bill in this deleted update had been signed previously. Oops. Sorry about that.]
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: State Board of Elections votes 7-0 to dismiss case against Mautino
Next Post: When voting against your district gets you reelected
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Schimpf: “I would have vetoed this bill because it didn’t do different things that weren’t in the bill.”
Is he going to veto every election bill that doesn’t have “election integrity safeguards” in it?
Is he going to veto every bill that doesn’t for some reason include something kind of related?
Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:43 am
Campaign contributions from out-of-staters
Which is usually considered a 1st amendment violation. I do think there is a 7th circuit case on this.
Hope they made the clauses severable….
Comment by Fav Human Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:54 am
The odds of Paul Schimpf having veto powers are slightly better than myself having veto powers.
Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:57 am
===I do think there is a 7th circuit case on this===
Links would be helpful.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:09 am
Isn’t this how the campaign against Bill Conway was funded? There was a lot of dark money behind Kim Foxx’s primary campaign back then.
On the “light” side of the ledger, Kilbride had a long line of personal injury law firms making 6-figure contributions to retain a judge. Would be nice to put more restrictions on attorneys as well.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:11 am
We don’t have an auditor general who has been found in violation of campaign finance laws. The PAC had deficiencies, but the candidate wasn’t responsible and the Board just dismissed the matter.
That sound you hear is the air leaking out of this Republican talking point.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:22 am
“This is so Illinois,” Batinick said
Speaking of campaign finances, lets hear from Marks now former campaign treasurer. I’d love to see the audit done on his campaign finances.
Or does his indictment prevent him from giving his opinion?
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:28 am
My bad- it was 9th circuit.
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/151-f-3d-1215-598141806
151 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 1998), 95-35998, VanNatta v. Keisling
Comment by Fav Human Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:35 am
Oh. Look!! Another CapFax blog post about Republicans crying. That’s new!!!! LOL
Comment by Wow Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:44 am
Here’s a more recent case (from the 8th Circuit) https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-curbs-south-dakota-political-contribution-law/
Comment by Just Another Anon Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 12:02 pm
“So, we’re literally changing the law so he retroactively was no longer in violation of those laws.”
The law was not retroactive.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 1:34 pm
===the New York City controlled media===
The love of Pete, you’re in a roll today.
Rich has this as a post, is he New York controller media too?
To the post,
===“This is so Illinois,” Batinick said. “We have had an auditor general that has been found in violation of campaign finance laws. So, we’re literally changing the law so he retroactively was no longer in violation of those laws.”===
This is wholly disingenuous and Batinick knows it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 2:03 pm