Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Miranda Lambert to perform at Illinois State Fair
Next Post: Isabel’s mid-day news roundup (Updated)
Posted in:
* Grace Asiegbu at Injustice Watch…
Ever since she got married in 2012, Ashonta C. Rice has used her given name with her friends, her law clients, and even on many public documents.
But last month, Cook County elections officials — and the Illinois First District Appellate Court — ended her candidacy for judge by removing the 45-year-old lawyer’s name from the primary ballot under a law enacted to prevent candidates from duping voters with name changes.
Illinois legislators enacted the law in 2007 after a Cook County candidate changed his last name from “Rhine” to “O’Brien” to gain an advantage in a county once dominated by Irish American political figures. Historically, having an Irish-sounding name helped boost some candidates in past elections, according to a DePaul University analysis of Cook County judicial elections. The law says candidates who change their names within three years of an election cycle must include their former name on filing papers, with exemptions for name changes because of life milestones such as adoption, divorce, gender affirmation, and marriage.
The Cook County Electoral Board ordered Rice’s removal from the ballot in January, arguing because her divorce isn’t yet final, she should have added her married name to her nominating paperwork. It didn’t matter to board members that a judge in her divorce case last year issued an order officially changing her name back to “Rice” on June 15, 2023, court records show.
Rice and her attorney told Injustice Watch her exclusion from the ballot was an unfair interpretation of the law.
“The election code was radicalized into a sword and was abused by objectors to help the competing candidate,” said Andrew Finko, Rice’s attorney. “She’s not changing it to gain some advantage on the ballot or to conceal her identity or misrepresent to the voters. She’s using a name that she has consistently used.”
An Injustice Watch examination of public records suggests Rice is among a handful of candidates challenged under similar circumstances since the law was enacted.
In most cases, those candidates were women involved in divorce proceedings. And in every case — including Rice’s — the women kicked out of their races were not endorsed or supported by the Cook County Democratic Party.
The powers that be use election laws to benefit their candidates. No surprise there. But this seems pretty ridiculous.
* Read on…
Experts agree this was not the kind of behavior the 2007 law was intended to address. One of the key sponsors of the law, former Illinois state Rep. John Fritchey, said the way the law is being applied suggests it needs clarification.
“The original purpose of the law was aimed at people who very admittedly were changing their name to improve their chances of being elected judge,” said Fritchey, who left the Illinois House of Representatives to become a Cook County commissioner. “I’m in no position to know what the intent of the candidate was in this case. But there is an obvious and legitimate question about that and one that could be addressed through amending the Dissolution of Marriage Act.
“The fact that the present case exists demonstrates there’s still an ambiguity with respect to orders entered during the pendency of a divorce proceeding,” said Fritchey, who has run for judge and no longer holds public office.
Even Appellate Judge Freddrenna Lyle — who sat on the three-judge panel that rejected Rice’s appeal — lamented how the law has unfairly affected female candidates.
“Clearly, the acts of the candidate are not those sought to be prohibited by the legislature,” Lyle wrote in her special concurrence of the panel’s decision last month. “It is also clear that this issue is one particular to female candidates seeking nomination to elected office. … Only female candidates find themselves in litigation about surnames.”
Although Lyle said she disagreed with how the law is being enforced, she agreed with the two other judges who heard the case that the elections board made no fatal errors in applying it. The Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear Rice’s emergency appeal petition.
* More details…
Rice filed for divorce from her estranged husband, Christian Akiwowo, in 2022. Her name officially changed back to “Rice” on June 15 last year, court records show. Because the change fell within the three-year window under the law, her failure to notify elections officials of her former name left an opening to challenge her candidacy. The 328-page challenge was filed in December, arguing Rice should be removed under the law because she failed to comply with the rules.
Records show Rice changed her name on her voter registration, driver’s license, and Social Security card in the weeks after receiving the official name change. Because her divorce isn’t final, her opponent’s attorney argued it doesn’t fall under the divorce exception to the three-year rule under the law.
Rice, through her attorney, argued she always used her given name — professionally and personally — registering with the Illinois Supreme Court, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and the Cook County Circuit Court using her given surname. She’s also registered with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening using “Rice,” records show.
The board’s hearing officer assigned to hear the objection case recommended the board sustain the challenge because the altered driver’s license, Social Security card, and voter registration are “uncontroverted” evidence Rice changed her name.
At a Jan. 4 hearing before the three-member electoral board, both sides were allowed to make their cases. The three members include representatives of Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County Iris Martinez, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, and Cook County Clerk Karen Yarborough.
Steven Laduzinsky, an attorney who argued Rice should be removed from the ballot, said the divorce exception to the three-year rule did not apply because Rice’s divorce was not yet final.
“You’re either divorced, or you’re not. Parties reconcile. They dismiss the divorce. That order is gone,” Laduzinsky said.. “This order got entered, and this name change was effective June 15, 2023. Was it within the three years? Yes. Was it a result of a dissolution of marriage? No.”
Finko, Rice’s attorney, argued the divorce exception did apply because of the judge’s ruling in her divorce case allowing her to resume full use of her given surname. He also raised concerns at the hearing about Murphy-Aguilú’s ties to one of the board members, Martinez’s proxy Gloria Chevere, a retired Cook County Circuit Court judge who is now a senior policy adviser in Martinez’s office.
Until he was appointed to the bench last year, Murphy-Aguilú served as Martinez’s chief of staff and contributed to her political campaigns. Chevere was one of four members of an advisory panel that recommended Murphy-Aguilú for his temporary judicial appointment last year. […]
“I’ve never gone on the record in court using my married last name. I am always Ashonta C. Rice,” Rice told Injustice Watch.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Miranda Lambert to perform at Illinois State Fair
Next Post: Isabel’s mid-day news roundup (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Years ago it seemed there was at least one candidate per election that did the fake Irish name change. It was treated as a joke then. Not sure it was worth changing the law.
It seems that the interpretation and application of the law is the problem. What purpose is being served by forcing Rice to use her previous name?
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 11:25 am
Absolutely ridiculous ruling that does nothing more than punish divorced women. Shameful by the judge and the initiating litigant.
Comment by TJ Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 11:55 am
Clarity in laws is always good. That being said, Injustice Watch identified five challenges, including Rice, since 2007.
- 1 of the challenges was over Byron Sigcho Lopez - a male candidate.
- The Caroline Golden challenge had nothing to do with divorce, it was a woman filing under her maiden name despite using her married name for everything else.
- For the Erika Orr challenge, it’s unclear whether a divorce was involved or not, but either way she was allowed to stay on the ballot and is a judge today.
- For the LaTonya Ruffin challenge, her divorce WAS finalized, but the candidate had neglected to update her voter registration.
Five cases in 17 years is an awfully small sample size. And each case had significant factual differences.
Again, legal clarity is good so updating the law might not be a bad idea, but this hardly seems to be a huge problem.
Comment by Sad Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 12:27 pm
I always thought this law was passed because of a certain former Senator’s legal name change to “Chris Lauzen, CPA”
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 2:37 pm
Sad and wrongly decided. Should be better than this.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 3:56 pm
And the law, which requires a three year wait before using the changed name, wasn’t enough to hinder Mr. Spiewak, who changed his name to Shannon O’Malley, which reflected both cultural and gender appropriation. It enable him to beat a bar association approved candidate authentically named Fitzgerald. Spiewak/O’Malley patiently waited out the three years to capture the $200,000+/yr job. Spiewak got away with it, and Ms Rice is screwed by the statute. You can’t make this stuff up.
Comment by Observer1833 Tuesday, Mar 19, 24 @ 5:20 pm