Illinois' Signature Requirement for Independent Candidates is Unconstitutional
The blog is
back! (we went on hiatus for a week so the moderator could attend her son's
wedding!). We come back with an
interesting election case out of the federal court (central district of
Illinois).
A federal court
has ordered the Illinois State Board of Elections to certify an independent
candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to the ballot for the November
general election, even though the candidate submitted petitions containing
2,161 valid signatures fewer than the amount required. Gill v. Scholz (C.D.Ill., August 25, 2016). Specifically, the court found that no reasonably
diligent independent candidate could overcome the signature requirement in
Illinois’ 13th Congressional District, and the 10,754 signatures required for
access to the 2016 ballot unlawfully infringed upon the First Amendment
free-speech and assembly rights of the candidate and the voters who signed his
petitions.
The court also
found that the signature requirement violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal
protection clause, because there was no legitimate state interest in having
such a large disparity between the number of signatures required for
independent and new-party candidates, as compared to candidates of the
established Democratic and Republican parties. In the same congressional
district, Democratic candidates were required to obtain at least 733
signatures, and Republicans needed 739.
The candidate,
David M. Gill, timely filed nominating petitions containing a total of 11,348
signatures, but after an objection was filed and the State Board conducted a
records exam, it was determined that only 8,593 of those signatures were
legally valid. Despite having submitted almost 12-times the number of valid
signatures required of Democrats and Republicans, the State Board’s hearing
officer issued a recommendation that the Board remove Gill’s name from the
ballot. Gill and some voters then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois seeking an injunction to bar the State Board from
enforcing the signature requirement against him.
Plaintiffs
presented expert testimony from a federal election scholar showing that since
the year 1888, no Illinois congressional candidate has ever overcome a
signature requirement as high as 10,754, and only three candidates have ever
done so in the entire country. Only one congressional candidate in Illinois has
ever overcome a requirement as high as 8,593, which was the number of valid
signatures on Gill’s petitions, but that was back in 1974, before Illinois
limited the signature collection period to 90 days. Thus, the court found that
no reasonably diligent independent candidate could overcome the signature requirement
in the 13th Congressional District.
On August 25,
District Judge Sue E. Myerscough granted the injunction and ordered that Gill’s
name be printed on the November ballot. The court found “the evidence is that
independent and minor party candidates have not been able to meet the
requirements and such candidates get on the ballot only if no objections to the
nominating petitions are made or if it is a redistricting year when only 5,000
signatures are required.” Despite failing to meet the minimum, Gill “has
obtained 8,593 valid signatures and shown a modicum of support. Consequently,
because it appears Gill otherwise qualifies to be on the ballot, this ruling
requires that Gill remain on the ballot.”
Post Authored by
Adam Lasker, Ancel Glink
Disclaimer:
Ancel Glink assisted the plaintiffs with this case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment