The General Assembly passed a law giving the Republican Party an exception to the 67 day rule. It was unanimous in both chambers.
The question that remains is whether any of the smaller parties will challenge this as special legislation. As a Democrat, I can’t get upset about this, but if I were a member of a smaller party, I’d be hopping mad given all the extra hoops they have to jump through.
Dan suggests that Democrats should have made a stand and pointed out the effort to politicize 9-11 by moving the convention so close to the third anniversary. I say, let them hang themselves.
I doubt such a move would resonnate with non-activists and it would sound like a game. However, letting the Republicans overdo themselves in New York will be a far more effective way to get the point across.
This whole ‘Bush on the Ballot’ thing was screwey from the beginning. No one ever thought that the President would not be on the ballot. I mean even the guys who play ‘inside baseball’ didn’t think he wouldn’t have shown up on Nov 2nd.
In my mind this would have caused the Dems in Springfield to ‘hang themselves’ if they would have f’d around here.
good move by the Speaker’s part….
I think you are right. Even if you argue that the law was there before, people aren’t going to listen to the argument. The sitting President should be on the ballot and there is nothing magical about 67 days. Now, the smaller parties have reason to gripe…
You bet we have reason to gripe and we will. Now, if the IL Republicans weren’t so corrupt and sticklers to election law to keep others off the ballot, maybe no one would have even noticed Bush expecting special privileges and favoritism. George Ryan used state employees on the clock in 1998 and Judy Baar Topinka is under federal grand jury investigation for doing the same thing in 2002.
I can tell you the LP was perfectly willing to let things go today until the IL Republicans decided to again play Fidel Castro with election laws that are already some of the most anti-democratic of ANY democracy in the WORLD. AND, now we have the Ryan switcheroo that makes hypocrits out of the ILGOP yet again. 3 weeks to replace Ryan? Look at the law people. It says 8 days.
As if it matters anyway. Bush and the Ryan replacement have only a slightly better chance of winning in IL than Badnarik and Kohn do. At least the LP guys believe in free and equal elections and aren’t corrupt politician apologists.
Just another example of Bush getting special treatment, as he has throughout his life. Despicable. Shame, shame, shame on the Democrats in the General Assembly for bending over and giving Bush and the national GOP exactly what they demanded. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
In a perfect world, I would suggest that the Libertarians set up a legal fund to pay for a court challenge to the way that Bush was allowed to get on the ballot contrary to Illinois election law.
I would then suggest that Democrats and other anti-Bush types send some money to the Libertarians’ legal fund to help finance the legal challenge. That way the Democrats would not be a party to the law suit and the Libertarians would finally get funding for the fight with the powers that be that they have long wanted.
Unfortunately, here in the real world, the Democratic candidates for Senate and President need every free Democratic dollar there is.
So-Called “Austin Mayor”
Here’s the point I think Larry and Chris Rhodes from the Cross blog miss — the Democrats didn’t have to pass a bill that would have taken Bush off the ballot. They would have had to do. . .absolutely nothing. Just. . .nothing. Everyone knew that Bush would get on the ballot. So the Dems should have made the GOP go to court and defend their decision to hold the NYC convention in September. Instead, the Dems didn’t frame this issue at all (and they could have helped to frame the convention — nationally — by showing it as a ruthless and illegal move to exploit the tragedy). I don’t see the backlash for refusing to change state law — that isn’t screwing around with the Bush re-election campaign. It’s just not bending over backwards for them.
But the Republicans could and would have shouted that the Democrats in Springfield were keeping Bush off the ballot and from there Democrats would have had to start arguing and the average voter (meaning not someone who hangs out at political web sites) wouldn’t have wanted to hear about any of it.
If there is backlash it is going to be from overdoing the convention itself. I’d much rather not have a national todo about the President being on the ballot and more about the exploitation. It’s not a winnable argument because the frame is that the President is going to not be on the ballot which sounds silly to the average person. As it is now, there is a good shot the law might be struck down the way I understand it. Democrats have clean hands.