Individuals have filed objections to both Crystal Laker James Young’s and Wonder Lake’s Kelly Liebmann’s Lbertarian Party petitions for Auditor and Coroner, respectively.
Randall Grimes of Marengo is taking on Young’s candidacy.
He notes that Young and Liebmann both voted in the Republican Primary Election in March.
Further that 980 signatures were filed on a joint petition with Liebmann, but state law requires 5,891.
The document also points out that a new political party’s petitions are supposed to be filed during the third week of June, but that Young’s were not turned in until July 20th.
Federal District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer’s Coronavirus decision on lessening the requirements for petitions this year is referenced.
It is noted that neither Young nor the objector were parties to the case.
Even if the case applies to Young, however, Grimes argues that the petitions contain fewer that 590 signatures are valid.
Those who voted in the primary election, those who signed a Republican or Democratic Party petition and those not registered at the address given on the petition and those with invalid signatures should be ruled ineligible, the challenge argues.
There are so many, that a “pattern of fraud” exists.
One hundred and twelve pages of analysis are attached.
Here are two examples of the analysis:
Kelly Liebmann’s petition was challenged by Warren Wohlschlager of Crystal Lake.
He enters into evidence the record of Liebmann’s having voted in the GOP Primary Election, plus having signed Michael Rein’s petition for Coroner.
The argument is made that the 980 signatures on the joint petition do not equal the 5% of the ballots cast (117,838) in the last General Election.
Parallel arguments of irrelevance are made with regard to Judge Pallmeyer’s court order.
Except for the Rein for Coroner petition which Liebmann signed, the attached paperwork appears to be the same as that filed in the objection to Young’s petitions.
Lol!
Are Teresi and Rein scared of competition or is the McGOP just upset that their handpicked bozos aren’t going to be able to walk into a seat Like usual?
I’m guessing that it’s a combination of both.
Mike Rein probably is scared.
He has lost 3 elections since November 2018.
Grimes and Wohlschlager are tools.
Ignorance on their part is the highlight of the day.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kelly’s having signed Rein’s petition should have no bearing on her own petitions for office?
It’s not as if she can sign her own and thus invalidate signatures.
Also, I doubt any individuals’ demonstrated partisan leanings preclude them for signing petitions for candidates from other Parties?
While I’m right at the top of who might be considered a Reliable Republican Voter, I’ve signed petitions of those from other parties on occasion, even while being a long-serving precinct captain & election judge.
🤷♂️
I’ve always felt more choice is USUALLY better than fewer.
I don’t question that petitions should be scrutinized, but it seems that in the last 10-15 years, there’s been a whole cottage industry of grinding challenges that are increasingly politically petty and retributive.
✌️😎
Grasping at straws and digging themselves a hole for the general election.
Did Theresi or Rein even think of the big picture?
Now the Libertarians AND FRANKS have more fodder against the already weak Republicans in McHenry County.
Look at the objection sheets—contacting signatures because they voted in the primary
Assigning a political party to voters because of what ballot they pull in the primary is violation of our 1st and 14th Amendment rights.
The assumption that Kelly and Jim weren’t parties to the lawsuit is complete bullshit.
Why?
I was an initial party to the lawsuit as a county-level candidate.
The decision in Libertarian Party of Illinois v. Pritzker APPLIES TO ALL POLITICAL RACES IN CONTENTION FOR 2020.
Learn to read the court decision before kissing Republican ass and ignoring the fact that Pritzker and the Illinois State Board of Elections LOST in Federal court.
From Memorandum Opinion and Order – Document 26:
The parties’ agreed order, permitting ballot access for previously-qualifying new party and independent candidates, and loosening the statutory signature requirements for other new party and independent candidates, establishes a measurable standard that the State can use to determine which candidates are eligible to be placed on the ballot in the unique context of this election. The court notes that in order to respect social distancing guidelines implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous states have likewise reduced the number of signatures required for a candidate to be placed on the ballot. See, e.g., Esshaki v. Whitmer, No. 2:20-CV-10831-TGB, 2020 WL 1910154, at *12 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2020) (reducing the statutory signature requirement by 50 percent); Goldstein v. Sec’y of Commonwealth, No. SJC-12931, 2020 WL 1903931, at *9 (Mass. Apr. 17, 2020) (same); N.Y. Exec. Order No. 202.2 (Mar. 14, 2020) (reducing the statutory signature requirement to 30 percent of normal); H. 681, 2019–2020 Gen. Assemb., Adjourned Sess. (Vt. 2020) (suspending the statutory signature requirement entirely). Reducing the required number of signatures to 10 percent accommodates the fact that Plaintiffs have not been able to rely on their usual signature-gathering methods for the 2020 general election ballot because the window for collecting signatures in Illinois was slated to begin on March 24, 2020, after the stay-at-home order took effect. Cf. Goldstein, 2020 WL 1903931, at *9.
Additionally, permitting candidates to submit physical or electronic copies of petitions accommodates the various practical barriers to collecting signatures at this time—due to the closure of most public places, Illinoisans may have limited access to the Internet or a printer, or may even be wary of opening mailed petitions. See Esshaki, 2020 WL 1910154, at *5 (explaining that a mail-based signature campaign is expensive and ultimately ineffective). Other states have similarly permitted signature collection and petition submission in both electronic and physical formats. See, e.g., Fla. Emergency R. 1SER20-2 (Apr. 2, 2020); N.J. Exec. Order Nos. 105, 120 (Mar. 19, 2020, Apr. 8, 2020); Utah Exec. Order No. 2020-8 (Mar. 26, 2020). The court recognizes that the state will be burdened by extending the signature-gathering deadline, but finds this hardship outweighed by the significant difficulties that would be experienced by campaigns trying to implement a new signature-gathering process while complying with even the modified statutory requirements in such a short amount of time. In particular, the court notes that even after some restrictions are lifted, until a vaccine is available, voters are likely to continue practicing social distancing and avoiding any physical hand contact with other persons or objects.
In sum, the parties’ agreed order balances the State’s legitimate interests in “preventing voter confusion, blocking frivolous candidates from the ballot, and otherwise protecting the integrity of” the upcoming election, Navarro, 716 F.3d at 431, while accommodating the significant restrictions on new party and independent candidates’ ability to collect signatures in light of the unprecedented limitations on public gatherings required to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
From Preliminary Injunction Order – Document 27:
Plaintiffs and Intervenor have moved for a preliminary injunction seeking relief from certain provisions of the Illinois Election Code because of the difficulties caused by the current pandemic. Based on the circumstances as set out in the Motions for Preliminary Injunction and the Response of Defendants J.B. Pritzker, Governor of the State of Illinois, and the members of the Illinois State Board of Elections, the Court has determined that entry of a preliminary injunction is proper. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The in-person signature requirement, circulator statement, and notarization requirement of 10 ILCS 5/10-4 is enjoined from having effect for new political party and independent candidates, as defined in 10 ILCS 5/10-2 and 10 ILCS 5/10-3, for the November 2020 general election only. Specifically, the following portion of 10 ILCS 5/10-4 is enjoined:
At the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a circulator’s statement, signed by a person 18 years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States; stating the street address or rural route number, as the case may be, as well as the county, city, village or town, and state; certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are genuine; and either (1) indicating the dates on which that sheet was circulated, or (2) indicating the first and last dates on which the sheet was circulated, or (3) certifying that none of the signatures on the sheet were signed more than 90 days preceding the last day for the filing of the petition; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly registered voters under Articles 4, 5 or 6 of the Code of the political subdivision or district for which the candidate or candidates shall be nominated, and certifying that their respective residences are correctly stated therein. Such statement shall be sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths in this State.
2. The requirement in 10 ILCS 5/10-4 that a new political party or independent candidate must file the “original sheets which have been signed by the voters and by the circulator, and not photocopies or duplicates of such sheets” is also enjoined.
3. The effect of enjoining the portions of 10 ILCS 5/10-4 listed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above is that a physical “wet” signature would still be permitted but not required on the candidate’s petition. Petition signers may physically sign a copy of a candidate’s petition, or they may electronically sign their handwritten signatures to the petition using a finger or a device such as a computer mouse or stylus.
4. The filing deadline for new political party and independent candidates, as set forth in 10 ILCS 5/10-2, 10-3, 10-5, and 10-6, will be extended to August 7, 2020. The filing period for new party and independent candidates will run from July 31, 2020 to August 7, 2020. (Later pushed to July 20, 2020 in a later Illinois State Board of Elections appeal.)
5. Candidates nominated by Plaintiff Libertarian Party of Illinois (“LPIL”) and Plaintiff Illinois Green Party (“GPIL”) shall qualify for placement on Illinois’ November 3, 2020 general election ballot for each office for which the respective party placed a candidate on Illinois’ general election ballot in either 2018 or 2016. Plaintiff LPIL and Plaintiff GPIL shall submit a list of their qualifying candidates and the office for which the candidate is running to Defendant Illinois State Board of Elections on or before August 7, 2020, by First Class Mail postmarked on that date or by any other equally expeditious method. Defendants are enjoined from requiring that such candidates submit petitions to qualify for placement on Illinois’ 2020 general election ballot.
This Paragraph does not apply to established political parties as defined by 10 ILCS 5/10-2.
6. The independent candidate Plaintiffs – Marcus Throneburg, David Gill and Intervenor Kyle Kopitke – shall qualify for placement on Illinois’ November 3, 2020 general election ballot for each office for which the respective candidate qualified for Illinois’ general election ballot in either 2018 or 2016. Plaintiffs Throneburg, Gill and Intervenor Kopitke shall provide Defendant Illinois State Board of Elections notice of their intent to run for such office on or before August 7, 2020, by First Class Mail postmarked on that date or by any other equally expeditious method. Defendants are enjoined from requiring that Plaintiffs Throneburg, Gill and Intervenor Kopitke submit petitions to qualify for placement on Illinois’ 2020 general election ballot for such offices.
7. Candidates nominated by Plaintiff LPIL and Plaintiff GPIL, or any other new political party as defined by 10 ILCS 5/10-2, who do not qualify for placement on Illinois’ 2020 general election ballot under the terms set forth in Paragraph 5, and any independent candidate as defined in 10 ILCS 5/10-3, shall, in the alternative, qualify for the Illinois 2020 general election ballot provided that they submit a petition with valid signatures equal in number to 10 percent of the signature requirement specified for the applicable office in the State of Illinois 2020 Candidate’s Guide issued by the Illinois State Board of Elections and available at https://www.elections.il.gov/.
8. Good cause exists to waive the posting of any bond, therefore the requirement of posting a bond is hereby waived.
9. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to enforce this order or enter further relief as necessary and appropriate.
========================================================
Going off the order, regarding bullet point number 7: As McHenry County Libertarians is an active affiliate of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, they have sole authority in candidate nominations. Therefore, Kelly Liebmann and Jim Young are indeed valid candidates. Both Liebmann and Young are Libertarian Party of Illinois members in good standing.
Nowhere in the Illinois Election Coder states that a petition or candidate can be disqualified over voting in a primary. The Election Board in McHenry County is in the wrong there. They’re making up election rules that were stricken from the Election Code over a decade ago.
And in case you’d like to know, I know this information as the Political Director of the Libertarian Party of Illinois. So I know what’s factual and what’s being pushed as lies by the duopoly.
Chiropractor Rein and Lifetime Government Worker Theresi need a better case than what I read here.
Even this blog mentioned the wins libertarians received because of covid for petitioning and get on the ballot.
The ill advised Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars at this point.
Shame.
There is nothing of substance in either challenge.
These are clear attempts to stall Young’s and Liebmann’s campaigns and stop McHenry County voters from having choices on the ballot.
Wow! A tour de farce!