I figured that local Republicans would challenge the petitions of Independent candidate for judge Sally Wiggins, but they didn’t.
Instead, the challenge came as one of many filed by Barrington Hills resident Sharon Ann Meroni.
Meroni is trying to make the point that boards of elections should require candidates to prove they are citizens before allowing them on the ballot.
After all, that is a requirement for running for office, I am sure she would argue.
So, Meroni filed many objections and McHenry County resident Wiggins ended up on her list.
State legislators had already made it difficult for independents to challenge power party candidates. In McHenry County, that translated into a requirement for 4,100 good signatures.
Wiggins turned in about 5,100.
I thought that would not be considered enough of a margin to keep McHenry County Republicans from filing a challenge.
The local GOP, however, kept its powder dry.
But Meroni didn’t.
Monday at 10, a hearing will be held by the McHenry County Officers’ Electoral Board to consider Meroni’s objection.
Wiggins says she has a birth certificate she is willing to share.
I imagine Meroni wishes that President Barack Obama would do the same.
Wiggins is the candidate pioneering the giveaway of roses at parades.
President Obama’s birth certificate has been posted online. Sharon Meroni is not satisfied.
And, what of the people who don’t give in to Meroni? Is there a rule that a birth certificate must be filed with the petitions? Does Meroni win by stamping her feet?
Did Meroni file a birth certificate with her objection? It doesn’t really matter if it’s required or not. As long as we’re playing Calvin Ball.
Ms. Wiggins, as candidate for judge, says she has no problem submitting a “birth certificate” to Ms. Meroni. While I have no particular aversion with that ideal philosophically nor morally, Ms. Wiggins is sending the IL elections down a slippery slope with this act, if she does so, legally. As an attorney, and particularly as a potential judge, she should know better.
Ms. Wiggins, if I and Ms. Meroni were standing in front of you on the bench, I as a candidate and Ms. Meroni having sued me to provide documents to be on the election ballot, and I had complied with all applicable laws and rules of IL to be on the ballot, would you rule by saying I should have no problem doing what’s not required by law or would you tell Ms. Meroni that I had complied with all applicable laws and therefore should be on the ballot and that, in addition, if Ms Meroni wishes to challenge the “process” of elections the proper venue is with the legislature? Or, would you rule on the “I have no problem” theory and force me, a candidate, to do what’s not required by law?
If your answer is the latter, you have no business sitting on the bench interpreting and presiding over legal issues.
If your answer is the former, then every citizen who is qualified to vote for you should line up and do so as they can see you are willing to uphold the laws as written.
What kind of example are you going to set? Your answer determines what type judge you will be. That same answer should determine for the voters whether you are qualified to sit on the bench.
I’m not sure who Jenner is, I hope the handle doesn’t create any confusion with another occasional poster. Illinois’ ballot access laws are horrible. Third parties are required to get roughly 10x what the Republicrats need, then spend their campaign funds fighting frivolous challenges. Why are people so afraid to have additional choices on the ballot?
The “Jenner” making the first comment above is not Cary’s Chris Jenner.