Will Election ’19 create lasting grudge between Preckwinkle, Mendoza?

It was 1992, and Bill Lipinski and Marty Russo wound up having to run against each other for a seat in Congress – the Republican-drawn boundaries for that decade wound up pitting the two in a head-to-head brawl.

MENDOZA: Prevailing in fight thus far

Lipinski of the Southwest Side and Russo of south suburban Cook County actually had a reputation as political colleagues who also shared a friendship. Yet that election cycle saw the two engage in such hard-core politicking that the friendship did not survive Lipinski’s eventual victory.

SO IT CERTAINLY wouldn’t be unheard of if tensions arise sufficiently that Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza wind up despising each other by the time Feb. 26 (Election Day) arrives.

Preckwinkle and Mendoza, of course, are among the nearly two dozen people with dreams of becoming Chicago’s new mayor. Preckwinkle is showing just how hard-core a politician her time as county board president and alderman have made her – she’s trying to get Mendoza kicked off the ballot.

Because the perception is that Preckwinkle and Mendoza could be the two most legitimate candidates. Preckwinkle’s chances benefit if Mendoza is removed from the political equation.

But the investigators looking into Toni’s allegations that Mendoza’s nominating petitions had way too many invalid signatures of support to be legitimate are finding that they’re not anywhere near as flawed as she’d have us believe them to be.

NOT THAT MENDOZA is totally in the clear. A hearing officer may have dismissed one of Preckwinkle’s allegations, but three other charges are still pending. An Elections Board hearing officer is giving the Preckwinkle campaign a chance to produce evidence to back up her claims against Mendoza.

Another hearing is scheduled for Sunday, and eventually the Elections Board will render a ruling. Which is going to wind up in court – with Mendoza fighting for survival if she gets kicked off the ballot, and Preckwinkle battling if Susana survives.

I found it interesting to learn that the hearing officer dismissed the charges related to a pattern of fraudulent behavior by the Mendoza campaign. If any legitimacy had been found, it could be the basis of criminal charges against the campaign.

PRECKWINKLE: Playing hardball politics

Meaning that any of the continuing allegations are likely to be pure partisan politics. Considering that Election Day is purely political, that’s natural. But it’s not like anybody’s in danger of going to jail because of any of this.

IF ANYTHING, THE challenge process is about political harassment. Because all of the time and money that Mendoza has had to spend on defending herself and justifying her presence on the ballot is taken away from efforts she could have engaged in to try to convince people that she ought to cast their mayoral vote for her.

Considering that she had to wait until after her Election Day victory for Illinois comptroller before she could start campaigning for Chicago mayor, she already had a strike against her.

Build up enough strikes, and you could wind up taking down the Mendoza campaign before she can make it to a run-off election come April 2.

The Eddies, both Burke … 

Which means Preckwinkle is playing hard-ball. She’s engaging in tactics that are bound to create hard feelings. Are these bound to turn the Preckwinkle/Mendoza relationship into one of political people who wind up despising each other? Of course, Mendoza isn’t the only person Preckwinkle is playing politics with – she’s already said she’ll fire the police superintendent AND greatly restrict long-time Alderman Edward Burke when she becomes mayor.

NOT THAT SUCH tactics would be unheard of. It’s not uncommon for people in politics to detest each other when they think nobody’s paying attention. In fact, that may be the reality that many people don’t understand when they complain about too many Democrats in government.

… and Johnston, could face Toni's wrath

The Democratic establishment has so many cliques that can’t stand each other. They’re nowhere near as united as Republicans are.

In fact, I once had a Republican political operative explain to me that all these cliques are the very reason it was pointless to try to cooperate with Democrats.

Although I’ve also heard some speculate that the Preckwinkle/Mendoza rivalry that is developing could very well be what costs both of them a serious chance of winning – and what could wind up giving us Mayor Daley III.

  -30-

Silverstein fights for political life; harassment, or should he wither away?

There are some who think that state Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, is interesting because of the sexual harassment allegations he is being forced to confront.

SILVERSTEIN: Fighting for political life

Silverstein is the guy who has a female lobbyist contending his behavior toward her was so upsetting and inappropriate that she had to have herself admitted to a hospital to cope with her hair falling out and excessive weight loss.

THE SENATOR HAS consistently claimed he didn’t do anything deliberate to hurt her and has offered up one of those apologies (he says he’s sorry “if I made her uncomfortable”) that tries to say as little as possible. But that also means he’s refusing to be pushed out of politics because of what he might have done.

He went ahead and filed nominating petitions so he could be on the March 20 primary election ballot and seek another term in office, where he hopes to run against three individuals who seek to challenge him.

The part of this saga that intrigues me is that Silverstein faces a serious ballot challenge that could get him kicked off the primary ballot altogether. The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that Silverstein’s attorneys say they believe he’ll be able to beat back the challenge and stay as a candidate.

Yet incumbent legislators are supposed to be able to enjoy the benefits of incumbency, meaning they’re not supposed to have to fight for their very political existence. Which means Silverstein is going to have to spend much of a campaign fund on the legal fees fighting the ballot challenge.

AT STAKE IS the fact that Silverstein, in order to get himself a spot on the ballot for his Illinois Senate post, had to come up with nominating petitions containing at least 1,000 valid signatures of support from registered voters.

Which for a credible campaign shouldn’t be all that difficult.

Knowing that the definition of “valid signatures” can be flexible depending on how stringent Election Board officials are in reviewing petitions, Silverstein filed petitions containing in excess of 1,900 signatures.

FRANKEN: He chose to fade away

Yet when Chicago elections officials completed their review, they found Silverstein had only 955 valid signatures. Which would put him 45 signatures short of the minimum required, and mean that as of now, he’s off the ballot for March 20.

THE CHICAGO ELECTIONS board on Monday held hearings in which the signatures found invalid were being reviewed, to see if perhaps a mistake was made and some of them really were valid.

If Silverstein can “rehabilitate” 45 signatures, he’s back on the ballot. And yes, “rehabilitate” is the word that Elections Board officials use to describe the process.

Now I’m sure some people are going to try to claim all these ballot challenges are just a way of trying to harass Silverstein off the ballot altogether – pressuring someone who won’t just admit to sexual harassment and resign the way that U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., chose to do when he was hit with such allegations.

I’m not about to claim that Silverstein is the victim in this case. What intrigues me is that it shows just how much of a judgment call it can be to determine what is, and is not, a valid signature on a political nominating petition.

I’D HAVE A hard time believing that Silverstein, who has been a state legislator since 1999, is such a political amateur to think that he really filed nominating petitions that were so flawed – nearly half of all the signatures!

Of course, if a less stringent review of those nominating petitions had occurred, perhaps most of them would have been approved, and there’d be no such political battle such as what is occurring now with Silverstein.

Board to decide Silverstein fate

Some people like to think that these kinds of things are cut and dried and definitive – a signature is either flawed, or isn’t. The reality is that it usually winds up as a judgment call on somebody’s behalf, and perhaps we should be focusing our attention on that process.

Because my own observation from watching the electoral political process throughout the years is that often the people who are being challenged are being harassed by their political opponents. Although if allegations against Silverstein bear any accuracy, then this form of punishment may be letting off scot free.

  -30-