Will the names Sanchez and Hardiman become more memorable in defeat?

Anybody who thinks that “The Law” is absolute, crystal clear and well-thought out in its intent need only look at some of the ballot challenges now taking place to realize the error of their ways.

SANCHEZ: Is he free yet?

In all honesty, I don’t know how the Cook County Elections Board will rule with regard to the challenge to the county board candidacy of Al Sanchez.

JUST AS I’M really curious to see if Gov. Pat Quinn becomes the luckiest politician on Planet Earth. After losing all of his potentially-serious challengers for the primary, he may also have his token Democrat challenger removed as well.

But none of it is so clear-cut that people can say it is a done deal that these people don’t have any business on the ballot for the March 18 primary elections.

Anybody who tries to claim that these candidates didn’t follow the rules, thereby bringing their fate upon themselves, is being disingenuous. They’re just lucky that the county and Illinois State Board of Elections both had officials whose interpretation of the law matchup up perfectly with their own partisan political leanings.

If anything, I’m inclined to think that Sanchez – the one-time city Streets & Sanitation commissioner who got into legal trouble for the way in which he tried to make himself a Latino political powerbroker – is doomed. Although his attorneys would argue otherwise about his campaign against incumbent Commissioner Stanley Moore, D-Chicago.

SANCHEZ DID JUST over two years in federal prison facilities for the way in which he used his part of the city payroll to reward his political workers. People like Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, also have their allied political workers in government jobs, but they are subtle than was Sanchez.

He’s now free, but he remains on probation.

Which is what has the people who don’t want Sanchez on the ballot arguing that he hasn’t completed the sentence for his felony conviction. As though they’d think any higher of him once his probation is complete.

HARDIMAN: No running mate?

Not likely!

IT ALWAYS WAS my understanding that a sentence includes the probationary period – because in theory he could be found in violation and returned to prison.

But it’s going to be up to the county Elections Board to figure this one out, because there isn’t much in the way of precedent in terms of a political candidate having to figure out when his prison time is complete.

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the name “Al Sanchez” wound up going into the political history books more for determining when felons could resume trying to have a political life – rather than for his stint as head of the now-defunct Hispanic Democratic Organization.

The campaign of Tio Hardiman – who’s putting up the token Democratic primary bid against Quinn – is more bizarre. His lieutenant governor running mate is Brunell Donald, an attorney in Chicago.

IT SEEMS SHE’S not registered to vote at her current address (she recently moved). Which means the address she gave for herself on her nominating petitions does not match up to where she really lives.

Does this make her vulnerable to attack? Can she be booted from the ballot? Or is this excessive nitpicking?

It may be. But the real question is what this does to Hardiman, since the elections process was changed beginning this election cycle to require gubernatorial candidates to name a running mate to run with them in the primary portion of the election cycle.

There is NO precedent for what happens if a candidate for governor does not have a running mate in place on the ballot. The courts are definitely going to wind up having to resolve this case.

WHICH WILL BE rather ironic, since the name “Tio Hardiman” was supposed to be ultimately forgettable and irrelevant to this election cycle.

Instead, his case could wind up will definitely become a first, even bigger than that of Sanchez. They could matter more in defeat than if they had actually been capable of getting themselves elected to office.

  -30-

Petition flaws; a campaign fatal error

RUTHERFORD: Cleaning up mistakes?

Remember Alice Palmer?

I don't know if Republican gubernatorial hopeful Dan Rutherford does. But his actions of late indicate he doesn't want to suffer her same political fate.

FOR RUTHERFORD IS the candidate who realized his nominating petitions, the documents that are meant to officially get himself a spot on the GOP primary ballot come March, were flawed enough that he could have been kicked off.

His campaign could have died before ever taking place – and Republican-leaning voters would have had to pick between the trio of William Brady, Kirk Dillard and Bruce Rauner.

The state treasurer who served in the Legislature for nearly two decades representing the Pontiac area would not have been a presence on the ballot.

Now his circumstances are far different from those of Palmer – the one-time state legislator from the South Side who would up getting tripped up (and kicked off the ballot) when she tried seeking re-election in the 1996 election cycle.

PALMER’S PROBLEMS AROSE when she got dreams of running for Congress. She wanted a promotion. But it became apparent to her during the campaign cycle that her chances of actually winning were nil.

So just before the deadline for filing nominating petitions, she changed her mind and went for re-election. Which required a whole new set of petitions – the others had people supporting her for Congress, NOT the state Senate.

But because they were put together on the rush to meet a deadline, they were sloppy. There were flaws. Enough flaws that she didn’t have enough valid signatures of support.

PALMER: Historic gaffe

Now had there been politeness and courtesy, no one would have brought up these flaws. If no one challenges the petitions, they automatically become legitimate – regardless of the flaws.

BUT THEY WERE challenged, the flaws were found, and Palmer got kicked off the ballot. She never again held elective office. That is how a community activist named Barack Obama began the 12-year trek that wound up at the White House.

It seems Rutherford’s own petitions had flaws – ones even his most ardent backers acknowledged. We just know that the Republican opposition would have ganged up on him to get a credible candidate knocked off the ballot.

Anything to make their own campaign effort easier.

OBAMA: Took advantage of a fluke?

Which is why the Rutherford campaign these days, according to Crain’s Chicago Business, is taking it upon themselves to circulate all-new nominating petitions – which did not include a notarized statement specifying when the petitions had actually been circulated.

THAT’S EXACTLY THE kind of technicality that election law attorneys love to exploit to knock around the opposition.

For Rutherford’s sake, let’s hope that none of his people are feeling particularly rushed. Because that could lead to further errors of sloppiness that could still harm him.

My guess is that Rutherford’s petitions (in whatever form they get submitted to the Illinois State Board of Elections) are going to be scrutinized to the “n’th” degree by people looking for anything they can try to claim is a flaw.

The outcome, if a flaw is found, can be worth the legal battles and hurt feelings – although I can’t say I see any of the GOP gubernatorial dreamers as anyone with potential to become president come 2028.

I DOUBT THAT history will repeat itself in quite that way.

Although it does seem odd that a petition flaw would occur this time, since there were also questions about the nominating petitions that put Mitt Romney on the ballots in Illinois for U.S. president.

ROMNEY: Didn't learn from mistake?

The only reason there weren’t serious challenges to that (which would have been embarrassing to the Romney campaign if it couldn’t get on all 50 states’ ballots) was because of potential for flaws in the petitions of opponent Rick Santorum.

Both sides ultimately decided to “play nice” and not pursue the issue. That won’t happen again if anybody thinks Rutherford is vulnerable to a technicality that could undo him before the voters get a chance to.

  -30-

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: It strikes me as being quite pathetic that the people most willing to denounce Barack Obama for using flawed petitions to eliminate his opposition are the same ones who would eagerly have pounced on Dan Rutherford petition flaws to undo his campaign if it would gain them an ideological ally.

Booting Obama from the ballot?

It’s more about trying to make a political statement against Barack Obama than engaging in any concrete action. But there are those people who are trying to get the incumbent president removed from the ballot that Illinois voters will see in the March 20 primary election.

OBAMA: Booted from ballot?



The people supporting Rick Santorum’s presidential fantasies (which got a jolt from those misguided folks in Iowa) are engaging in their own efforts to kick all the other Republican presidential candidates off the Illinois ballot to try to clear a path for him.

BUT THE ACTIVIST types who are singling out Obama, while they may think they’re engaging in some serious effort, are really just into making a silly statement that shows just how out-of-touch they are with the political mainstream.

For the record, Obama is unopposed for the Democratic nomination for president on the Illinois ballot. So if, by some miracle, Obama’s name were to be removed, people picking a Democratic ballot would have no one to vote for when it comes to U.S. president.

But to the best of my knowledge, no one is trying to boot the slates of delegates to the Democratic National Convention who also will appear on the ballot. Which means Illinois would still send people to the convention to make official Obama’s bid for a second term as president.

I actually got a statement in my e-mail from one of the groups that filed a challenge to Obama. I’m not quoting any of it, or even identifying the group (I deleted it from my own e-mail box fairly quickly), because the tone of it was so irrational.

IT ACTUALLY DELVED into the electoral history of Obama and how he managed to win his first election to an Illinois state Senate seat unopposed. By booting then-state Sen. Alice Palmer off the ballot, they say Obama brought bad karma on himself – which now will be repaid by booting him off the ballot in his own home state.

PALMER: Famous for failure?

I can’t tell if this is a group of conservative ideologues engaging in their usual anti-Obama rhetoric, or black activists who still hold a grudge on behalf of Palmer (who herself was a Hillary Clinton backer for president in 2008 and also supported Danny Davis for mayor last year over Obama ally Rahm Emanuel).

It actually astounds me how many people do not really comprehend what happened to Palmer back in 1996. She thought about running for Congress, but soon came to the realization that she would suffer the same fate challenging Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., that Obama himself suffered in 2002.

So she put together a last-minute petition drive to seek re-election to her South Side state legislative post that Obama had already decided he wanted to run for because Palmer allegedly was vacating the post.

BECAUSE SHE HAD to do a rush job to get those petitions ready, they were sloppy. Sloppy enough that Obama was able to challenge her and get her kicked off the ballot. Except that Palmer backers seem to think there is a "gentlemen's agreement" to politics to leave her unchallenged, in that situation.

It resulted in her becoming the woman whose career as a legislator and an educator has become obscured by her political demise. Being booted from the ballot may wind up being the only reason anyone remembers her name – and even then only because of its association to Obama.

But when people start talking about bad karma and “payback,” I have to wonder how much they’re over-exaggerating the situation.

In short, I consider these challenges to the Obama ballot spot to be silly, if not outright vacuous, even though they claim the Obama nominating petitions were done so sloppily that they do not comply with state elections law.

I DON’T KNOW first-hand. I haven’t seen the nominating petitions for myself. And the Illinois State Board of Elections (which ultimately will have to rule on the challenges to Obama and the bulk of the GOP challengers) has yet to schedule hearings to resolve the matter.

Not that I honestly believe the state Elections Board will do much of anything about it. I expect they will find a way to dismiss the Obama challenge – which most likely will result in the same activists releasing another verbose statement about “hypocrisy” and political people sticking up for each other over the interests of everyday people.

Which, of course, is nonsense, because these people have their own ideological agenda to peddle. They are as far removed from everyday people as anyone can get.

So I’m not about to get all worked up and worry about whether Obama will somehow have his presidency undermined at this stage of the game.

BECAUSE THIS IS really going to show why political operatives dismiss this stage of the process as the “beauty contest,” and pay more attention to the delegate selection.

Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. president who will have to face a serious challenge from whichever ideologue the Republicans manage to nominate.

And all that will really be accomplished by these challenges is that the people who are making them will wind up making themselves look foolish in the process.

  -30-