Three objections to candidate nominations were recently filed and an Electoral Board hearing occurred yesterday (News-Gazette coverage here). First a quick refresher on what an Electoral Board is at the County level. From a previous post:
So, what's going on, and what exactly is an Electoral Board? Well, when people fill out and submit an objection (in triplicate!) to the election authority that oversees a particular election, the appropriate electoral board is the one that considers it. In general: the statewide candidate objections will be heard by the State Officers Electoral Board, county candidate objections will be heard by the County Officers Electoral Board, municipal candidates will be heard by the municipal electoral board, with some rules to cover the oddball edges and special circumstances (all laid out here in legalese in the IL Compiled Statutes).The County Electoral Boards recently were at the Champaign County Courthouse (visitor rules on attire and security) and operated much like you'd expect a civil trial. Whoever filed the objection to the nomination plays a role similar to plaintiff, while the candidate defends their nomination. Lawyers appear to be the norm on both sides as the decisions rest on election law, both statute and court precedents. The three members (or substitutes) of the Electoral Board itself play the role of a panel of judges, with the County Clerk presiding, but a majority needed by the Board for decisions and rulings.
So at the County level here, that'd be the County Clerk, the County State's Attorney, and the County Circuit Clerk, with the County Clerk chair. Each can designate an assistant to sit on the board in their place. And what, you may ask, happens if the objection is to themselves as a candidate or some such conflict? The law says the County Treasurer or the County Sheriff will sit in depending on the situation/eligibility.
The decisions aren't arbitrary and appear to be guided by law and precedent and subject to judicial review. In fact, if you do a word search through the State of Illinois Candidate's Guide, you'll find numerous references to precedent from Electoral Board rulings.
Today's hearing involved three objections to three candidates: Republican P.J. Trautman and Democrats Christ Stohr and Charles Young. Trautman's nomination was being challenged on the fact that he voted in the Democratic Primary this election cycle (which in Illinois serves as a sort of declaration of party affiliation in our primary system) and yet attempting to run as a Republican in the general election, which is typically disqualifying. The Stohr and Young objections appeared to be a question on if their nominations were timely filed.
The merits of the objections were not argued today, only preliminary motions and "arguments on the timeliness of filing of objections." Another hearing will be scheduled after arguments are filed later this week.
The preliminary motions included a request for the County Clerk Gordy Hulten to recuse himself since he had publicly endorsed and pledged to support the candidacy of P.J. Trautman. Court precedent was raised about ensuring fairness and impartiality of Electoral Board hearings and examples where a recusal was deemed appropriate. Arguments ranged from fairness to the objector and the voters of Champaign County and the possibility that decisions could be rendered null and void by a Board not properly constituted. She noted that a substitute with the County Clerk's office is readily available and more appropriate.
Trautman's lawyer, Champaign Mayor Deb Feinen in her capacity as an attorney, argued that political bias has not been held as sufficient for requiring a change of board member or venue. She pointed to a case where bias wasn't a sufficient reason even with long time opponents (a point the objector argued didn't include a direct public statement of support).
The Assistant State's Attorney Steve Zeigler (a Republican who was substituting for the State's Attorney and Democrat Julia Rietz) pointed out that the cited cases didn't point to a direct requirement for recusal in spite of the objector's protestations on the requirement that the Electoral Board be as fair and impartial as one can get. All three Republican board members voted no on the motion and Hulten remained presiding over the Electoral Board. The gallery was largely filled with Democratic and progressive visitors and appeared annoyed, but hardly shocked, with some head shaking.
The timeliness of filing objections arguments were a bit of a legalese soup to me, so I don't have a great deal of details, but I can give my impressions. These may be a bit imprecise and reflect my personal bias, so take them with a grain of salt.
There were three issues that stood out to me. The first and most critical for folks trying to follow along is that there was an issue of Trautman's arguments on this point not being given to the objector to look over and formulate a response. This is what led to the end of the hearing today with filings on that being required later this week and a date to reconvene to be determined then.
The second issue to me were the arguments themselves taking very partisan divisions. The crux of that argument is on what the appropriate deadline was for an objection to the nomination. There was an accusation of bias against the County Clerk for refusing to address the issue and make the information available about Trautman's primary party affiliation records. Hulten repeatedly tried to link the deadline question to the two Democratic candidates whose nominations were being objected to separately to argue that if one deadline is used for them in this hearing, it must be used for all. There was some confusion at times about which step of the process was being addressed on timeliness (e.g. the objection's timeliness or the timeliness of nominations) and which candidate(s) was at the focus of the arguments being made within the questions being asked by the County Clerk.
At one point the lawyer arguing for the objection to Trautman asked for a moment and the County Clerk flatly said no. The Democrats in the audience were a bit unsettled at that point with some audible grumbles and befuddlement. The arguments on this by the objector is pending, but I got the impression that the Republicans on the Board were attempting to conflate deadline rules to shoot down the objection on a technicality while the Democrats were treating the technicality as manufactured by linking their objection to the two others. A technicality that may rely on the issue of whether or not Hulten had slow-walked the process of releasing information about the candidate's conflict according to Democrats.
And finally, something that stood out to me, was Hulten's admission in the middle of all these arguments, back and forth, and a bit of testiness that the concerns/arguments on the timeliness were being raised by the Board itself as opposed to Trautman's lawyer. Feinen had noted that her arguments on this were formulated the night before when explaining why they hadn't been submitted with the other objector's attorney.
It remains to be seen what the arguments will be after all of this. I'd imagine that Republicans would find the legal technicalities persuasive and proper while Democrats would look at them as straining credulity to justify partisan shenanigans. As an independent I like to imagine how or if the sides would act if the roles were reversed, and whether or not that makes it okay. Technically, legally, or ethically. I leave that to the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment