Recent Petition Objection

New Political Parties

It has been reported in some papers that the objections filed against the Orland Park First Party nomination papers were frivolous and / or nuisance. These are in fact terms used by the defense counsel. This is understandable, as that is his job. But these terms were in fact rejected by the Election Board Chairman, trustee Schussler, who said, (paraphrasing) “.. that may be your opinion…” speaking to the defense counsel, “… but we will hear the arguments…”, and the hearing proceeded. To report and conclude that this was a frivolous challenge and a waste of time is really just reporting the defense counsel’s argument, and not the facts.

It should also be noted, that in the legal case supporting our argument that an established party cannot also be a New Party, the candidates were not stricken from the ballot, they were just not allowed to run as a New Party, but were allowed to remain on the ballot as independent candidates since they did meet the signature requirements.

The fact is, there are rules, and they should be followed. There is a process, and if you want to run for election, then you work thru that process. We fully expected the objection to fail in Orland Park for obvious reasons. However, we do believe that Trustee Schussler and Trustee Murphy gave us a fair shot.

It is also our belief, after consulting with our legal counsel, that this objection would certainly be upheld on appeal in any real court.

What is the purpose of an Established Party vs a New Party?
An Established Party gives the incumbents a lower signature threshold to get on the ballot when they are up for re-election. The Established Party may also have “dibs” on 1st ballot position. (Their candidate names would be listed 1st on the ballot before any challengers.) The drawback is that an Established Party must also offer a primary or caucus if multiple candidates wish to run for the same office within that Party.
A New Party allows a “full slate” of candidates to gather signatures collectively, which reduces the signature burden significantly. For instance, if the signature requirement for a particular New Party in a given election is 850 signatures, then the New Party can list all candidates on a single petition and gather 850 signatures in total, as opposed to gathering 850 signatures separately for each candidate. Also, since a New Party is not created until the Nomination Petitions are submitted, a New Party is not subject to a Primary or Caucus.

And that is the problem. This allows a group of incumbent candidates to repeatedly run for reelection while circumventing any possibility of a caucus or primary. Municipalities like Orland Park, have a “split” election cycle, meaning every 2 years there is an election, however, not every office is up for election every 2 years, as the defense counsel argued and also advised directly to Trustee Murphy, in response to Trustee Murphy’s question to Trustee Schussler. As this law/rule/regulation is currently being interpreted and implemented, a group of candidates can run as a full slated New Political party, be elected, become an Established Party, and then in 2 years that Established Party ceases to exist, even though all of the slated candidates, now elected officials, are not up for reelection in this cycle, and retain their offices. So what happens is that in these split election cycles, incumbent candidates run every two years, and keep changing the name of their “New Party”, to prevent primary challenges, even though they are the same group of incumbent candidates, who when elected became an Established Party.

One final comment regarding the hearing that was help on Feb 6th. A third “impartial” member was required for this particular Election Board. The person appointed, was a Mr. Davies. It turns out that Mr. Davies and the defense counsel have a long history together, including more than 10 years working together in the Worth government. When Mr. Davies arrived late, he ran thru the village hall lobby, and upon seeing the defense counsel, Mr. Odelson, he called him by name, “.. Bert, Bert…” Further, prior to Mr. Davies taking his seat with the other Election Board members, Mr. Odelson and the Village attorney took Mr. Davies aside behind closed doors for several minutes. Our attorney was not privy to this meeting. During the hearing, Mr. Davies displayed what seemed to be a lack of interest in the proceedings, and although Trustee Schussler and Trustee Murphy were continually consulting with legal counsel, Mr. Davies did not. Mr. Davies did ask one un-related question at the end of the hearing, and then upon offering his comments and vote, he said that he found the assertion that an Established Party remains so perpetuity once its’ candidates are elected, to be absurd and / or an affront to himself. This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on his part or his failure to pay attention to the hearing.

We have staggered elections in this country for US and State Senators and US and State Congressman who run for election or reelection in “Off Presidential” years. Do you believe that if during one of those cycles, the Democrat or Republican party did not run an opponent in one of these elections, that all the currently elected Democrats or Republicans would lose their party affiliation? That their Party would cease to exist?

It is our contention now, and was stated by our counsel during the hearing, that an Established Party remains an Established Party as long as it continues to run its elected officials at each successive election that they are eligible to run. There is wording in the Election Code to support this. If this is the case, which we believe it is, then those are the rules that should be adhered to, like it or not, and those rules should be applied to the incumbents as well as the challengers.