Main Menu

Serious challenge to Obama in Illinois

Radio station WLS reports that a last-minute challenge has been filed in Illinois by Republican group, The Chicago Objectors. The Objectors allege that Obama Campaign petitions to be on the March 20 ballot contain entries from persons who are not registered voters and they allege other irregularities. The Campaign filed 4,500 petitions when only 3,000 were required. The Illinois State Board of Elections will rule on whether sufficient signatures were presented sometime toward the end of the month.

In another challenge, Obama’s birth certificate was cited as a reason to deny him a ballot position.

, ,

143 Responses to Serious challenge to Obama in Illinois

  1. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    Nice to see a challenge that doesn’t involve birther stupidity.

  2. avatar
    Rickey January 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    Daniel:
    Nice to see a challenge that doesn’t involve birther stupidity.

    Yes, but it’s still a fool’s errand. Even if Obama’s name were stricken from the Illinois primary, what difference would it make? He would still be the Democratic nominee and his name will appear on the ballot in November.

  3. avatar
    bernadineayers January 14, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    then it’s off to indiana…

  4. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Rickey: Yes, but it’s still a fool’s errand. Even if Obama’s name were stricken from the Illinois primary, what difference would it make? He would still be the Democratic nominee and his name will appear on the ballot in November.

    I think it’s good only from the perspective that any challenge from honest citizens, when it appears the legally emplaced process has not been followed, is good. Honest challenges keep the process transparent and accountable. Honest challenges keep politicians honest, and perhaps more importantly, careful.

    Now I don’t know if this particular case is an honest challenge or a crank one, but it at least has the possibility of integrity. I would prefer it over a birther nutcase challenge any day and against any candidate.

  5. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    The problem with that one is that people usually suppose that the ones responsible for collecting signatures forged th invalid ones. While this might just have been done by the people who agreed to sign: jokers, or even political opponents who wanted to derail the campaign.

    In Belgium there was a famous case of the signatures needed for the Front National (somewhat to the right of the French Front National, but with more creeps and criminals on the lists). In an earlier election, the FN list in Walloon Brabant had been removed from the ballot papers after a judge ruled the last 500 signatures had been forged. This gave political opponents ideas, of coourse, and when the FN list of signatories turned up in court again, the judge ruled that while it was obvious some of the signatures were forced, he would not remove the list of candidates from the ballot papers because there was evidence that rival parties had instructed their supporters to sign with fancy names. When that is done systemativcally, the party looking for signatures has no idea how many they really need to have.

    So, it could still be a birferistic problem. Fancy names put in by people who hate Obama.

  6. avatar
    JPotter January 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Daniel: The Chicago Objectors

    I dunno, with a name like “The Chicago Objectors” …. sounds pretty special. Any evidence of an organized campaign to throw the signature collection effort? Doubt it. Were these signatures collected in public places? Seems like the campaign would be very careful and cautious about the signatures it collected. Ask party members for them. Or, collect 10 times as many needed and filter with a finetooth comb. As Paul says, some people are spiteful enough “sign right up! *wink* ” for something/someone they oppose.

  7. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    That’s essentially why petition staff routinely try to obtain 50%-100% more signatures than the number required. There’s always a few bad entries, some intentionally, some innocently.

  8. avatar
    mimi January 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    It’s birther related. It’s Chris Cleveland, Steve Boulton, and Sharon Meroni (a/k/a Chalice Jackson, Crystal Chalice, False Witness Bearer)

    http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/ObjectionDetail.aspx?ObjectionID=1242&ElectionID=32

    Meroni has filed numerous birther petitions over the past few years. Sometime last year, Steve Boulton jumped in and started representing her. Boulton is an elections attorney and general counsel for the Chicago GOP.

    Boulton & Meroni founded ‘Defend The Vote’. Search the Fogbow for info if you’re interested in that. And the blog “Oh For Goodness Sake” chronicled Meroni’s birfing exceptionally well.

    Chris Cleveland is Republican Committeeman of the 43rd Ward.

  9. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Daniel:
    Nice to see a challenge that doesn’t involve birther stupidity.

    Ah, but it does. Scratch the surface and you will find perpetual Illinois ballot challenger Sharon Meroni.

  10. avatar
    Sef January 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm #

    It sounds like President Obama is planning on doing a lot of coasting until November. This should NEVER have been allowed to happen, especially in Illinois.

  11. avatar
    Daniel January 14, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Scratch the surface and you will find perpetual Illinois ballot challenger Sharon Meroni.

    In that case I withdraw my non-objection

  12. avatar
    mimi January 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Sef:
    It sounds like President Obama is planning on doing a lot of coasting until November. This should NEVER have been allowed to happen, especially in Illinois.

    It sounds like you’re not familiar with the Meroni/Boulton Fail Machine.

  13. avatar
    Steve January 14, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Between birtherism and concerns over voter fraud, I sometimes wonder if Republicans really think the only way a Democrat can win an election is by cheating.

  14. avatar
    charo January 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Meroni v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Eligibility Case Lawyered Up & Filing

    Patriot’s Heart Network announces that the eligibility challenge in the state of Illinois is progressing. Meroni V ISBE

    Steve Boulton, renowned election attorney from McCarthy Duffy LLD, has filed his appearance in the case before the 4th District Appellate Court. He has filed a motion to extend the due date of the filing for the appellant brief to February 3rd. Mr. Boulton plans to request oral arguments.

    Counselor Boulton finds the issues in this case to present “intriguing Constitutional questions” and will take up the appeals for Meroni V ISBE. Mr. Boulton has a distinguished background as an election attorney that includes victories in election issues before the Illinois Supreme Court. In addition to his law career with McCarthy Duffy, Mr. Boulton is the General Counsel for the Chicago GOP. This case is not connected with his role within the Republican Party.

    http://gulagbound.com/10962/meroni-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections-eligibility-case-lawyered-up-filing/

  15. avatar
    JPotter January 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Steve:
    Between birtherism and concerns over voter fraud, I sometimes wonder if Republicans really think the only way a Democrat can win an election is by cheating.

    To be fair, accusation of Red voter fraud have been rampant since 2000. A symptom of increasing partisanship leading to heightened suspicion of the other side, on both sides? And it’s natural for the loser to challenge the results of close elections.

    Read someone like Greg Palast and you might start thinking Blues only win when Reds forget to cheat. Or screw up their attempts at cheating 😉

  16. avatar
    Keith January 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    As meritless and probably doomed to failure as this is, it should not be forgotten that the last great voter American fraud incident did happen in Illinois. In Chicago and involved the Democratic Party. There is reasonable evidence that this incident delivered that election to John F. Kennedy, and was engineered by then Mayor Richard Daly, father of the former WHCoS William Daley, and life long subscriber to Al Capone’s theory “Vote Early, Vote Often”.

    I am in no way suggesting that there is any thing to this charade worth getting all het up about, but there is history to it, albeit ancient history. I really doubt that the President’s Campaign would need to stoop to getting false signatures to qualify for the primary,

    Ms. Moroni is, once again, trying to separate herself from the ‘i’.

  17. avatar
    G January 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    As many such initiatives have various residency requirements (not just live in State X, but live within county Y, etc…), any sensible signature gathering team will try to do their own confirmation vetting before turning in any of their lists, in order to ensure that they’ve gotten enough valid signatures from people that actually appear on current address lists.

    You simply don’t submit your list unless you have not just gotten more signatures than required, but more importantly, more signatures that MATCH up to applicable address lists than required.

    Daniel: That’s essentially why petition staff routinely try to obtain 50%-100% more signatures than the number required. There’s always a few bad entries, some intentionally, some innocently.

  18. avatar
    G January 14, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Exactly, right now we simply have allegations of fraud being made by certain people with a history of seeing “fraud” when there is none.

    So, I’d hold off any speculation at this point. We have no reason to believe that these charges are legit in the first place and not just pulling accusations out of thin air, merely for the sake of making accusations…

    mimi: It sounds like you’re not familiar with the Meroni/Boulton Fail Machine.

    Sef: It sounds like President Obama is planning on doing a lot of coasting until November. This should NEVER have been allowed to happen, especially in Illinois.

  19. avatar
    Keith January 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Keith: Ms. Moroni is, once again, trying to separate herself from the i’.

    Or maybe its add the ‘i’ to moron.

    I dunno. Something.

  20. avatar
    Rickey January 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    charo:
    Meroni v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Eligibility Case Lawyered Up & Filing

    Patriot’s Heart Network announces that the eligibility challenge in the state of Illinois is progressing. Meroni V ISBE

    I see that Meroni is still spreading the lie that McCain was born in a “Panama hospital.” He was born in a U.S. Navy hospital.

  21. avatar
    Norbrook January 14, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    G:
    As many such initiatives have various residency requirements (not just live in State X, but live within county Y, etc…), any sensible signature gathering team will try to do their own confirmation vetting before turning in any of their lists, in order to ensure that they’ve gotten enough valid signatures from people that actually appear on current address lists.

    You simply don’t submit your list unless you have not just gotten more signatures than required, but more importantly, more signatures that MATCH up to applicable address lists than required.

    Exactly. It’s a common event to challenge nominating petitions here in NY, in fact, most campaigns have lawyers ready to go to either file challenges or fight them. So I would imagine that if the Obama campaign filed 4500 petitions when only 3000 were needed, there’s significant “overkill” in the required number of signatures on them. Even if 20% were thrown out, there’s still more than enough signatures.

    The “birther” crap is just a side issue, which will be thrown out as irrelevant fairly quickly. They’ll lose on the petition challenge as well. After all, he is from Illinois, and his campaign is based there. I seriously doubt that they’d not have enough to override any challenges.

  22. avatar
    Lupin January 15, 2012 at 3:04 am #

    Keith: it should not be forgotten that the last great voter American fraud incident did happen in Illinois.

    I thought it was Florida in 2000.

    Or is there a more recent incident involving Illinois?

  23. avatar
    The Magic M January 15, 2012 at 4:42 am #

    charo: Counselor Boulton finds the issues in this case to present “intriguing Constitutional questions” and will take up the appeals for Meroni V ISBE.

    I think this is more than a small hint that birferism is involved. After all, simply challenging the integrity of the signatures doesn’t present “intriguing Constitutional questions” in my book.

  24. avatar
    Keith January 15, 2012 at 5:49 am #

    Lupin: I thought it was Florida in 2000.

    Or is there a more recent incident involving Illinois?

    I don’t think of Florida as voter fraud, it wasn’t a case of dead people voting or people voting multiple times. Florida was a case of voter disenfranchisement. Which in the end my have produced much the same result, a stolen election, but it wasn’t a case of fraudulent votes being counted. It was a case of valid votes being not counted.

    A fine distinction I suppose, and I’m not all that invested in being right one way or the other.

  25. avatar
    charo January 15, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    The Magic M simply challenging the integrity of the signatures doesn’t present “intriguing Constitutional questions” in my book.

    I thought the same thing until I realized (after posting the comment) that the information was from 2011 for an appeal filed then. I don’t know what became of it.

  26. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 15, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    Keith: indiana

    There is a lot of argument still about what happened in 1960 in Illinois. Republicans who claim Nixon was robbed, are ignoring four points:

    1) the electoral votes of Illinois would not have been enough to grant Nixon victory – they needed Texas (where the amount of rigging was probably too small) to switch as well, and there was the minor problem that Democrats would then have contested the results of California and Hawaii as well

    2) there was vote rigging in the rural areas of Illinois as well, and that had benefitted Nixon.

    3) restricted recounts took plase in several states at the instigation of local litigants and actually resulted in Hawaii going to Kennedy

    4) when Nixon made his half-concession “if things continue”, the networks were giving Kennedy 265 electoral votes (that included California, but not Hawaii). Nixon was thus facing the prospect that even if he could take back Illinois, he would be facing the almost impossible task of reclaiming Texas, and all that to have the election thrown into the House of Representatives (with a comfortable Democrat majority) thanks to some 14 racist Southern Democrat electors. When things looked a bit brighter later in the night, he decided not to play the sore loser, but that did not stop many in his campaign to continue the legal battles.

    So, it is not established historical truth that Illinois was stolen, and definitely not that the entire election was.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

    By the way, Keith, sorry for my tone in the other thread. I must have subconsciously thought you were one of these trolls who use a nick similar to yours.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    The conspiracy theories about Florida are fascinating (and may well be true). Florida removed large numbers of “convicted felons” from the voter rolls, including people who only had names similar to convicted felons, people whose crimes were not felonies and people who were convicted if crimes in other states (not a disqualification in Florida). I had a friend who bought a surplus Florida voting machine and gave demonstrations on how to rig it.

    I say this with water-cooler level of proof. Don’t quote me as an authority.

    Keith: Florida was a case of voter disenfranchisement.

  28. avatar
    Keith January 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: There is a lot of argument still about what happened in 1960 in Illinois.

    Agreed.

    I did say that there was “evidence the election had been stolen” not that it had been proven decisive.

    I have not studied the mathematics closely, but I was aware that Illinois was not entirely decisive, but it did ensure the election was decided in the Electoral College and not the Congress.

  29. avatar
    Steohen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    Just to let people like Mimi know, I’m not a birther, never have been. I’m the Executive Director of the Chicago Republican Party. I have represented Sharon Meroni on cases attacking Illinois’ virtually non-existent checks on citizenship for candidates, seeking to have the system improved. Defend The Vote has been the first organization to take a systematic approach to combatting election fraud in Chicago by analysis and attacks on gaping holes found in ballot security. This present challenge is based on review of thousands of petition entries. We believe the President is well short. It is more a protest against the Byzantine ballot procedures in Illinois which favors incumbents by making it hard for newcomers to defend against challenges to their petitions.

  30. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: Just to let people like Mimi know, I’m not a birther, never have been. I’m the Executive Director of the Chicago Republican Party. I have represented Sharon Meroni on cases attacking Illinois’ virtually non-existent checks on citizenship for candidates, seeking to have the system improved. Defend The Vote has been the first organization to take a systematic approach to combatting election fraud in Chicago by analysis and attacks on gaping holes found in ballot security. This present challenge is based on review of thousands of petition entries. We believe the President is well short. It is more a protest against the Byzantine ballot procedures in Illinois which favors incumbents by making it hard for newcomers to defend against challenges to their petitions.

    Sounds circular to me; if you’re really protesting the system, and not the President, have you challenged any Republicans recently? How does challenging a candidate’s signatures constitute a protest against the signatures requirement?

  31. avatar
    Steohen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    1. Yes.

    2. You don’t live in Chicago or Illinois, I take it? You’d know it’s not just the signatures. It is how the system is manipulated around them to block ballot access.

  32. avatar
    sfjeff January 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: Just to let people like Mimi know, I’m not a birther, never have been. .

    Would you go on record here then that Barack Obama was born in the United States and is a natural born citizen?

  33. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: You’d know it’s not just the signatures. It is how the system is manipulated around them to block ballot access.

    Which Republicans, when, running for what office?
    Perhaps there is a reference you can point people to that better explains the situation, and your rationale and intent?

  34. avatar
    Steohen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE was that Illinois does not require proof of citizenship for candidates other than their own statement, leaves as little as five says for voters to check, and blocks voters’ ability to check by a law blocking review of birth certificates and a FOIA process that runs far beyond 5 days. In effect, the State not only does not check, but also keeps a voter from checking.

  35. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE was that Illinois does not require proof of citizenship for candidates other than their own statement, leaves as little as five says for voters to check, and blocks voters’ ability to check by a law blocking review of birth certificates and a FOIA process that runs far beyond 5 days. In effect, the State not only does not check, but also keeps a voter from checking.

    How does it limit them to 5 days to check? Again, a reference, please?

  36. avatar
    Sef January 16, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: I have represented Sharon Meroni on cases attacking Illinois’ virtually non-existent checks on citizenship for candidates, seeking to have the system improved.

    Wouldn’t the place for action on “seeking to have the system improved” be the state legislature, not the courts?

  37. avatar
    Steohen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    I have no doubt the President was born where and when he says.

    I have heard In detail the argument on Natural Born Citizen, which relies on existing definitions of that phrase from the 1700s and 1800s. which include both parents being citizens. It has some basis, in that some past definitions do say that, but I find it incompatible with American traditions and principles as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration and statutes for two centuries. I simply do not agree with the NBC argument.

  38. avatar
    Steohen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    1. Illinois Election Code.

    2. The Legislature? Guess who runs the Illinois legislature?

  39. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    The sole reference re: your position and concerns, that you wish to provide, is “Illinois Election Code.”

    Just thought you might like to clarify on your incomplete, inconclusive, circular post. But perhaps not.

  40. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE was that Illinois does not require proof of citizenship for candidates other than their own statement

    If that is your objection, then fairness demands that you challenge ALL candidates of all parties, none of whom, besides Obama , has shown any proof of anything. Sorry, but your statement doesn not add up.

  41. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    By the way, is your name really “Steohen” or is it “Stephen”?

  42. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Speaker of the Illinois House -Chicago Democrat

    President of the Illinois Senate – Chicago Democrat

    Governor – Chicago Democrat

    If anything, the changes to the Illinois Election Code over the last ten years only further restrict ballot access.

  43. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    It’s Stephen. if you won’t to check me out, go to http://www.defendthevote.com. I have a great face . . . for radio. I’m on Facebook but I restrict views.

    We don’t have the money or time to challenge all. Five days to check, remember? We were pressed hard to check out and file this one. Besides, all the kerfluffle on thus site tells me we made the right selection to make our point.

  44. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: We don’t have the money or time to challenge all.

    So you just happened to challenge the one guy who HAS shown his birth certificate (twice)? Where is Mitt’s b.c.? His parents lived withing sight of a foreign country, yet you challenge Obama? You are very fair-minded. NOT!!!

  45. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: http://www.defendthevote.com

    Ah! finally. Your purpose, platform, rationale is all there? Since your explanation above makes no sense whatsoever and is all over the place, I’ll check that out later.

    Kerfluffle?

  46. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    J Potter,

    The 5 day rule can be found in Section 10-8 of the Illinois Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/10-8 (2011).

    As for the rest of your post, to each their own opinion.

  47. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    Your the guy throwing out the adjectives, not me. We said this was a protest, and you are reacting. Saul Alinsky turned on his head, wouldn’t you say?

  48. avatar
    Rickey January 16, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Steohen Boulton:
    I have no doubt the President was born where and when he says.

    I have heard In detail the argument on Natural Born Citizen, which relies on existing definitions of that phrase from the 1700s and 1800s. which include both parents being citizens. It has some basis, in that some past definitions do say that…

    Really? Can you cite a source for where those past definitions can be found?

    And please explain what the point is of challenging President Obama’s primary ballot application. What do you hope to accomplish? It’s not as if you will be able to block his nomination or his placement on the general election ballot in November.

  49. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Your the guy throwing out the adjectives, not me. We said this was a protest, and you are reacting. Saul Alinsky turned on his head, wouldn’t you say?

    Asking for an explanation of your nonsensical explanation. You mention numerous concerns, a systems favoring incumbents, ballot access, candidate eligibility, election fraud … and your explanation of how your challenge addresses those concerns doesn’t hold up. If you think the president isn’t meeting the requirements in that jurisdiction, and are challenging the submitted signatures, then just say so. Don’t try to dress it up. It’s reasonable to challenge the signatures. no need to make an excuse for doing so, it’s counterproductive and encourage suspicion toward your motives.

    Does the website list past actions? Who you have challenged, when, party affiliation, office sought, current /ultimate status of challenges filed?

  50. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    I wouldn’t know. Nobody I know ever mentions the guy, except you folks on the right. You seem to be the only ones who pay attention or care what that clown said or did. Besides, the 60’s were have a century ago. Get some new bogeyman already. The modern equivalent would be Karl Rove, wouldn’t it? The tactics you talk about… explain to me how they differ from Rovian tactics or strategy? Or how they differ from Frank Luntz’s Orwellian language tactics?

    Stephen Boulton: Saul Alinsky turned on his head, wouldn’t you say?

  51. avatar
    Majority Will January 16, 2012 at 4:33 pm #

    G:
    I wouldn’t know.Nobody I know ever mentions the guy, except you folks on the right.You seem to be the only ones who pay attention or care what that clown said or did.Besides, the 60′s were have a century ago.Get some new bogeyman already.The modern equivalent would be Karl Rove, wouldn’t it?The tactics you talk about… explain to me how they differ from Rovian tactics or strategy?Or how they differ from Frank Luntz’s Orwellian language tactics?

    And Circus Freak Ringmaster Farah et al. and WND.

  52. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    Kerfuffle?

    *yawn* You folks sure like to imagine being important and exaggerating dramas within your own head, don’t you? You got excited because you got mentioned on an amateur blog that follows crank Birtherism style conspiracies as a hobby? Seriously??? *rolls eyes*

    Sorry, but nothing unusual about challenging ballot signatures to ensure enough valid ones are there. Pretty standard fare and reasonable tactic and happens on both sides of the aisle all the time. Note: try re-reading most of the commentary here, which clearly shares that perception.

    What is unusual is to tie a legitimate challenge to the utter kook crockery of Birtherism. So yeah, a topic that otherwise wouldn’t be reported on here gets reported, because of those kook ties and because a well-known Birther kook (Meroni) is involved. Smart attorneys’ don’t look for the craziest people they can find to represent or attach to an otherwise legitimate cause. But hey, some people are just masochists by nature and want to wear an albatross around their necks…

    Stephen Boulton: Besides, all the kerfluffle on thus site tells me we made the right selection to make our point.

  53. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    I think you’re being a little hard on yourself there. You at least look like a normal, professional person in the video. Nothing for you to be ashamed of at all – at least looks-wise. (Associating yourself with the crackpottery of Birtherism…now that’s a different story).

    Stephen Boulton: It’s Stephen. if you won’t to check me out, go to http://www.defendthevote.com. I have a great face . . . for radio. I’m on Facebook but I restrict views.

  54. avatar
    Wile E. January 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Steohen Boulton:
    … It is more a protest against the Byzantine ballot procedures in Illinois which favors incumbents by making it hard for newcomers to defend against challenges to their petitions.

    Steohen Boulton:
    The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE was that Illinois does not require proof of citizenship for candidates other than their own statement, leaves as little as five [d]ays for voters to check, and blocks voters’ ability to check by a law blocking review of birth certificates and a FOIA process that runs far beyond 5 days.In effect, the State not only does not check, but also keeps a voter from checking.

    It seems to me that a five day rule limiting the ability to investigate the eligibility of a candidate would actually be disadvantageous to the incumbent…and rather beneficial to the “newcomer”.

  55. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Gosh, I don’t see any list of past actions at defendthevote.com. If this is their first, no problem, got to start somewhere. But why claim a non-partican track record where there is none? Why not just be transparent about goals and history? Gosh, I wonder.

  56. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Actually, Defend The Vote conducted a surprise audit of 235 precincts in Chicago in the April 2011 Municipal Runoff Election and found 58% of ballot boxes unsealed, and 90% of polling places not following at least one major security protocol set down by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. The results were put in a report which was peer reviewed and published in the Argonne Laboratory Journal of Physical Security. We also went over our report with the Chicago Board, pointing out key security flaws, and they have agreed to make changes. You are right, in that we are just beginning, as we have several projects and investigations in the pipeline.

  57. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    You guys are fun!

  58. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    We were assisted in that audit effort by Democrats, Tea Party members and Green Party members, and have a few of those to put on our Board.

  59. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    Wile E.,

    Actually not, as the Machine has a swarm of “volunteer” people checking petitions, signatures and addresses from the first. A poor unsuspecting newbie generally never knows what hit him, and usually has to hire a lawyer to boot, draining his campaign resources (all very intended). I often provide free legal to GOP candidates to fight off the Machine, and we now gave a team if GOP lawyers in Chicago, trained in the Collge of Hard Knocks in this stuff. It has taken a while.

  60. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Most people support clean, fair elections. No problems with proper oversight at all.

    No need to add frivolous nonsense or strawman bogeymen into it either. Just focus on keeping a process operating clean and above board and act like a responsible adult in promoting a healthy and fair system and that is all there is to it.

    Stephen Boulton: We were assisted in that audit effort by Democrats, Tea Party members and Green Party members, and have a few of those to put on our Board.

  61. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    That is fine if you are representing to keep things fair. If you are really just motivated by playing political games for one side, then you are just a different side of that same “Machine” you talk about.

    Stephen Boulton: Wile E.,Actually not, as the Machine has a swarm of “volunteer” people checking petitions, signatures and addresses from the first. A poor unsuspecting newbie generally never knows what hit him, and usually has to hire a lawyer to boot, draining his campaign resources (all very intended). I often provide free legal to GOP candidates to fight off the Machine, and we now gave a team if GOP lawyers in Chicago, trained in the Collge of Hard Knocks in this stuff. It has taken a while.

  62. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Wile E.,Actually not, as the Machine has a swarm of “volunteer” people checking petitions, signatures and addresses from the first. A poor unsuspecting newbie generally never knows what hit him, and usually has to hire a lawyer to boot, draining his campaign resources (all very intended). I often provide free legal to GOP candidates to fight off the Machine, and we now gave a team if GOP lawyers in Chicago, trained in the Collge of Hard Knocks in this stuff. It has taken a while.

    This sounds partisan again; above you indicated you had challenged candidates from both major parties?

    You’re implying this “swarm” failed to check Mr. Obama’s signatures? Meaning “the Machine” is partisan? Or that they failed to check them thoroughly enough?

  63. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE [snip]

    The intriguing question is, what is the ISBE supposed to do about it? What were the courts of Illinois expected to do? The Board is charged with duties only as delegated by the Illinois legislature, and checking birth certificates is not one of those duties. The constitutional question is separation of powers, and as the Board and the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals carefully explained, the state constitution requires Meroni to seek her relief in the political branch. Nothing intriguing about that.

  64. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 16, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    Steohen Boulton:
    Just to let people like Mimi know, I’m not a birther, never have been. I’m the Executive Director of the Chicago Republican Party.I have represented Sharon Meroni on cases attackingIllinois’ virtually non-existent checks on citizenship for candidates, seeking to have the system improved. Defend The Vote has been the first organization to take a systematic approach to combatting election fraud in Chicago by analysis and attacks on gaping holes found in ballot security.This present challenge is based on review of thousands of petition entries.We believe the President is well short. It is more a protest against the Byzantine ballot procedures in Illinois which favors incumbents by making it hard for newcomers to defend against challenges to their petitions.

    So Steo — may I call you by that? — why did you misspell your name?

  65. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Steohen Boulton: The intriguing constitutional question in Meroni v. ISBE was that Illinois does not require proof of citizenship for candidates other than their own statement, leaves as little as five says for voters to check, and blocks voters’ ability to check by a law blocking review of birth certificates and a FOIA process that runs far beyond 5 days. In effect, the State not only does not check, but also keeps a voter from checking.

    That of course is not the full story.

    First of all the statement is filed under the penalty of perjury, furthermore, most candidates allow for sufficient time to check the eligibility either during the objection period, or in a Quo Warranto period afterwards, although such a procedure is not open to the average citizen of Illinois. The chosen procedure was not appropriate to raise a constitutional challenge for which Meroni otherwise would have lacked standing.

    I am not sure about this ‘constitutional question’, Meroni’s lawsuit failed to specify any specific objections beyond the observation that she felt that the law was unjust. The ISBE was in no position to address her ‘Constitutional’ claims and neither were the subsequent courts who reviewed the administrative decision.

    If Meroni wants to change the law, then she should petition the legislator and make access more restrictive by requiring the candidate to file more information.

  66. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 16, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Taken from you own site:
    “Steve Boulton, our legal counsel, stipulated that there was no requirement in current law to prove citizenship and that the law is deficient. As expected, the Barbara Goodman ruled that the objection should be over ruled. (see below which includes the General Counsel’s recommendation)”

    So, basically you agree that the law does not allow you to do what you want, ie asking every candidate to provide a birth certificate? We are not talking about the President here, some of these people will be born out of the USA, some will not even have a valid birth certificate because the state where they were born refuse to give them one.

    You say you are not a birther, but you ask candidates to provide documents that are not necessary under the law. Sane people would say the law needs to be changed. And if you calim that the law cannot be changed because the powers that be block any change, sane people would then out the names of ineligible people who did get elected because of the law you consider deficient (you know what, this actually means Meroni is saner than you).

    You say you are not a birther, but I usually recognize a birther by the way they put the definite article “the” before the name of someone they do not like, as in ‘the Obama”.

    You say you are not a birther, but your site uses the word ëligibility all over it.

    You say you are not a birther, but you claim there are many sources from the 1700s or 1800s that say you need citizen parents. Saying 1700s suggests you are not talking about the Comstitution, but about some Prussian guy I prefer to call Emmerich Van Wattel. Anyone who believes Wattel/Vattel/Vatel is a source, is a birther: Van Wattel never said what he is quoted as saying and he did not influence the Founding Fathers.

    Since you are so adamant in asking candidates to prove they are eligible, please provide a list of all governors, senators and comgressmen from Illinois whom you believe were not eligible because they were not US citizens.

  67. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 16, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    J. Potter: This sounds partisan again; above you indicated you had challenged candidates from both major parties?

    You’re implying this “swarm” failed to check Mr. Obama’s signatures? Meaning “the Machine” is partisan? Or that they failed to check them thoroughly enough?

    J., it was more conspicuously partisan before Meroni removed the links to DefendTheVote’s “partners” from its website. All of the partners were Tea Party groups.

  68. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Oh boy, let’s see!

    Last time I checked, the Chicago Democratic Machine was very partisan, and you can bet they never checked Obama’s petitions.

    I am/ was the lawyer in four challenges to Republicans for DTV this

    I misspelled my name because it is hard to type on an iPhone.

    What if the candidate is lying, or wrong, on his Statement?

    We will be taking the ISBE to court tomorrow to try and change the law.

  69. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Paul P.,

    Understand that by law the Illinois State Board of Elections cannot hear a constitutional issue. So we could only admit that they complied with the Code. We believe the Code is unconstitutional, which is where this goes next in state court. It’s no secret.

  70. avatar
    Daniel January 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: What if the candidate is lying, or wrong, on his Statement?

    How often has that happened?

    If you could find it out, why couldn’t the opposing candidates?

    Would you not expect the opposing candidates to bring that to the forefront during the campaign?

    Would someone who lied about being eligible, and was caught by the opposition and exposed, likely win the election?

    The present system works just fine, it allows the people to police the candidates. Why are you trying to “solve” a problem that you cannot even show exists?

  71. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: J., it was more conspicuously partisan before Meroni removed the links to DefendTheVote’s “partners” from its website. All of the partners were Tea Party groups.

    Not surprising GJD, and thanks for the tip. He has betrayed his agenda from his first post here! The offline version of concern trolling in the political arena and legal system LOL. I’m sure there is a professional term for it.

  72. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Mr Boulton: Come, come, you are as partisan as they get.. If this is non-partisan and about candidates proving eligibility, then it applies to all and the complaint would name all the candidates. That is trivial to do in any software.

  73. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Last time I checked, the Chicago Democratic Machine was very partisan, and you can bet they never checked Obama’s petitions.
    I am/ was the lawyer in four challenges to Republicans for DTV this …

    Oh, so by “The Machine” you mean the Democratic Party, not the election board? Or do you assert they are one and the same?

    Guess I’ll have to look those poor Republicans up myself …. 😉

  74. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Paul P., Understand that by law the Illinois State Board of Elections cannot hear a constitutional issue. So we could only admit that they complied with the Code. We believe the Code is unconstitutional, which is where this goes next in state court. It’s no secret.

    Soooooo again, why bother presenting your partisan challenge as a nonpartisan “protest” against the ISBE?

  75. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Why are the Republicans soraid to face Barack Obama in an election? If he is as bad as they claim, they should relish having him on the ballot. After all, an electoral victory won in court won’t give them much of a mandate (not that they will win in court).

  76. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    J Potter

    What makes you think they aren’t? That is usually a good Place to start in this state after a decade of Machine rule. And don’t bother, the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition.

  77. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    J Potter

    There will be Republican candidates in the suit, not just Democrat.

    Scientist, why was Obama so afraid of his opponent in his first State Senate race in Illinois? He ran unopposed because he knocked his opponent off the ballot for too few signatures. Look it up.

  78. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Scientist,

    Actually, in Meroni v. ISBE I she filed against a large numer of candidates. This time around only five – four Republicans and one Democrat.

  79. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    Scientist, why was Obama so afraid of his opponent in his first State Senate race in Illinois? He ran unopposed because he knocked his opponent off the ballot for too few signatures. Look it up.

    Did she not rescind a promise she had made to not run? But yes, Obama used the same procedures used now.

  80. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Understand that by law the Illinois State Board of Elections cannot hear a constitutional issue. So we could only admit that they complied with the Code. We believe the Code is unconstitutional, which is where this goes next in state court. It’s no secret.

    Meroni tried before and failed, when she used to appeal her ISBE hearing decision. If she intends to file a direct court filing, she may find herself without standing. It’s no secret.

  81. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: What if the candidate is lying, or wrong, on his Statement?

    Then the truth will come out or not. What if the candidate submits what people assert to be a fraudulent birth certificate? Where does it end. And if he is lying, he will face perjury charges and if he manages to win, likely a quo warranto challenge.

  82. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: There will be Republican candidates in the suit, not just Democrat.

    Suit or hearing? While there is standing for a hearing, and the opportunity for an appeal, any suit filed directly with the Court will likely fail on standing.

  83. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    Scientist: …. an electoral victory won in court won’t give them much of a mandate …

    Eaux….the irony!

  84. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    No, actually she did not frame the constitutional issue properly in the trial court last time, so that suit had problems. This time the question will be presented squarely.

    Standing is not an issue. That is only an issue in . . . wait for it . . . Birther cases!

  85. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition.

    You’re not improving your case Mr. B. Are you interested in hiring a publicist?

  86. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    NBC,

    And how exactly does he get found out? Actually we looked at quo warranto case law in Illinois and found it limited. The courts very much don’t like it.

  87. avatar
    J. Potter January 16, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: There will be Republican candidates in the suit, not just Democrat.

    So, 1 more time …. it was “yes” you have challenged “4 Republicans” in the past …. now it’s “there will be Republican candidates in the suit.” Just stick to the truth, Mr. B. You’re very, very bad at spin. No matter how harsh the truth, you’ll gather more respect and be taken more seriously.

  88. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: And how exactly does he get found out? Actually we looked at quo warranto case law in Illinois and found it limited. The courts very much don’t like it.

    He gets found out the same way candidates are found out for not meeting residency requirements.

    Quo Warranto is provided for in the Illinois Code of Civil Procedures. Yes, if the Attorney General is not interested to pursue the case, then one may continue with leave of court, where the court has sound discretion in refusing.

    See People ex rel. Graf v. Vill. of Lake Bluff, 795 NE 2d 281 – Ill: Supreme Court 2003

    Of course, in cases that are clear violations, the Attorney General will file a quo warranto. Sure it will take some effort but there are, as the reply brief to the Appellate Court indicated at least 4 avenues to proceed.

  89. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: No, actually she did not frame the constitutional issue properly in the trial court last time, so that suit had problems. This time the question will be presented squarely.

    Standing is not an issue. That is only an issue in . . . wait for it . . . Birther cases!

    In both instances, the interest of the plaintiff is too generalized. The constitutionality issue was not properly framed because it was introduced as part of the hearing. As part of any eligibility challenge, the likelihood that the Court will review issues of ‘Constitutionality’ are perhaps slim and as a direct challenge, Meroni will lack in standing.
    Of course, having failed once, perhaps the second or third time will be different? I can’t wait. Good luck, I’d try myself to get the law changed.

  90. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Sounds like a tonsillectomy via the rectum, to me.. Why don’t we just ask to submit proof up front?

  91. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    NBC I think you are wrong on that. But we shall see.

  92. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    The standing issue, I mean. You have it wrong. She’s attacking the system as a deprivation, not the candidate. It does not translate from birther cases.

  93. avatar
    Keith January 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: And don’t bother, the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition.

    First, a suggestion Mr. Boulton. Do you see that phrase in blue just after the date and time stamp in each posts header line that says “(quote)”. If you click on that the software will quote the entire post you are responding too in the comment box so we all know what you are responding to. Even better, if you first highlight the relevant phrase, the system will quote just that highlighted bit. This is especially useful when responding to long posts.

    Thanks in advance. Now to my point about your comment.

    If the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition, doesn’t that indicate that they understand the importance of keeping their house in order?

    Why would they make themselves vulnerable to a challenge such as yours? Is the Machine so incompetent these days that they can’t even drum up a few thousand legitimate signatures for an incumbent President in his own home town?

    I have no great love for the tactics of the Chicago Machine, but I wouldn’t ever call them stupid or incompetent or lazy. (As I wrote that last sentence, I remembered 1968. Never mind.)

    It just makes no sense for them to attempt to rort the system when they don’t need to, and have set it up for their benefit in the first place.

  94. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Scientist, why was Obama so afraid of his opponent in his first State Senate race in Illinois? He ran unopposed because he knocked his opponent off the ballot for too few signatures. Look it up.

    I’m not criticizing your suit based on signatures-that is SOP in elections. I am criticizing your demand that candidates prove citizenship and then applying that to only one. Either we take the word of all or we ask all to provide proof.

  95. avatar
    Daniel January 16, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    Stephen Boulton:
    Sounds like a tonsillectomy via the rectum, to me.. Why don’t we just ask to submit proof up front?

    Maybe because the sole authority for validating the eligibility of someone elected POTUS rests with Congress, not the individual states within the union?

    But then, as a competent attorney, I’m sure you know that… right?

  96. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Meroni could try to join an independent action with an administrative action but lack of standing would be a significant hurdle.

    Still Stykel v. City of Freeport, 742 NE 2d 906 – Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 2001 would be helpful

  97. avatar
    Keith January 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    My English in the above post wasn’t two good, and I repeated things redundantly. Sorry about that, chief, misteaks make a good word salad.

  98. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Daniel: Sounds like a tonsillectomy via the rectum, to me.. Why don’t we just ask to submit proof up front?

    And thus adding further restrictions to the process of filing candidacy? What is next, detailed evidence of residence requirements?

    Look, the Candidate submits a declaration under penalty of perjury. Why add all this excess bagage? If one believes that the Candidate lied, then provide the evidence.

  99. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    NBC: And thus adding further restrictions to the process of filing candidacy? What is next, detailed evidence of residence requirements?

    Look, the Candidate submits a declaration under penalty of perjury. Why add all this excess bagage? If one believes that the Candidate lied, then provide the evidence.

    Bu, but, but, NBC! These guys are all about ballot access for the little guy! Don’t ya get it? 😉

  100. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: The standing issue, I mean. You have it wrong. She’s attacking the system as a deprivation, not the candidate. It does not translate from birther cases.

    Of course it does, her complaint is as general as it is to any other citizen of the state of Illinois. The ISBE does not have the right to decide issues of constitutionality and has to follow the appropriate law. Would an injury to Meroni be any different from an injury to any other person?
    What aspect do you believe makes hers different from a birther case? Standing still comes with significant requirements.

  101. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    Daniel: Maybe because the sole authority for validating the eligibility of someone elected POTUS rests with Congress, not the individual states within the union?

    That’s what Judge Carter came to conclude, although the Appeal’s Court did not have to address the issue since it found that there was no standing. However, there have been cases where Presidential Candidates were removed from the ballot for being naturalized citizens.
    It’s an interesting topic but I find the Meroni action to be more of a distraction as she appears to be pursuing a solution to a problem that does not appear to exist. It’s an interesting exercise in managing public relations to distance oneself from the ‘birther movement’ but I find it not very convincing.

  102. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    You guys are way off.

    The objection to Obama is based on signatures, not citizenship.

    The cases before the ISBE now moving to the courts are based on lack of proof of citizenship, but they are against Illinois Legislative candidates and the Illinois Constitution.

    Do try to keep up.

  103. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

    Keith: First, a suggestion Mr. Boulton. Do you see that phrase in blue just after the date and time stamp in each posts header line that says “(quote)”. If you click on that the software will quote the entire post you are responding too in the comment box so we all know what you are responding to. Even better, if you first highlight the relevant phrase, the system will quote just that highlighted bit. This is especially useful when responding to long posts.

    Thanks in advance. Now to my point about your comment.

    If the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition, doesn’t that indicate that they understand the importance of keeping their house in order?

    Why would they make themselves vulnerable to a challenge such as yours? Is the Machine so incompetent these days that they can’t even drum up a few thousand legitimate signatures for an incumbent President in his own home town?

    I have no great love for the tactics of the Chicago Machine, but I wouldn’t ever call them stupid or incompetent or lazy. (As I wrote that last sentence, I remembered 1968. Never mind.)

    It just makes no sense for them to attempt to rort the system when they don’t need to, and have set it up for their benefit in the first place.

    I can now, thank you.

  104. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    NBC: That’s what Judge Carter came to conclude, although the Appeal’s Court did not have to address the issue since it found that there was no standing. However, there have been cases where Presidential Candidates were removed from the ballot for being naturalized citizens.
    It’s an interesting topic but I find the Meroni action to be more of a distraction as she appears to be pursuing a solution to a problem that does not appear to exist. It’s an interesting exercise in managing public relations to distance oneself from the birther movement’ but I find it not very convincing.

    Using this logic no one could challenge any candidate ever.

  105. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    Keith: First, a suggestion Mr. Boulton. Do you see that phrase in blue just after the date and time stamp in each posts header line that says “(quote)”. If you click on that the software will quote the entire post you are responding too in the comment box so we all know what you are responding to. Even better, if you first highlight the relevant phrase, the system will quote just that highlighted bit. This is especially useful when responding to long posts.

    Thanks in advance. Now to my point about your comment.

    If the Machine checks every single Republican nominating petition, doesn’t that indicate that they understand the importance of keeping their house in order?

    Why would they make themselves vulnerable to a challenge such as yours? Is the Machine so incompetent these days that they can’t even drum up a few thousand legitimate signatures for an incumbent President in his own home town?

    I have no great love for the tactics of the Chicago Machine, but I wouldn’t ever call them stupid or incompetent or lazy. (As I wrote that last sentence, I remembered 1968. Never mind.)

    It just makes no sense for them to attempt to rort the system when they don’t need to, and have set it up for their benefit in the first place.

    True, it is odd. But Obama may be way under by the finish.

  106. avatar
    nbc January 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Using this logic no one could challenge any candidate ever.

    Perhaps for good reason? The Constitution is quite clear here.

  107. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    nbc: Perhaps for good reason? The Constitution is quite clear here.

    </

    Last time. None of these cases are challenging Obama on his citizenship. You are mixing apples and oranges.

  108. avatar
    nbc January 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: The cases before the ISBE now moving to the courts are based on lack of proof of citizenship, but they are against Illinois Legislative candidates and the Illinois Constitution.

    Same problem. The Law does not specify that the candidate submit proof of citizenship and provides for the submission of a declaration filed under the penalty of perjury. If any discrepancies are found there are enough options to have the candidate removed

    1. Properly filed ISBE objection
    2. Quo Warranto Proceeding
    3. Publicity
    4. Court proceeding (Criminal/Civil)

    I am not clear why there is such an interest in what is a non-issue…

  109. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    nbc: Same problem. The Law does not specify that the candidate submit proof of citizenship and provides for the submission of a declaration filed under the penalty of perjury. If any discrepancies are found there are enough options to have the candidate removed

    1. Properly filed ISBE objection
    2. Quo Warranto Proceeding
    3. Publicity
    4. Court proceeding (Criminal/Civil)

    I am not clear why there is such an interest in what is a non-issue…

    Glossed over the first one, didn’t we?

  110. avatar
    Keith January 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: I can now, thank you.

    nbc: Even better, if you first highlight the relevant phrase, the system will quote just that highlighted bit. This is especially useful when responding to long posts.

    Lesson number two. When a suggestion is made, read the whole suggestion. There is no need to quote the entire post, you can highlight just the part that is relevant, or just enough to effectively reference the one you are replying to.

    You can also quote multiple posts at the same time by hitting the quote link on different posts, the quotes are cumulative in the comment box editor.

    You can also include some simple markup of your own, but I’m not going to attempt to teach you HTML.

  111. avatar
    Keith January 16, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    But the multiquoting feature may have a bit of a bug in it. I’ll have to have a look to see how that got messed up.

    ’cause the second quote above should have been me not NBC

  112. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: True, it is odd. But Obama may be way under by the finish.

    Promises promises. First let’s see some results.

  113. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Glossed over the first one, didn’t we?

    Well, I realize that properly is somewhat of a problem to some but in the end… It’s hardly rocket science.
    Again, I fail to see what the issue is really. How many instances of an ineligible candidate do we know about? What a waste of effort I’d say.

  114. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Glossed over the first one, didn’t we?

    Hey, I finally found this generic petition for Meroni’s use. Why not post the names of the candidiates? why not post the actual filings?

  115. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    MERONI V HOWLAND Democrat

    MERONI V MCSWEENEY Republican

    MERONI V GAFFNEY Republican

    MERONI V ROWE Republican

  116. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    MERONI V DUFFY Overruled

  117. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Seems that they have all been ‘overruled’ already…

    Howland Overruled
    Gaffney Overruled
    McSweeney Overruled
    Rowe Overruled

  118. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

    Dang, NBC, I was wondering if Boulton would own up to all of it himself. 😉

    Courts have (to my limited legal knowledge) generally ruled in favor of limiting requirements on candidates, in the interest of maintaining ballot access. One of the many things Boulton claims to be protecting…by proposing add’l eligibility requirements, and enforcing signature requirements. Hmm.

  119. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    Dang, NBC, I was wondering if Boulton would own up to all of it himself.

    I do apologize. Perhaps he did not know? Or perhaps he did know but did not want to divulge.

  120. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Last time. None of these cases are challenging Obama on his citizenship. You are mixing apples and oranges.

    Same principle applies.

  121. avatar
    gorefan January 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: The objection to Obama is based on signatures, not citizenship

    So could the President still run as a write in?

    And why does the primary even matter, any challenge cannot affect the general election.

  122. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    NBC: I do apologize. Perhaps he did not know? Or perhaps he did know but did not want to divulge.

    Oh, of course he did, and of course he wouldn’t! I lost count of his fudges in this thread. Thanks for the links!

  123. avatar
    Whatever4 January 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Steohen Boulton:
    I have no doubt the President was born where and when he says.

    I have heard In detail the argument on Natural Born Citizen, which relies on existing definitions of that phrase from the 1700s and 1800s. which include both parents being citizens. It has some basis, in that some past definitions do say that, but I findit incompatible with American traditions and principles as expressed in the Constitution, the Declaration and statutes for two centuries. I simply do not agree with the NBC argument.

    I have only heard that definition from non-British-related countries, never to Great Britain, its colonies, or America. As citizenship is a matter of municipal law and not international law, do you have any sources specific to GB or the US in that era?

  124. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    gorefan: So could the President still run as a write in?

    Yes.. Would that not be funny

  125. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm #

    NBC: Yes.. Would that not be funny

    A candidate for whom nomination papers have been filed as a partisan candidate at a primary election, and who is defeated for nomination, may not file a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate at that General Election. Whenever an objection to a candidate’s nominating papers or petitions for any office is sustained after the 61st day before the election, the candidate may file the notarized declarations of intent to be a write-in candidate for that office with the proper election authorities no later than 7 days prior to the election. (10 ILCS 5/17-16.1, 18-9.1)

    So, at most, a pain.

    Interesting that there is a cap on the signature requirement, min 3K, max 5K …. I suppose so the parties can’t judge throw 50,000 at the wall and see what sticks … yet they expect new parties and independents to come up with 25,000.

  126. avatar
    gorefan January 16, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

    NBC: Yes.. Would that not be funny

    This is still the primary. Not being on the ballo tin the primary is fairly meaningless especially as he is running as the incumbent. How would it be different than a candidate who loses the Illinios Primary to another candidate but still wins the nomination for the general election? He still would be the Parties candidate on the Illinois General Election ballot.

  127. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Quite true! All dismissed without hearing, just as we wanted.

  128. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    Yeah…right….

    Sorry, not buying it.

    Stephen Boulton: Quite true! All dismissed without hearing, just as we wanted.

  129. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: Quite true! All dismissed without hearing, just as we wanted.

    ROTFL… Sure Stephen… Makes sense. Now there is nothing to appeal really other than the dismissal itself. You cannot blame the ISBE for following the law, and the claim of constitutionality fails to impress. And why? There is no real problem of ineligible candidates running in Illinois.

    What a waste. Why not properly petition the Government rather than used the Court system to decrease access to the elections.

  130. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

    Yes, it would make sense that even if President Obama were to fail to qualify for the primary, he could still become the nominee. And then things get far more problematic as the election will involve the electors, not the Candidate.

  131. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    G: Sorry, not buying it.

    If this is what he wanted, then why did he not bring it up himself…

  132. avatar
    gorefan January 16, 2012 at 10:57 pm #

    NBC: And then things get far more problematic as the election will involve the electors, not the Candidate

    Plus standing becomes more of a thorny issue.

  133. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    NBC: If this is what he wanted, then why did he not bring it up himself…

    He didn’t respond re: hiring a publicist. There is a clear need! Either he can’t afford good people, or his yet another runaway ego, unable to acknowledge his own shortcomings.

  134. avatar
    Stephen Boulton January 16, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    You folks prattle on. I am moving on to the next group of experts for more sport. Nice blogging with you all.

  135. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Strike three… You’re out my friend…

    Stephen Boulton: You folks prattle on. I am moving on to the next group of experts for more sport. Nice blogging with you all.

  136. avatar
    G January 16, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    Translation:

    …Oh sh@t! They are on to me… Time to keep looking for a less educated and more gullible forum to try to pull this stuff…

    Stephen Boulton: You folks prattle on. I am moving on to the next group of experts for more sport. Nice blogging with you all.

  137. avatar
    JPotter January 16, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    Stephen Boulton: sport.

    “Sport”?!? Good to know how seriously you take these matters.

  138. avatar
    NBC January 16, 2012 at 11:36 pm #

    Even if the objection is sustained, President Obama would likely still appear on the Ballot for the General Election.

  139. avatar
    The Magic M January 17, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    NBC: And then things get far more problematic as the election will involve the electors, not the Candidate.

    I take “Orly sending GA subpoenas to all members of the Electoral College” for $500, Alex.

  140. avatar
    Majority Will January 17, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    Stephen Boulton:
    You folks prattle on.I am moving on to the next group of experts for more sport.Nice blogging with you all.

    I hope you have a decent supply of strong flea collars because when you lie down with dogs . . .

  141. avatar
    Rickey January 17, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Whatever4: I have only heard that definition from non-British-related countries, never to Great Britain, its colonies, or America. As citizenship is a matter of municipal law and not international law, do you have any sources specific to GB or the US in that era?

    He was asked several times to provide his sources, and he of course ignored those questions. Yet another birther who claims not to be a birther, and yet another one who runs away after being challenged.

    I wonder if Mr. Boulton is going to join in the ballot challenge which has been filed in Illinois to the placing of Mitt Romney’s name on the ballot. Somehow I doubt it.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/01/15/ballot-challenge-to-mitt-romneys-eligibility-filed-in-illinois/

  142. avatar
    J. Potter January 17, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Rickey: I wonder if Mr. Boulton is going to join in the ballot challenge which has been filed in Illinois to the placing of Mitt Romney’s name on the ballot

    Whyever not? He assured us many, many times he was running a non-partisan organization …. . 😉

  143. avatar
    gorefan January 17, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    NBC: Even if the objection is sustained, President Obama would likely still appear on the Ballot for the General Election.

    Of course he would. That’s what makes this Illinois challenge such a stupid, waste of time.

    Considered that there are still people in the GOP hoping someone gets into the Presdiential race to stop Mitt Romney. They are not worried that their white knight will not be on the ballots of primaries whose deadlines have already passed.