The case against a special
election
Editorial
by Norm Winick
The Zephyr, Galesburg, IL
December 18, 2008
Republicans
are crying foul because the leadership in Springfield looks like they are not
interested in changing the law to allow a special election to fill Illinois’
vacant U.S. Senate seat. They are trumpeting on their new website and in a
constant flow of press releases that Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn and U.S.
Senator Dick Durbin have flip-flopped on the issue — and they have — but not
for the strictly political reasons the Republicans claim.
A special
election is the only way the Republicans would be in play and could have a
chance to poach a “safe” Democratic seat. But that assumes the Illinois GOP
would nominate a white knight who would excite the voters and prevail in a
primary and a general election. If they had a competent candidate for statewide
office, they could have easily defeated Rod Blagojevich in 2006. If they had
anybody qualified to be a U.S. Senator, they wouldn’t have had to import Alan
Keyes from Maryland to run in 2004. The Illinois Republican cupboard is bare
and they are delusional to think otherwise.
But there
are many other reasons why a special election is not the answer — not the least
of which is that it’s probably unconstitutional. Changing the statute after a
vacancy already exists would make it an ex post facto law, prohibited by the U. S. Constitution.
Even if
the legislature decided to pass a special election law anyway, there is no
indication that Rod Blagojevich would sign it. Without that, it could take
months to become law before the clock could start on the process for candidates
to run for election — and that’s if nobody challenged it in court.
Some have
suggested that the special primary be held in conjunction with the February
primary already scheduled but the candidates for that election have already
filed their petitions. While much of the state holds a consolidated election in
April, the City of Chicago does not. Whatever date would be chosen would be a
unique and expensive one.
It takes
time to get the 5,000 signatures required to file as a statewide candidate. If
the candidates were to be given a reasonable amount of time to circulate
petitions and file, and for the signatures to be challenged, and to campaign, and
for a month of early voting, and then to follow up the special primary election
with a special general election, the special elections would bump right into
the petition circulating period for the 2010 election, which starts in
September of 2009.
The cost
to taxpayers for another pair of elections is astronomical. Election
authorities estimate that it would be about $50 million. That doesn’t even
include the cost of campaigning statewide.
Another
concern is the condensed period to campaign and raise money for a special
election. Without a big name, the only candidates who could likely raise the
millions of federally-approved dollars necessary for a statewide campaign would
be self-funding millionaires. We could easily end up with a race between the oft-defeated
Republican Jim Oberweis and the once-embarrassed
Democrat Blair Hull.
But the
biggest reason to abandon hopes for a special election is that it isn’t fair to
the residents of Illinois. The next Governor (or acting Governor) could appoint
someone who would start representing us immediately — whether as a placeholder
or a potential candidate for election to the office. Waiting for the results of
an election would deprive Illinoisans of a U.S. Senator for many months. The
challenges facing the nation are too important to wait.