Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Most aldermanic wannabes walk away in anger once they've been booted from the ballot. But Chris Lawrence is fighting back.
Lawrence, an Iraq war veteran, was running against Mary Ann Smith in the 48th Ward when he was stricken from the ballot last month. It was a technicality: he'd filed his economic disclosure statement with the county clerk, as the rule requires. But he'd failed to file the receipt the clerk gave him with the Board of Election Commissioners. "It was an inadvertent oversight," he says.
After Smith challenged his candidacy he attempted to file the receipt but was told sorry, too late. An election board hearing officer ordered him removed from the ballot, and when he appealed to the full board the ruling was upheld.
Curiously, the election board was more forgiving of 25th Ward alderman Danny Solis, allowing him to remain on the ballot even though he'd made a mistake in his nominating petitions. In Solis's case the election board ruled that the error was inadvertent.
Last Thursday Lawrence filed a federal suit, charging that the punishment, banishment from the ballot, did not fit the crime. "The law is intended to make sure you file your economic disclosure statment. I met with the intent of the law," says Lawrence. "The interpretation by the board is inconsistent with the purpose of the law."
He's hoping the federal judge will postpone the aldermanic election until the matter is resolved. "The system is unconstitutional," says Lawrence. "It's set up to discourage people from participating."
Smith bounced three challengers for various election-law technicalities and currently is running unopposed. "We're fighting for democracy in Iraq," Lawrence says, "but we don't have it in the 48th Ward."
This appeal is going nowhere.
Chris Lawrence is the type of person the Taxpayers want in the City Council. Not Daley Stooges like Mary Ann Smith, Pat levar, Marge Laurino, Pat O'Connor, Brian Doherti,Vi Daley, Tom Tunney,Eugene Schulter to name a few. The so called rules of the election board are inforced only to candidates they know are Independant ....like Chris Lawrence.
So different rules for different people?
People vote for the candidate of their choice (who legally make the ballot).
Term limits are an affront to democracy.
http://www.methodsreporter.com/2007/02/09/chris-la...
Now everyone who has access to the Internet can watch the many programs we (the ICHG) have produced (sometimes in conjunction with other CAN-TV producers like Commissioner Avila, Alderman Flores, the NorthwestSide Democratic Organization, plumber and hired trucks Whistle Blower Patrick McDonough, and the world's conversation starter Morgan Carter) in recent monhts discussing the key issues witha wide range of candidates and other officials. To access most of these programs, merely do a GOOGLE search and click VIDEO and put in the name "Frank Avila", or "Election 2007", or the names of the individual candidates. Frank Avila hosted most of the shows but where conflicts arose we also had shows by Alderman Flores, Commissioner Avila, Morgan Carter (of Omnibus Roundtable and the Chicago Communicator), Chicago Reader reporter Mick Dempke, Frank Coconate, and Patrick McDonough also some candidate interviews and endorsements in conjunction with the Chicago Federation of Labor and the SEIU. While we do not always agree with all the hosts or the same endorsements, the 15 minute, half hour and even hour long shows provide a refreshing break from the 30 second soundbite in major media or a drop of a piece of literature by the dwindling precinct captains.
You can also find most of these shows (besides doing the Google or Youtube video search) on either
www.aldertrack.com
or
www.chicagoclout.com
although they are not our websites nor do we necessarily vouch for the content of these sites.
You can find a list of the programs and just hit the link to the site and watch the programs as if you were watching TV.
But, if you do not have a computer, internet access, or the necessary hardware or software to watch movies/TV on your computer monitor, or just want to watch it on TV (assuming you have Cable Television) you can watch the Illinois Committee for Honest Government's "Election 2007" series (sometimes also in conjunction with the Issue Forum series or Avila Talk Chicago) programs between now and February 27th. Here is a list of the Election programs (there are other programs including Tibet Chicago, the Center for Jewish Life, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Marine Scholarship, Wounded Veterans, Mexican American Art, Slavery historical quilts, Art shows, Stamps and Veterans issues and many others besides politics) (but these shows promoted here are for the candidates who appeared on them to give choice, information and options) to air over Cable Access Network in February to the more than 400,000 Cable-TV households in the City of Chicago. (there is no prohibition on taping these and showing them and many people are viewing them over the internet) You can also contact CAN-TV or the local TV viewing guides with Cable to see times of this and other shows. Some shows already played in December and January.
(Almost all shows are on Channel(s) 19 and/or 21 although Channel 36 is also a CAN-TV station primarily focusing on religious shows)
Here is the schedule:
Thursday, February 9: Vilma Colom (35th), 11 am, Channel 19
Thursday, February 8: Martin P. Cooney (47th), 11pm, Channel 21
Monday, February 12: Vilma Colom (35th), 11:30 am, Channel 19
Tuesday, February 23: Martin P. Cooney (47th) 11pm, Channel 21
Wednesday, February 14: Election campaign analysis with former and reformed gang negotiator and member and urban trasnlator Wallace "Gator" Bradley, 11:30 am, Channel 19
Sunday, February 18: Peter Zelechenko (who uncovered the computer security issues at the Board of Elections)(43rd Ward), 5:30 pm Channel 19
Sunday, February 18: Wayne Strnad (30th), 6 pm, Channel 19
Sunday, February 18: Dinah Ramirez (10th)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 6:30 pm, Channel 19
Sunday, February 18: Mike "Libby" Libert (42nd)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 11pm, Channel 21
(Please Note that Mike "Libby" Libert dropped out of that race and the ICHG is endorsing Brendan Reily that will be doing a TV show in the near future)
Monday February 19: Peter Zelchenko (43rd), 12:30 Channel 19
Monday February 19: Wayne Strnad (30th), 1 pm, Channel 19
Monday February 19: Dinah Ramirez (10th)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 1:30 pm Channel 19
Monday, February 19: Dorothy Brown (Mayor)/Pat Dowell (3rd Ward), 6 pm Channel 21
Monday, February 19: Erick D. Rayburn (9th), 7 pm Channel 21.
Monday, February 19: Daniel "Danny" Solis (25th), 11 pm Channel 21
Wednesday, February 21: Election campaign analysis with former gang member and urban translator Wallace "Gator" Bradley
Friday, February 23: Mike "Libby" Libert (42nd)/Carina Sanchez (12th), 10 pm Channel 21
Sunday, February 25: Erick D. Rayburn (9th), midnight (Saturday night), Channel 19
Sunday, February 25: Dorothy Brown (Mayor)/Pat Dowell (3rd), 8:30 am Channel 21
Sunday, February 25: Freddrenna Lyle (6th), 5 pm Channel 19
Sunday, February 25: Ed Smith (28th), 5:30 pm, Channel 19
Monday, February 26: Freddrynna Lyle (6th), noon Channel 19
Monday, February 26: Ed H. Smith (28th), 12:30 pm Channel 19
Monday, February 26: Daniel "Danny" Solis (25th), 11 pm, Channel 21
Most shows are hosted by Frank Avila esq. Any information on the Illinois Committee for Honest Government, please contact Randall Sherman via email at shermanrandall@hotmail.com or 773-744-8839. For information on the TV show or try to get scheduled call Producer Tony Joyce at 773-791-3130.
Please remember to vote.
Suzanne,
The Illinois Committee for Honest Government
It might strike you as silly and self-serving rather than noble if you weren't aware that Mary Ann Smith is a hard-core old-skool Chicago political machine hack who wasn't initially elected but was rather APPOINTED by Daley as a favor to Kathy Osterman, who was appointed to the Mayor's Dept of Special Events.
Bouncing all the opponents from the ballot isn't really in the spirit of the democracy that we all know and love, but is certainly in the spirit of the corrupt Chicago political machine that we all know and... (fill in the blank yourself).
This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.
I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'.
While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.
I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public.
This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s).
Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected.
In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%.
It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist
the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.
So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).
Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:
* 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
* 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
* 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and
IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
* 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
* 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election
participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above.
If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?
If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to
sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?
Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?
Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?
Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?
As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.
The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power
ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by
their deeds.
Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few.
To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:
* You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time
* You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time
* But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time
The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at
just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.