BY DAVE PARRO
U.S. Rep. Dennis Hastert made it official today, submitting his formal resignation effective at 10:59 p.m. (midnight EST). The former House speaker said he is stepping down now so Gov. Blagojevich can schedule a special primary election on Feb. 5, the same day as the regular primary.
That still leaves taxpayers footing the bill for a special general election, though.
Hastert's early exit throws the 14th Congressional District race into chaos, as the timetable will be drastically sped up. Both special elections will have to be held within 120 days, meaning we're looking at a special general election by the end of March. And because the special election winner usually wins the general election, the November election could be effectively meaningless.
Essentially, the campaign for the general election will be reduced from nine months to two. While the November election will still take place, it will a foregone conclusion. And unfortunately, voters will have much less time to study the candidates and their platforms.
Your article states that the law does not provide for a primary.
The need for a primary arises when there is more than one person that files nominating petitions to be placed on the ballot for a particular office. Clearly more than one person has filed nominating petitions for the February primary and it is a safe bet that if they needed to file petitions for a special primary they would do so.
If the law does not provide for a primary then what purpose does the following provision of the Illinois Election law serve?
The Election Code at Section 7‑61 (10 ILCS 5/7‑61), (the first two paragraphs), read as follows:
“Whenever a special election is necessary the provisions of this Article are applicable to the nomination of candidates to be voted for at such special election.”
“In cases where a primary election is required the officer or board or commission whose duty it is under the provisions of this Act relating to general elections to call an election, shall fix a date for the primary for the nomination of candidates to be voted for at such special election. Notice of such primary shall be given at least 15 days prior to the maximum time provided for the filing of petitions for such a primary as provided in Section 7‑12.”
Section 7-12 in pertinent part reads as follows:
“in the case of petitions for nomination to fill a vacancy by special election in the office of representative in Congress from this State, such petition for nomination shall be filed in the principal office of the State Board of Elections not more than 57 days and not less than 50 days prior to the date of the primary.”
This is accurate - although the law does not come right out and tell us what is supposed to happen, the mandatory timeframes give us an indication that the special general election cannot possibly be held on February 5. With the State Board of Elections preferences taken into account and the logistics that need to be factored in, the special general will be in mid-March in all likelihood.
In all likelihood, this does not favor any one particular candidate since they all had to prepare for February 5 anyway. One interesting issue is what happens to the loser of the special general, who almost certainly will run again in November against the incumbent. Would the party seek to replace that candidate in favor of someone else?
In today's Beacon, 12-3-2007, Steve Lord writes that we should stop complaining about the cost, that we show be happy that we get to vote and it is Hastert's right to resign and we should be glad to pay the cost.
Yes it is Hastert's right to resign. It is also our right to complain about a cost of government that is a waste of time and money.
Using Steve Lord’s theory we should be glad to pay a million dollars plus for anything that government does even if not necessary. Maybe Steve Lord I paid too much. Obviously he does not mind spending money un-necessarily.
Hastert could have remained in office, even if he never went back to Washington, and let the election run its course in November and that would have been the end of it. We would have had a congressman that did nothing during that time.
Now we will have a congressman that will be doing nothing during that interim period except campaigning.
Please tell me the effective difference between those two scenarios?
There is none, except.
Under scenario number two we have spent over $1 million dollars on an election that did not have to happen.
I suggest to you that the better choice was for Hastert to stay in office and let the election run its course.
This is another act by another politician that that is devoid of any thought and without consideration of the taxpayer.
Steve Lord you may want to pay for anything that politicians can think up but many of use are tired of it. Politics and to hell with the taxpayer.