Staff Reports
Illinois Democrats have once again revealed how far they are willing to go to maintain their grip on power. Earlier this year, they introduced a law that aimed to bar candidates from appearing on the general election ballot unless they first ran in a primary race. This scheme was supposedly designed to prevent “political insiders” from manipulating the process, but anyone with half a brain could see it as a blatant attempt to safeguard vulnerable Democrats from the wrath of voters.
In a surprising turn of events, the Illinois Supreme Court justices recently upheld a lower court ruling that deemed this restrictive legislation unconstitutional. The ruling was rooted in the fundamental idea that citizens have a right to vote and, more importantly, a right to decide who appears on that ballot. It seems that, despite their best efforts, the Democrats’ attempts at legislation that undermines voter rights have finally met their match in the judiciary.
IL Dems have one of their "dirty tricks" thwarted for a change. Voter choice wins in slating case before Illinois Supreme Court https://t.co/UN2F1XWUyj
— Carol Davis (@CarolDaPatriot) August 25, 2024
Republicans were quick to point out that this law was little more than a flimsy cover for protecting Democrats. Senate Minority Leader John Curran, not mincing words, highlighted that Governor Pritzker’s so-called ethics reform was nothing but an outrageous assault on the constitutional rights of Illinoisans. Instead of cleaning up the state’s political act, the move was a desperate solution to ensure that Democratic candidates didn’t have to face an overly energetic primary challenge.
On the other side of the aisle, Senate President Don Harmon managed to keep a straight face while arguing that candidates should face voters before being nominated. He decried the “corrosive practice” of candidates skipping primary challenges to see who they might be able to dodge later in the general election. Harmon’s remarks reveal a curious double standard: the Democrats feel entitled to control who gets to run under their party while simultaneously peddling the notion of fairness.
Curiously enough, two justices had to recuse themselves from this important case, leaving the court short-handed and unable to reach a solid conclusion. Speculation is rife about their reasons for stepping aside, but it raises the almost comedic specter of Democratic Justices being unable to face their own party’s questionable antics. With only five justices remaining to deliberate, it’s clear that even within their own ranks, the Democrats know they are treading on thin constitutional ice.
