<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
The PDF worked OK for me. Here's the text (with some clutter of
page headings etc.):<br>
<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
In the<br>
United States Court of Appeals<br>
For the Seventh Circuit<br>
____________________<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS , et al.,<br>
Plaintiffs-Appellees.<br>
v.<br>
CHARLES W. SCHOLZ , et al.,<br>
Defendants-Appellants.<br>
____________________<br>
Appeals from the United States District Court for the<br>
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.<br>
No. 12-CV-02511 — Andrea R. Wood, Judge.<br>
____________________<br>
ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2017 — DECIDED S EPTEMBER 22, 2017<br>
____________________<br>
Before EASTERBROOK , KANNE , and SYKES , Circuit Judges.<br>
SYKES , Circuit Judge. Illinois law prevents political parties<br>
from fielding candidates on election ballots unless they meet<br>
certain conditions. One condition is known as the full-slate<br>
requirement: If a party hasn’t attained sufficient voter sup-<br>
port in past elections, it must field candidates for all offices<br>
on the ballot in the political subdivision in which it wishes to<br>
compete. So in the 2012 election, the Libertarian Party of<br>
Illinois could field a candidate for county auditor in Kane<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
2<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
County only if it also proposed candidates for circuit clerk,<br>
recorder, prosecutor, coroner, board chairman, and school<br>
superintendent.<br>
In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Libertarian Party<br>
argues that the full-slate requirement violates its right of<br>
political association under the First and Fourteenth<br>
Amendments. The district judge agreed and entered judg-<br>
ment invalidating the requirement. On appeal Illinois con-<br>
tends that the full-slate requirement is justified by its inter-<br>
ests in political stability, preventing ballot overcrowding,<br>
and avoiding voter confusion.<br>
We affirm the district court. The core of the fundamental<br>
right to political association is the right to band together in a<br>
political party to advance a policy agenda by electing the<br>
party’s members to office. That necessarily includes the<br>
party’s right to access the ballot and its candidates’ right to<br>
appear on the ballot under the party banner. For a minor<br>
party and its nominees, Illinois’s full-slate requirement<br>
extinguishes those rights unless the party fields candidates<br>
in races it may want no part of. This is a severe burden on<br>
fundamental constitutional rights, and Illinois hasn’t offered<br>
a compelling state interest to justify it. Indeed, by incentiviz-<br>
ing minor parties to manufacture frivolous candidacies as a<br>
means to an end, the full-slate requirement actually thwarts<br>
the interests Illinois invokes.<br>
I. Background<br>
Like other states, Illinois classifies general-election can-<br>
didates into three groups: those affiliated with an “estab-<br>
lished” political party, those affiliated with a “new” political<br>
party, and those running as independents. If a candidate is<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
Pages: 12<br>
3<br>
affiliated with a party, whether established or new, the party<br>
name appears alongside the candidate’s name on the ballot.<br>
A party becomes established through a strong electoral<br>
performance. If a party’s candidate in the most recent guber-<br>
natorial election received more than 5% of the vote, the party<br>
is established throughout the state. 10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT .
5/10-2<br>
(2010). A party can also attain established status on a more<br>
limited basis. If its candidate (or candidates collectively)<br>
received more than 5% of the vote in a particular race in the<br>
most recent statewide election—for example, the race for<br>
Illinois Comptroller or Illinois Secretary of State—then the<br>
party becomes established for statewide elections. Likewise,<br>
if a party received more than 5% of the vote in a congres-<br>
sional or county race in the last election, it becomes estab-<br>
lished for congressional districts or for that county. 1 Id.<br>
1<br>
The statute provides in part:<br>
A political party which, at the last general election for<br>
State and county officers, polled for its candidate for<br>
Governor more than 5% of the entire vote cast for<br>
Governor, is hereby declared to be an “established polit-<br>
ical party” as to the State and as to any district or politi-<br>
cal subdivision thereof. A political party which, at the<br>
last election in any congressional district, legislative dis-<br>
trict, county, township, municipality or other political<br>
subdivision or district in the State, polled more than 5%<br>
of the entire vote cast within such territorial area or po-<br>
litical subdivision, as the case may be, has voted as a<br>
unit for the election of officers to serve the respective ter-<br>
ritorial area of such district or political subdivision, is<br>
hereby declared to be an “established political party”<br>
within the meaning of this Article as to such district or<br>
political subdivision.<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
4<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
A party that isn’t established can access the ballot only as<br>
a new party. Attaining new-party status involves different<br>
hurdles. Unlike in any other state, new parties in Illinois<br>
must submit a full slate of candidates, one for each race in<br>
the relevant political subdivision. 2 Id. Additionally, the party<br>
must gather a minimum number of signatures on nominat-<br>
ing petitions. For state offices, the number is the lower of<br>
25,000 or 1% of votes cast in the preceding statewide elec-<br>
tion. For county offices, the number is 5% of the votes cast in<br>
the county’s preceding election. Id. The new-party petition—<br>
with signatures and a full slate—must be filed between<br>
134 and 141 days before the election. 10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT .
5/10-<br>
6 (2010).<br>
Finally, the conditions to ballot access for independent<br>
candidates are similar to those for new parties except that<br>
the full-slate requirement doesn’t apply. See id. § 5/10-3 (2010);<br>
id. § 5/10-6. So if a candidate’s party meets the signature<br>
requirement before the petition deadline but doesn’t field a<br>
full slate, the candidate can run as an independent.<br>
In the 2012 election, the Libertarian Party attempted to<br>
nominate Julie Fox as its candidate for auditor of Kane<br>
County. But the Libertarian Party wasn’t established, and it<br>
met neither the signature requirement nor the full-slate<br>
requirement necessary to receive the new-party designation.<br>
The Libertarian Party, Fox, and one of Fox’s supporters sued<br>
10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . 5/10-2 (2010).<br>
2<br>
The statute provides that a new-party petition “shall at the time of<br>
filing contain a complete list of candidates of such party for all
offices to<br>
be filled in the State, or such district or political subdivision as
the case<br>
may be, at the next ensuing election then to be held.” Id.<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
Pages: 12<br>
5<br>
Illinois election officials in federal district court under<br>
42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the full-slate requirement. 3<br>
(The defendants were sued in their official capacities, so we<br>
refer to them collectively as “Illinois.”) Ruling on cross-<br>
motions for summary judgment, the judge held that the full-<br>
slate requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amend-<br>
ments. Illinois appealed.<br>
II. Discussion<br>
We review a summary judgment de novo. Estate of<br>
Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017). Sum-<br>
mary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine<br>
dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to<br>
judgment as a matter of law. F ED R. C IV . P. 56(a). Before<br>
addressing the merits, however, we take up a jurisdictional<br>
question of standing.<br>
A. Standing<br>
The Constitution empowers federal courts to adjudicate<br>
cases or controversies. U.S. C ONST . art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The<br>
Article III case-or-controversy limitation confines the federal<br>
judiciary to “the traditional role of Anglo–American courts,<br>
which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threat-<br>
ened injury to persons caused by private or official violation<br>
of law.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009).<br>
The doctrine of standing enforces this limitation. Id. To<br>
establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) an<br>
injury in-fact; (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s action;<br>
3<br>
The Libertarian Party challenges the full-slate requirement both as<br>
applied and facially. Because the requirement applies in the same
way to<br>
all minor parties and their candidates, the suit is best understood
as a<br>
facial challenge.<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
6<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
and (3) capable of being redressed by a favorable decision<br>
from the court.” Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest, 630 F.3d<br>
512, 516 (7th Cir. 2010).<br>
Illinois argues that a judgment favorable to the<br>
Libertarian Party wouldn’t redress its injury: The Party<br>
didn’t meet the signature requirement, so it would have<br>
been barred from the 2012 ballot even in the absence of the<br>
full-slate requirement. 4 This argument misconceives the<br>
Libertarian Party’s injury. It isn’t simply that the Party<br>
couldn’t run its candidate for county auditor in the 2012<br>
election. It’s that Illinois law imposes a burdensome condi-<br>
tion on the Party’s exercise of its right of political associa-<br>
tion; that is, the Party’s injury is its inability to access the<br>
ballot unless it fields a full slate of candidates. That requirement<br>
persists and stands as an ongoing obstacle to ballot access.<br>
In other words, the full-slate requirement raises the cost<br>
of ballot access to minor parties. It’s a barrier to entry that<br>
operates directly on the Libertarian Party and is a continuing<br>
burden on its ability to field candidates for statewide and<br>
countywide office. As we’ve consistently held, that’s an<br>
injury easily sufficient to support a suit for prospective<br>
relief. See, e.g., Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir.<br>
2000) (holding that the plaintiffs had standing because being<br>
“required to allocate additional campaign resources ... in<br>
itself can be an injury to First Amendment rights”); Nader v.<br>
4<br>
Illinois doesn’t argue that the controversy is moot, and it isn’t.
See Storer<br>
v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n.8 (“The ... election is long over ...
but this<br>
case is not moot, since the issues properly presented ... will
persist as<br>
the ... statutes are applied in future elections. This is,
therefore, a case<br>
where the controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading
review.”)<br>
(internal quotation marks omitted).<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
7<br>
Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 736 (7th Cir. 2004) (observing that a<br>
candidate could challenge certain ballot-access restrictions<br>
before attempting to comply with them because “it was<br>
certain that it would cost him more to [comply with the re-<br>
strictions] than if the challenged provisions were invalidat-<br>
ed”) (emphasis added); Lee v. Keith, 463 F.3d 763, 767 (7th<br>
Cir. 2006) (asserting jurisdiction over an independent candi-<br>
date’s suit because the challenged statutes “continue to<br>
restrict potential independent candidacies”). We proceed to<br>
the merits.<br>
B. Full-Slate Requirement<br>
The First Amendment, which constrains state-<br>
government action by incorporation through the Fourteenth<br>
Amendment, “protects the right of citizens to associate and<br>
to form political parties for the advancement of common<br>
political goals and ideas.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New<br>
Party, 520 U.S. 351, 357 (1997). That right “means little if a<br>
party can be kept off the election ballot and thus denied an<br>
equal opportunity to win votes.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S.<br>
23, 31 (1968). Further, because “voters can assert their pref-<br>
erences only through candidates or parties,” their right to<br>
vote “is heavily burdened if that vote may be cast only for<br>
major-party candidates at a time when other parties or other<br>
candidates are clamoring for a place on the ballot.” Anderson<br>
v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983) (internal quotation<br>
marks omitted).<br>
Laws restricting a party’s ballot access thus burden two<br>
rights: “the right of individuals to associate for the ad-<br>
vancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified<br>
voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
8<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
votes effectively. Both of these rights, of course, rank among<br>
our most precious freedoms.” Williams, 393 U.S. at 30. 5<br>
We evaluate ballot-access restrictions by weighing<br>
“the character and magnitude of the asserted<br>
injury to the rights protected by the First and<br>
Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff<br>
seeks to vindicate” against “the precise inter-<br>
ests put forward by the State as justifications<br>
for the burden imposed by its rule,” taking into<br>
consideration “the extent to which those inter-<br>
ests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s<br>
rights.”<br>
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (quoting Anderson,<br>
460 U.S. at 789).<br>
Under this flexible standard, the level of scrutiny de-<br>
pends on the regulation at issue: the more severely it bur-<br>
dens constitutional rights, the more rigorous the inquiry into<br>
its justifications. Id. Nondiscriminatory restrictions that<br>
impose only slight burdens are generally justified by the<br>
need for orderly and fair elections. Id. at 433–34. But given<br>
the importance of the rights at stake, a severe restriction on a<br>
party’s access to the ballot must be “narrowly tailored to<br>
serve a compelling state interest.” Wash. State Grange v.<br>
Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451 (2008) (quota-<br>
tion marks omitted).<br>
5<br>
The Libertarian Party also challenges the full-slate requirement
under<br>
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the<br>
requirement is unconstitutional on other grounds, we don’t address
this<br>
claim.Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
9<br>
We have little difficulty concluding that the full-slate re-<br>
quirement severely burdens the First Amendment rights of<br>
minor parties, their members, and voters. As a condition for<br>
ballot access, the requirement forces minor parties to find<br>
and recruit candidates for races they want nothing to do<br>
with. In many instances the minor party must locate candi-<br>
dates for relatively obscure offices like county recorder or<br>
coroner. Moreover, in order to support candidates genuinely<br>
interested in winning (Illinois assures us that the full-slate<br>
requirement isn’t meant to produce sham candidacies), a<br>
party must devote to each candidate the funding and other<br>
resources necessary to operate a full-fledged campaign. To<br>
take the example of Fox’s candidacy for Kane County audi-<br>
tor, running a fully funded candidate for each Kane County<br>
office would have increased the Libertarian Party’s costs<br>
sevenfold.<br>
The full-slate requirement similarly burdens the right of<br>
a candidate to run as the standard bearer for his party.<br>
Although a party’s failure to submit a full slate doesn’t<br>
prevent the candidate from accessing the ballot as an inde-<br>
pendent, party-affiliated campaigns and independent cam-<br>
paigns “are entirely different and neither is a satisfactory<br>
substitute for the other.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 745<br>
(1974). To give just one example, a party loyal who must run<br>
an independent campaign is denied the ability to quickly<br>
communicate information about his views and values<br>
through association with his party.<br>
Relying on two Supreme Court cases, Illinois argues that<br>
parties and candidates have no right to appear next to each<br>
other on the ballot. See Timmons, 520 U.S. 351; Wash. State<br>
Grange, 552 U.S. 442. But those cases—neither of which<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
10<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
involved a regulation limiting ballot access—do not stand<br>
for that principle. In Timmons a minor party challenged<br>
Minnesota’s antifusion statute, which prevented a person<br>
from running as the candidate for two parties in the same<br>
election. 520 U.S. at 353–54. The statute barred the minor<br>
party from nominating its chosen candidate because he’d<br>
already filed as a candidate for the state Democratic party.<br>
Id. at 354. The minor party alleged that the statute violated<br>
its political-association rights by denying it the ability to<br>
appear next to its candidate of choice on the ballot.<br>
In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court observed<br>
the obvious: A party never has the option to select just<br>
anyone as its candidate because a “particular candidate<br>
might be ineligible for office, unwilling to serve, or, as here,<br>
another party’s candidate.” Id. at 359. The Court thus em-<br>
phasized that antifusion laws “do not directly limit the<br>
party’s access to the ballot” but merely “reduce the universe<br>
of potential candidates who may appear on the ballot as the<br>
party’s nominee only by ruling out those few individuals”<br>
already running with another party. Id. at 363. The full-slate<br>
requirement, on the other hand, does directly limit minor<br>
parties’ ballot access. Far from entailing nothing more than a<br>
slight drop in the pool of candidates from which a party can<br>
choose, it prevents minor parties from affiliating with anyone<br>
on the ballot unless they mount numerous additional cam-<br>
paigns.<br>
Washington State Grange was a forced-association case.<br>
The state of Washington adopted an initiative providing that<br>
primary-election ballots would identify each candidate with<br>
his self-designated party preference. 552 U.S. at 444. The law<br>
didn’t allow a party to prevent a candidate from designating<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
Document: 57<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
11<br>
it as his party preference. In a preenforcement facial chal-<br>
lenge, the state Republican Party argued that the statute<br>
violated its associational rights by usurping its right to<br>
nominate its own candidates and by forcing it to appear on<br>
the ballot alongside candidates it didn’t approve. Id. at 448.<br>
The Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that<br>
Washington might print the ballots in a manner that clarified<br>
the one-way nature of the party-preference designation. Id.<br>
at 455–56. That possibility was enough to defeat the facial<br>
challenge. Id. at 457. But the Court expressly declined to<br>
consider any ballot-access implications the statute might<br>
carry because those issues were outside the question pre-<br>
sented. Id. at 458 n.11. Neither Timmons nor Washington State<br>
Grange questioned the long-recognized right of political<br>
parties to access the ballot.<br>
Because the full-slate requirement—the only one of its<br>
kind in the country—severely burdens the First Amendment<br>
rights of minor parties and their members, it must be “nar-<br>
rowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling<br>
importance.” Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992). Illinois<br>
invokes three state interests in defense of the requirement:<br>
promoting political stability, avoiding overcrowded ballots,<br>
and preventing voter confusion. See Storer, 415 U.S. at 732<br>
(affirming the validity of those objectives). Illinois empha-<br>
sizes that these interests are served by reserving the ballot<br>
for parties with at least a modicum of public support.<br>
No one doubts that Illinois’s stated interests are compel-<br>
ling in the abstract, but the full-slate requirement doesn’t<br>
advance them. By creating unwanted candidacies, the<br>
requirement increases political instability, ballot overcrowd-<br>
ing, and voter confusion. As Illinois would tell it, the re-<br>
Case: 16-1667<br>
12<br>
Document: 57<br>
Filed: 09/22/2017<br>
Pages: 12<br>
Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775<br>
quirement exogenously sorts minor parties into two camps:<br>
those that have a bench of ready candidates for every race<br>
and those that don’t. But like other laws, the full-slate re-<br>
quirement shapes the behavior of those it binds. Whatever<br>
its aim, the requirement forces a minor party to field unseri-<br>
ous candidates as a condition of nominating a truly commit-<br>
ted candidate. The Libertarian Party, for example, might<br>
have filled the six other Kane County slots with Fox’s friends<br>
or relatives.<br>
In reality, then, the full-slate requirement does not ensure<br>
that only parties with a modicum of support reach the ballot.<br>
Instead it ensures that the only minor parties on the ballot<br>
are those that have strong public support or are willing and<br>
able to find enough frivolous “candidates” to comply with<br>
the law. To be sure, the full-slate requirement—like any<br>
regulation that increases the cost of ballot access—reduces<br>
the likelihood that a feeble party will secure a ballot position.<br>
But Illinois’s interest in reserving the ballot for strong parties<br>
is directly served by the signature requirement. That regula-<br>
tion—which at 5% of votes cast in the preceding election is<br>
restrictive in its own right—suffices to winnow out weak<br>
parties. Finally, the full-slate requirement doesn’t prevent<br>
ballot overcrowding or voter confusion; to the contrary—it<br>
clutters the ballot with numerous candidates who wouldn’t<br>
otherwise run and who may or may not be sincerely inter-<br>
ested in public office.<br>
The full-slate requirement severely burdens fundamental<br>
constitutional rights and is not narrowly tailored to a com-<br>
pelling state interest. We A FFIRM the judgment of the district<br>
court.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2017 07:03 AM, David Johnson
via Peace-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.m-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130hoenzb
{mso-style-name:m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
text-align:justify;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Could
not open the attachment and could find nothing via a google
search. Could someone please copy and paste the relevant
articles ?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">David
J.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Peace [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:peace-bounces@lists.chambana.net">mailto:peace-bounces@lists.chambana.net</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Niloofar Shambayati via Peace<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dianna Visek<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Peace List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Peace] We won our ballot access
lawsuit!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Would
be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties
too!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">On Sat, Sep
23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace <<a
href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">peace@lists.chambana.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I'm
not aware of any news articles. I will send it to
Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him
report on it. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">Media
that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant
to cover it. And Michael Madigan is probably
peeved.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I will
also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and
Constitution Party.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="color:#888888"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
style="color:#888888">Dianna<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yahoo_quoted_6865261033">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">On
Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM
CDT, James M <<a
href="mailto:james.manrique@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">james.manrique@gmail.com</a>>
wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">I'm
not seeing any news articles on this
yet. If I'm reading this right, this
seems like huge news, and a big
success for minor parties in
Illinois. Any further details or
write-ups on the ramifications of
this decision? How long will it take
independent parties to start
fielding candidates?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">On
Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM,
Dianna Visek via Peace <<a
href="mailto:peace@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">peace@lists.chambana.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130yqt49335">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A">We
finally got a decision 7
months after the court
heard our oral arguments
and we won! This is great
for all minor parties in
Illinois! Hallelujah!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130m_-8806370812224381293ydp99bd59bcyiv5895197524">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130m_-8806370812224381293ydp99bd59bcyiv5895197524yqtfd60441">
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130m_-8806370812224381293ydp99bd59bcyiv5895197524ydp2b04023cyahoo_quoted_6438074014">
<div>
<div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130m_-8806370812224381293ydp99bd59bcyiv5895197524ydp2b04023cyiv8220892695">
<div>
<div>
<div
id="m_-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130m_-8806370812224381293ydp99bd59bcyiv5895197524ydp2b04023cyiv8220892695ydp9860f578yiv5229148124">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span style="color:#26282A">Dianna<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A"><br>
______________________________
_________________<br>
Peace mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Peace@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Peace@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.chambana.net/
mailman/listinfo/peace</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#26282A"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:justify"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Peace@lists.chambana.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">Peace@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>