Eliminating the Competition

By: Pamela A. Lewis First Ward Alderman Jesse Granato went into this year’s election attempting to do what has become a common first step for incumbents in local aldermanic campaigns: eliminate the competition.

Manuel “Manny” Flores, Howard L. Crawford Jr. and Jay G. Ramirez all filed to oppose Granato, a two-term incumbent. Granato’s campaign dug into the opponents’ nominating petition papers and qualifications, launching challenges against all three to eliminate those not “qualified to run for office,” said Granato.

He had some initial success. Ramirez withdrew from the race, and Flores was removed from the ballot for failing to meet a two-year residency requirement.

The strategy backfired, however, when Flores successfully filed suit to overturn the residency law and narrowly outpolled Granato in the February election. Crawford, who remained on the ballot when election officials overruled the challenge against him, finished a distant third.

Flores then beat Granato head-to-head with a decisive 59 percent of the vote in the Northwest Side ward’s April runoff.
“People think their voices won’t be heard in a system where things are already pre-determined,” said Flores, who takes over as 1st Ward alderman this month. “But we prevailed.”

Political veterans acknowledge the objection process has long been the easiest way for incumbents to win re-election. And many argue that incumbents who want to intimidate and wear down their opponents have abused the process.

Newcomers who have only prepared for an issues-based campaign aren’t usually as successful as Flores—in fact, they typically find themselves losing long before Election Day, The Chicago Reporter found. Candidates in mostly African American and Latino wards are particularly vulnerable.

A total of 240 candidates, including 49 incumbents, filed to run in this year’s 50 aldermanic races. Petition challenges were filed against 142 of those candidates, including five incumbents. A Reporter analysis of those objections shows:

• Of the 137 non-incumbent candidates who were challenged, 75, or 55 percent, were booted from the ballot, and nine others withdrew.

• Nearly 81 percent of the 146 candidates who faced incumbents in mostly black and Latino wards faced objections, compared with 44 percent in predominantly white wards.

• Four incumbents faced challenges in black wards. In white wards, one incumbent faced a challenge. None were removed from the ballot.

“It’s very easy to get on the ballot if you just follow the rules, and the rules aren’t that hard,” said Burton Odelson, a longtime Chicago-area election attorney who was on the team that represented President George W. Bush in the legal dispute that followed the 2000 election.

But political newcomers often learn the hard way that they must be meticulous in carrying out even the easiest of tasks—like collecting signatures—if they want to fend off objections. And some, the Reporter found, are not prepared to defend themselves against such challenges, or savvy enough to launch them.

“By no means did I have a clue” that the objection process existed, said Norman H. Bolden, a radio advertising executive, who ended his unsuccessful aldermanic race deep in debt from costs incurred fighting objections from 4th Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle.

In fact, many recent aldermanic candidates, including Bolden, said they were unable to launch grassroots campaigns of knocking on doors and talking to voters because they spent all their time and money just trying to stay on the ballot.

“The average person doesn’t know they should hire an attorney before running for office,” said Deb Gordils, a mother of two who successfully fought off a petition challenge but ultimately lost her race against 33rd Ward Alderman Richard F. Mell, father-in-law of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Flores recognizes the need for some type of objection process but said incumbents have abused it by filing frivolous challenges to wear down opponents.

Robert T. Starks, associate professor of political science and inner-city studies at Northeastern Illinois University, said the process provides cover for incumbents focused on self-preservation, especially in minority wards where there is “more dissatisfaction with representation.”

“They need to protect themselves,” Starks said. “And this is the cheapest way.”

Meeting Requirements
Chicago-based election attorney Thomas Jaconetty said that serious candidates should begin their campaigns by hiring attorneys to guide them through the process.

“It’s not the time for on-the-job training,” he said.

Here’s how getting on the ballot should work: A potential candidate collects at least 240 signatures from registered voters in his or her ward and files them with the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners along with a “statement of candidacy” form that includes the candidate’s name, address, the desired office and a statement listing his or her qualifications.

Then a statement of economic interest must be filed with the Cook County Clerk’s office detailing his or her employment and income information. The candidate gives the election board a receipt from the clerk’s office showing the form has been filed.
But, as many new candidates have learned, the board of elections has particular rules for filing. Newcomers don’t always know about the loopholes, and many make mistakes.

For example, many forget to file the statement of economic interest or take care of details such as binding their petition sheets together and numbering, notarizing and signing each page. The result: automatic removal from the ballot, regardless of qualifications.

Tom Leach, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, said some rules are necessary, but he agrees that the process can intimidate newcomers.

The most common objections filed against candidates’ petitions target the signatures they collect.

Election attorneys say a person who collects twice as many signatures as needed could still come up short because many are usually found invalid.

Some of the reasons signatures are disallowed are because the signer either printed his or her name instead of signing it, previously signed the petition of a competing candidate, signed more than once for a candidate, isn’t registered to vote in the candidate’s ward, or failed to include a full street address. Filing these types of objections—and defending them—means checking signatures line by line, often comparing them with voter registration cards.

Political insiders say a large number of signatures will discourage objections because of the time needed to review signatures and the likelihood that at least 240 of them will be valid.

But Flores said accusers who file frivolous complaints should be held accountable.

He said charges of fraudulent activity, like falsifying documents and forgery, have become “run-of-the-mill” objections. Such accusations could be interpreted as criminal activity and could harm someone personally and professionally, Flores said.

“A civil action case could be made for abuse of process, libel and slander, and [for causing] intentional emotional distress,” he said. “More candidates need to know there is legal recourse.”

Incumbent Advantage
While any registered voter can file objections, the Reporter found it was a tool used mainly by incumbents who tend to have enough money and campaign workers to thoroughly review petitions.

Alderman William Beavers from the South Side’s 7th Ward started the election season with six opponents. One of his campaign workers, Irene Smith, successfully objected to the petitions of all six opponents, and on Feb. 25, Beavers ran unopposed. Beavers did not return calls for comment.

“The objection process is a political process,” Jaconetty said. “So, it’s fair to assume all people involved … have a political stake.”

Candidates rarely file objections but they’re behind them every step of the way, he added.

Preckwinkle, who is entering her fourth term representing the South Side’s 4th Ward, acknowledged that she starts every election cycle by sending volunteers and paid workers to scrutinize every signature her opponents have collected.

She said the process doesn’t give incumbents an unfair advantage. It just requires challengers to meet basic standards. “Whether or not you meet the requirements of the board of elections is surely a test of whether or not you are a viable candidate,” she said.

But Starks doesn’t buy that argument. He said people are guaranteed the right to run for office if they pay the filing fee and meet all citizenship and age requirements.

“All they are doing is trying to come up with excuses to knock people off and trying to maintain their incumbency,” he said.

This year, Preckwinkle successfully removed three of her four opponents from the ballot before Election Day. Bolden, her remaining opponent, beat the objections, including a claim that his petitions were not valid because he did not include “Chicago” as part of his address though the sheets clearly indicated that he lives in the city. Bolden lost the election, earning 32 percent of the vote, but considered overcoming the petition challenge a major victory.

He plans to challenge Preckwinkle again in next year’s race for 4th Ward Democratic committeeman. Bolden said he “could have taken her” in this year’s election had it not been for the time and resources exhausted on fighting Preckwinkle’s objections.

“To the poor person, this system says, ‘Don’t bother thinking you can run for office,’” Gordils said. “It was no secret I was on a fixed budget. It was [Mell’s] hope that I would just say, ‘I can’t do this.’”

While Gordils had no cash on hand—only lines of credit at stores where she could get campaign supplies—Mell had a war chest of more than $300,000.

Gordils isn’t sure when she will be able to pay Richard Means, who runs a private election law practice in Chicago, for defending her through the 40-day hearing process at a rate of $200 an hour.

But Means, who prefers to represent non-incumbents, plans to stick with Gordils. “Politicians are like babies,” he said. “They need to be changed often because they become soiled.”

Though she earned only 14 percent of the votes in the election, Gordils said she is planning to run against Mell again in next year’s 33rd Ward Democratic committeeman’s race.

Curtis Hinton, a 45-year-old warehouse worker who opposed Beavers, said he was unable to find an attorney to defend him against the objections. He also said he never received any information from the election board detailing the process—which made him vulnerable to a challenge.

Hinton said he was sent blank petition sheets, and he thought, “Once you get your signatures, that’s all that’s supposed to matter.”

Leach said the elections board is looking for ways to simplify the filing process. An information packet is available that lists the requirements and the needed paperwork, he said. And the packet is also available on the election board’s Web site.

Even incumbents sometimes make mistakes with their petitions. In his 20 years as an election lawyer, Jaconetty said he has seen “many” newcomers launch successful challenges against incumbents. But things were different this year, the Reporter found.

The five incumbents challenged—24th Ward Alderman Michael Chandler, 21st Ward Alderman Leonard DeVille, 45th Ward Alderman Patrick Levar, 6th Ward Alderman Freddrenna Lyle, and 20th Ward Alderman Arenda Troutman—all remained on the ballot. All retained their seats except DeVille, who lost to Howard Brookins Jr. in an April runoff.

Whittled Away
Odelson said that objections have been popular for decades, but they are less likely to remove an opponent now than they once were.

Part of the reason, he said, is that attorneys have “whittled away at the election laws” to enable more candidates to run.

An objection filed against Flores, for instance, argued he was not qualified because he had not lived in the 1st Ward for at least two years, as required by state law. Flores, who had lived in the 1st Ward for more than a year, took his case to the Cook County Circuit Court arguing that the law was unconstitutional. On Jan. 31, the court agreed and changed the residency requirement to one year.

Flores, a Cook County assistant state’s attorney, said without his legal background, he “would have been at a major disadvantage.”

Sometimes, however, it’s to the incumbent’s advantage to keep opponents on the ballot, said 41st Ward Alderman Brian Doherty. Doherty chose not to object to the petitions of his four challengers this year, banking that they would split opposition votes. “It would have been a tedious process” to challenge their signatures since each filed “a significant amount,” he said.

“It wasn’t worth it,” he said. “Even if I tried, I don’t think I could have knocked them off.” Doherty was easily re-elected with 73 percent of the vote.

But Doherty said challenging an opponent’s petitions is easier than campaigning against them. He faced an objection in his first aldermanic race in 1991 against then-incumbent Roman Pucinski.

“You want to … force them to spend money and manpower,” he said. But, if you don’t think you can win a challenge, filing it could have an adverse effect, he warned. “A challenge could give your opponent name recognition that they may not have gotten otherwise.”

Gordils said the media coverage of her fight to stay on the ballot will help her in future campaigns. But she still disagrees with how the process works.

“Taxpayers are paying for a game played by the incumbents,” she said.

Leach said hearing officers are each paid $150 an hour to review objections, hear testimony and make recommendations to the elections board.

“When you [beat the challenge], they should send the bill to the accuser,” said Gordils.

Ben Aaronson, Shawn Allee and Kristin Gagnon helped research this article.