NAPERVILLE, IL. (ECWd) –
As a result of a lawsuit filed on Monday, and the ruling handed down today, Candidate for Illinois State Representative, Val Montgomery (D) (41st) is ineligible for office as she actually lives in (according to her petition sheets) the 49th Representative District.
At today’s hearing, DuPage Circuit Court Judge Bonnie M. Wheaton ordered the DuPage County Election Commission to code the address of 1621 Country Lakes Drive, Naperville, Illinois as being located in the 49th Representative District, the 25th Legislative District, and Naperville Township Precinct #25 as had been previously established according to the election district map.
Montgomery had been erroneously issued a voter’s card for the 41st District, and then sometime later the Election Commission re-coded the address of her residence from the 49th to the 41st District, and they did so without authority. This ruling fixes that problem.doc00183020180919103945
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.
jeffrey crowellPosted at 21:47h, 19 September
WELL EINSTEIN. THE PERIOD TO CHALLENGE PETITIONS HAS LONG PASSED. SINCE IT WAS THE COMMISSSION THAT MOVED THE LINES THAT AFFECT VAL MONTGOMERY PRECEDENT SAYS THAT WHEN BOUNDARIES CHANGE AFFECTING A CANDIDATE, THE CANDIDATE CAN STAY ON THE BALLOT TILL ELECTION, ALLOWING THAT CANDIDATE THE OPORTUNITY TO MOVE INTO THE DISTRICT IF THEY WIN. IF AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO THROW HER OFF THE BALLOT, A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE COMMISSION WILL BE IMMEDIATELY FILED.
WHAT YOU HAVE IS A CORRUPT REPUBLICAN ELECTION COMMISSION MAKING AN ERROR BENEFICIAL TO A REPUBLICAN OPPONENT, WHO FILES A SUIT HEARD BY A REPUBLICAN JUDGE, WHO RULES AGAINST THE CORRUPT REPUBLICAN COMMISSION BENEFITTING THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. IT SMELLS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
jmkraftPosted at 21:51h, 19 September
I would be interested in reading the precedent you cite.
The boundaries never changed, the judge simply enforced the existing legal boundaries.
No petitions were challenged.
jeffrey crowellPosted at 22:27h, 19 September
21 years RESIDENCY: United States Citizen, resident of the district for 2 years preceding the election and a registered voter. In the General Election following redistricting, a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any district that contains a part of the district in which he resided at the time of redistricting and reelected if a resident of the new district he represents for 18 months prior to reelection. [Ill. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(c)]
jmkraftPosted at 09:48h, 20 September
This is not about “redistricting” – it never was (besides, any redistricting was done more than o0ne general election prior). This was about the DuPage Election Commission illegally changing the approved map and placing her address in the wrong election districts. Her address was never in the district she is running in still isn’t in that district.
Kirk AllenPosted at 08:25h, 20 September
Jeff do you understand all CAPS is the same as Yelling? Calm Down. Did you read the order? Are you really still that blind after all the times being proven wrong at COD? There was NOTHING about petition objections in this case so not sure why you spew such nonsense. From the sounds of it you might need a bib to keep all the dribble off your chest.
jcrowell52Posted at 06:46h, 22 September
Corrupt Inept Republican Election Commission, appointed by the Republican Machine Boss, errs to the benefit of their ineffective Republican candidate, who goes whining to a Republican Judge to rule her ineligible. But the Judge has no authority to invalidate the results of an Election Certified by the State Board of Elections. So she remains on the ballot.
jmkraftPosted at 21:27h, 23 September
Again, I cannot write this in crayon, but here goes anyway with the hopes you can read it:
Nobody sought any Judge to rule any party ineligible.
Nobody sought any Judge to invalidate any election results.
That is more of your wishfull thinking again.
jeffrey crowellPosted at 22:13h, 19 September
the time for you clowns to challenge petitions passed long ago. As your caveat on your side bar states “we are not lawyers….” The error was with the commission- not the candidate. You cannot invalidate an election. She will remain on the ballot till election and afforded the opportunity to move if she wins.
jmkraftPosted at 09:53h, 20 September
We did not challenge anything, can’t you read? There is no opportunity to move if she wins. She is an invalid candidate, and she will not win anyway.
jeffrey crowellPosted at 22:18h, 19 September
At the time of the Primary Election her OFFICIAL registration was the 41st District. She could not file as a candidate for the 49th District because of the OFFICIAL registration. The only fair resukt of this ruling is for her to remain on the ballot till election. OR DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS CHEAT AND DEFRAUD IN ORDER TO WIN ELECTIONS. IT SEEMS THAT WAY. WHAT THE FUCK DOES WEHRLI FEAR IF HE IS DOING HIS JOB AND HAS THE SUPPORT OF IN HIS DISTRICT. TYPICAL REPUBLICAN CHEATERS.
jmkraftPosted at 09:52h, 20 September
Her “official” registration was invalid, no matter how you look at it. The only fair way to deal with it is to only allow those votes to candidates who actually qualify for the position they are running for. Why did she cheat and try to run in a district she did not live in?
jeffrey crowellPosted at 22:35h, 19 September
YOU DON’T JUST INVALIDATE THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION. AN ELECTION WAS HELD BASED ON THE REGISTRATION STATUS OF THAT TIME. THE TIME TO CHALLENGE THAT REGISTRATION WAS BEFORE THE ELECTION…NOT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE ELECTION..
jmkraftPosted at 09:45h, 20 September
Her registration status was invalid from the beginning. No challenge was ever made to any individual registration.
jcrowell52Jeffrey CrowellPosted at 06:34h, 22 September
WELL, WELL Val Montgomery will remain on the ballot. That is why you guys are not lawyers.
jmkraftPosted at 21:23h, 23 September
OK, I will have to admit, I cannot respond in crayon, so I hope you can read and understand this comment:
Nowhere in the article did we say she would not stay on the ballot.
If you cannot understand that previous sentence, I can mail you a crayon written copy.
jcrowell52Posted at 09:18h, 22 September
And as far as COD is concerned I WAS RIGHT. The Tea Party lost the case against the fired employees. Luckily Hamilton was a millionaire and paid off those fired employees herself. Now that they are losing the suit cancelling the retirement agreement, they now are bringing suit against him. Which is really a double jeopardy situation if the Tea Party Board is found guilty in the first case. It in effect would exonerate him. But as you say, you are not lawyers. It seems like the ones that Tea Party Board hired are not much lawyers either.
jmkraftPosted at 21:34h, 23 September
I would write this in crayon for you if WordPress would allow it:
You were, and still are, wrong.
No Tea Party was involved in any lawsuit
The lawsuit with the fired employees was settled – not lost.
Nobody is losing any suit with the canceled retirement agreement.
There is no Tea Party Board, so it would be impossible to find a nonexistent board guilty of anything.
Since there is no Tea Party Board, they could not have hired any lawyers.
Please seek someone to perform an exorcism on that tea party demon haunting you.
jcrowell52Posted at 11:20h, 24 September
Surprise! The DuPage Election Commission Lawyer says that she stays on the ballot. She can not vote for herself, obviously. However, if she wins, the determination of seating will ensue. Again, there is a reason for your caveat that “We are not lawyers…”
jmkraftPosted at 14:28h, 24 September
Again, too bad I can’t comment in crayon for you, but we never said she could not be on the ballot. Clean off your glasses so you can read what we wrote.
We did say she was ineligible for office and stand by what we said in the title of the article.