The candidate filing deadline has passed and those who will be on the ballot are, for the most part, set. The possible exceptions are those candidates whose petitions are being challenged as invalid by a third party. Among those unlucky few is 6th District Democratic candidate for Congress, Stan Jagla.
Robert Allen Flynn of Lombard, IL has filed a challenge to Stan's petitions according to the Illinois State Board of Elections website. The person who requested a copy of Stan's petitions is attorney and local Springfield politician Sam Cahnman.
Generally, I am not a fan of this tactic of limiting competition in elections. Granted, if there is serious fraud involved, a candidate deserves be to kicked off the ballot. But usually that isn't the case and it's simply a matter of trivial technicalities manipulated by a talented legal mind meant to cause the other guy to spend money and time to defend his position.
It's usually a cheap shot and contrary to democracy. We'll see how it pans out.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I�ve met Stan Jagla an am not impressed. I pressed him repeatedly on what he does for a living, and he said he was a truck driver and former security guard � hardly the professional background I was hoping to hear.
He can barely speak English and doesn�t talk in complete sentences.
He�s also habitual plaintiff, filing baseless lawsuits over and over.
This is not the guy I want representing me in Congress.
Uncle Lar, while I've not met Stan Jagla myself, I have heard similar reports from people I respect.
However, in this country citizens eligible to vote have the right to run for office. This includes people who lack a good resume, competent English skills, and who file lots of baseless lawsuits.
It is contrary to democracy to try to have someone kicked off the ballot in order to evade political competition.
The most ironic point in this is that Stan Jagla isn't any competition for Jill Morgenthaler. You've indicated as much yourself. By all accounts, he hangs himself as soon as he opens his mouth, so what is the point?
The real question to me is WHY? What does Jill Morgenthaler gain from kicking Stan Jagla off the ballot? She doesn't kill her competition because there wasn't any to begin with.
Why? I can think of a couple possible reasons, none of them good.
First of all, general arrogance. If you have an organized crime mentality, then you deal harshly with anyone who gets in your way, even if the person isn't a serious obstacle, just as an object lesson to the next person thinking of doing it.
Second, if there's a primary challenge, even one that seems like a foregone conclusion, then Democratic activists and other voters will be asking questions about Morganthaler that they might not be inclined to ask if she's the only hope for the Democrats to win this seat.
I don't know if either of these really is the case. I think a start to determining the truth of this would be for someone to find out which signatures were objected to and what reason was given.
It's interesting to me that we have some strong opinions here, but where they stand on the issues isn't mentioned. I didn't dig around for other posts, so it may be me. The other points mentioned are duly noted, and likely valid, but first and foremost for me is siding with or against a candidate based on issues.
With that, I may be swayed by the points made in previous comments. I'm somewhat disappointed to hear the points that make Jagla less electable, considering his mission statement is one that I support far and away more than that of Morgenthaler's as shown on her site. It will be a tough call for me as a 6th district voter on primary night. Actually, neither of them go into enough depth on their stances on other important issues.
With the limited research I've done so far, either would be better than Roskam, and turning DuPage any shade more blue will be an accomplishment worth celebrating.
So that leads me toward using electability (which definitely points to the legal and superficial issues discussed above) as a major factor, while not completely agreeing that I'd be voting for the candidate representing my beliefs the best. Of course, I'm still basing my vote on the issues until and unless I can actually confirm the allegations I discovered here.
Post a Comment