More McHenry County Blog

McHenry County Blog decided to take a look at what Dan Proft has received from Illinois politicians and guess what?

If you look up his name, you find not one dollar reported expended on his services.

Proft, you may remember is the one who helped recruit Alan Keyes to replace Jack Ryan, both of whose campaigns he worked on in 2004.

He started Illinois Leader, along with Brian Timpone, and allowed editor Fran Eaton to build it up to 500,000 hits a week and, then, killed it.

But, look up his company, Urquhart Media, and you’ll find it has been paid $316,585.65 since mid-March of 2005.

And, if you add in Starfish Consulting, Proft’s former company, there’s another $188,692.11, going back to a 1999 re-election campaign for Alderman Joe Moore. (You know, the anti-Wal-Mart guy.)

Since that’s a healthy sum, I decided to look at the details for Urquhart.

Proft is, of course, orchestrating the Tony Peraica for Cook County Board President campaign.

The first payment for Urquhart (of $12,000) shows up on March 18, 2005, from Citizens for Peraica. In all, Peraica has paid the firm $86,172.95.

Since then through the end of June, Peraica has spent $256,012.25. That means Proft’s firm managed to garner fully one-third of every dollar Peraica has spent on his campaign.

Proft also worked for Steve Rauschenberger’s gubernatorial campaign. For that, his firm received $158,057.63.

Calculating what percentage was spent on his firm’s services and including only the time since Urguhart first got paid, all expenditures amount to $1,046,583.6, while Urquhart’s percentage is over 15% of the total.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron Gidwitz also paid Urguhart $35,667.94 after Rauschenberger became his running mate. $29,667.94 was paid through Ron Gidwitz for Governor, while $6,000 came through The Illinois Turnaround Team. Gidwitz paid Starfish Consulting $12,000, as well.

Urquhart also provided $20,973.50 worth of brochures for the Aurora Township Republican Team in 2005.

The Cicero committee was the final one, and the one for which Proft got the most publicity, but got paid least. Just $5,695 is listed as paid to Urquhart.

Proft was also active in Blue Island’s 2005 municipal elections. He received $4,084 through Starfish from The Coalition Party, a.k.a,, The Progressive Party.

Of course, Proft is making almost $100,000 for the job of being its spokesman now.

The Downers Grove Information Network, an anti-Home Rule group, paid him $10,018.63 this past spring, but lost its referendum.

And the income enumerated does not include any fees from placing advertising nor does it include anything earned for the Jack Ryan and Alan Keyes for U.S. Senate campaigns in Illinois.

= = = = =
For the slightly revised version, click here.

Below is 8th congressional district Moderate Party candidate Bill Scheurer's press release entitled,

Scheurer blasts Congress' failure to support troops

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 30, 2006

Scheurer blasts Congress' failure to support troops

When Congress slashed funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, Bill Scheurer took it personally.

Scheurer, running as the independent Moderate Party candidate for Congress in the IL-8th district, has first hand knowledge of the implications of this budget cut.

“My older son suffered a stroke when he was 15,” Scheurer said. “It’s had a huge impact on his life, and on our family.”

As if that’s not enough, Scheurer’s younger son recently returned from a year-long tour of duty in Iraq, where troops are subjected to the kind of bomb blasts that are believed to cause permanent damage.

“We don’t know how he was affected, because there is no screening,” Scheurer said. “That is part of the problem.”

And there is not likely to be any screening.

Both House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill provide only $7 million for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC). Last year’s budget gave the center $14 million.

In 2001, the budget for research and treatment was $6.5 million, and it has increased incrementally every year of the war.

This year, the DBVIC requested an increase to $19 million, as more and more soldiers return, suffering from multiple concussions. Scientists believe that such repeated concussions can cause permanent brain damage.

George Zitnay, co-founder of the center, told a Senate subcommittee, “Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the war on terrorism.”

The absence of screening for brain injury is part of a “Catch 22” scenario: much of the research depends on screening returning veterans, but the Pentagon refuses to allow the screening because it claims more research is needed. Without adequate funding, there is neither screening nor research.

This was not the only cut in spending for veterans’ health care benefits.

The budget cuts $910 million from the Veterans Administration already hard-pressed to adequately care for ill and injured veterans.

In a commentary on Aug, 24 by William Pitt of truthout.org, he noted, “Nearly 20,000 veterans have been wounded in Iraq, but must wait nearly six months before being seen by a V.A. hospital.”

He also cited doubled co-pays for veteran health care in Bush’s 2005 budget, and Bush’s opposition to allowing National Guard and Reservists access to the Pentagon health care program.

Members of appropriations committees in both houses blamed a tight budget for the cuts in the 2007 budget.

Questioning congressional priorities, Scheurer asked, “Why did Melissa Bean vote to give a tax break to Paris Hilton, but not speak out for real support for our returning veterans?”

Scheurer also questions the morality of spending billions of dollars on the war, claiming to “support the troops” while treating them as expendable.

“Is it support to send them out repeatedly, for extended tours of duty, to risk injury, disfigurement, disabilities and death--but not to help them heal when they return?” He said. “How can we support their deaths, but not their lives?”

Rep. Bean’s name is not among those of the 92 members of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, which authored a letter endorsing the DBVIC’s budget request, although Bean’s staff claims she supports brain injury research and treatment for veterans.

“This is just another case of Bean’s empty rhetoric about ‘supporting the troops’ while ignoring their needs as real human beings,” Scheurer said.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

These documents from the Huntley School District 158 adminstration are dated 8/23/6. They were handed out to the board and public Thursday morning, the day the teachers' contract was ratified by the school board. (The teachers' union had previously approved the deal.)

Remember to click on the image to enlarge it.

  

  
  

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

36 S. Wabash, suite 1425 · Chicago, IL 60603 · 312.332.7360 voice · 312.332.7044 fax · www.icirr.org

For Immediate Release:

August 19, 2006

For more information contact:

Catherine Salgado, 630.362.6202

Mehrdad Azemun, 773.220.7929

Faith groups defend their right to register new citizens and Latinos to vote

Anti-immigrant forces misrepresent the truth, attempt to derail voter registration drive

ADDISON, IL—Faith groups and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) trumpeted its new high-profile campaign to register new U.S. citizens to vote and to engage the immigrant community in the political life of the United States. Recent allegations from Fran Eaton, editor of the conservative online publication The Illinois Review, falsely insinuate that ICIRR and partner organizations are registering undocumented immigrants to vote. As she published her accusations, Eaton approached ICIRR voter registration campaign workers, misrepresenting herself and her organization in a possible attempt to entrap volunteers and perhaps commit voter fraud. ICIRR along with faith groups expressed their disgust at such tactics and reaffirmed their right to include immigrants in meaningful and appropriate participation in America’s democracy.

“Registering US citizens to vote is not only a good thing to do; it is our duty. And we will not let any person or organization intimidate or discourage us from this sacred call to duty. We will continue to listen and respond to the immigrant population in our suburbs and empower them by registering eligible immigrants to vote,” said Fr. Tony Taschetta, pastor of St. Isidore Catholic Church in Bloomingdale.

ICIRR sent a letter to DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett formally requesting a meeting and an investigation of Ms. Eaton’s actions.

“Acts of intimidation as we register voters or at the polls will only further our resolve to have our voices heard,” said Naim Mansour from the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago.

ICIRR’s New Americans Democracy Project is a non-partisan voter registration, education and mobilization campaign aimed at the immigrant population in Illinois. The centerpiece of ICIRR’s strategy is its collaboration with community organizations throughout the city and suburbs, including St. Isidore Church and the Diocese of Joliet, the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago and World Relief DuPage. The campaign also promotes citizenship among legal permanent residents.

For more information call 1-877-792-1500 or visit www.newamericans-il.org or ICIRR’s website www.icirr.org or call Catherine Salgado at 312.332.7360 ext. 35 or 630.362.6202.

-END-

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

Moderate Party candidate Bill Scheurer (Lindenhurst) and Republican candidate David McSweeney (Barrington) have both called for televised debates to occur with or without Bean’s participation.

“I’m willing to face both or either of my opponents in an open debate,” Scheurer said. “Let ABC, CLTV and WTTW set out an empty chair for Bean. The chair will remain open for her, anytime she wants to join in the democratic process, and expose her views to the public.”

While Scheurer and McSweeney both favor open debates in each of the 24 townships in the district, so far, four is all Bean will allow.

Private forums will be hosted by the Northwest Suburban Alliance for Commerce and Industry in Cook County and the Lake County Chamber of Commerce. The NorthWest News Group will hold a small public forum in McHenry County. A fourth limited forum, not mentioned in Bean’s press release yesterday, will be hosted by the League of Women Voters in Lake County.

Bean has required each forum to conform to a lengthy list of conditions, carefully designed to avoid true debate and personal exposure.

Her list includes 10 conditions that limit public participation, nine conditions that limit public and media exposure and six conditions that limit true debate with the ability to question or respond to questions.

“Bean’s conditions, such as allowing only 250 people to attend each venue, protect her from exposing herself to the voters at large,” Scheurer said. “Her chair might as well be empty, if she is only willing to expose herself to 1,000 out of 300,000 voters.”

Media access and dissemination is also tightly limited. Bean’s conditions forbid audio or video recording by anyone but “officially credentialed” media.

Recording is almost a moot issue, with Bean also excluding broadcast of the entire program. It is unclear as to who decides what portions of each “debate” may be revealed to the public.

“This is the kind of sham ‘debate’ one might expect in an incumbent, one-party system,” Scheurer said. “If Bean had her way, this ‘debate’ would include two empty chairs: mine and McSweeney’s.”

Scheurer challenged not only Bean and McSweeney, but also major television outlets to provide an open debate format so voters could be better informed.

“How can voters exercise their right to a real choice, if they don’t know what the choices are?” Scheurer said. “All she wants to do is let them eat ‘canned Bean’ with big TV ad campaigns.”

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Ryan McLaughlin 630-221-0006 (o) 312-969-0255 (c)

August 8, 2006

DUCKWORTH SAYS “NO” TO TWO TV DEBATES

Duckworth “Ducking” More Debates

WHEATON- In recent days, two major Chicagoland area television stations announced that Tammy Duckworth declined invitations to participate in a joint debate with her opponent Peter Roskam. ABC and Fox Chicago invited both candidates to a joint debate.

ABC 7’s Political Reporter, Andy Shaw, announced that Tammy Duckworth has refused to debate Peter Roskam in a televised debate hosted by ABC Channel 7. In a report, Shaw said, “ABC 7 invited both candidates to appear in a debate. Roskam said yes. Duckworth said no, claiming she has already accepted four debates and that's enough.”

Fox Chicago told Roskam at an airing on Sunday’s show that “We invited your opponent Tammy Duckworth to join you on this show for a little debate here and she declined…” Although the Duckworth campaign stated she had a prior commitment that day, they indicated that she would not appear with Roskam.

The Duckworth campaign believes that voters should have only limited access to Tammy Duckworth. According to a statement by their campaign, "That way we aren't disrupting busy schedules of voters by forcing them to travel to hear what the candidates have to say.” Peter Roskam believes that a Member of Congress is the voter’s closest representative in the federal government. That is why he believes each community should have the opportunity to interview the candidates running for Congress.

“It is clear that Duckworth’s handlers will not allow her to debate Peter Roskam. Tammy Duckworth can find time to go to San Francisco for three days to raise liberal special interest money, but when it comes to talking issues with voters she apparently is ‘unavailable’,” said Ryan McLaughlin, Roskam’s Campaign Manager.

###

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Protect Marriage Illinois, Peter L. LaBarbera, )
David E. Smith, and Robert Pajor, Sheryl )
Amato and Cynthia Smith for themselves and )
on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) )
Plaintiffs-Appellants )
)
v. ) ) )
David D. Orr, Cook County Clerk; Langdon )
Neal, Theresa Petrone and Richard Cowen, )
Members of the Chicago Board of Election ) Commissioners; and Lance Gough, its )
Executive Director; Jesse Smart, Chairman, )
Wanda L. Rednour, Vice-Chairman, )
William M. McGuffage, Bryan A. Schneider, )
Albert Porter, Patrick Brady, Robert Walters )
and John R. Keith, Members of the Illinois )
State Board of Elections; and Daniel White, its )
Executive Director, ) )
Defendants-Appellees )

Appellate Docket No: _________

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND EXPEDITED APPEAL

Plaintiffs-Appellants, by counsel, move this honorable Court for an Emergency Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 8 and an Expedited Appeal Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 2 based on the following:

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1. Plaintiffs-Appellants have sought and have been denied preliminary injunctive
relief in the District Court below. The basis for this denial is reflected in a written order entered on August 2, 2006. Plaintiffs-Appellants seek an immediate appeal to this Court. A copy of the Notice of Appeal dated August 2, 2006 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the order of Judge Elaine E. Bucklo dated August 2, 2006 is attached as Exhibit B.

2. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(c) provides a mechanism for this Court
to issue and order “suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.” This Court has applied this rule when the District Court has denied an application for a preliminary injunction. In Aurora Bancshares Corporation v. Weston, 777 F.2d 385, 387 (7th Cir. 1985) this Court stated:
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes us to grant a motion for an injunction pending appeal. If the district judge had denied the request for a preliminary injunction after the balancing of merits and harms required by our decision in Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir.1984), we could review his decision and decide whether there was sufficient likelihood of overturning it and sufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs from denying interim relief not offset by irreparable harm to the defendants from granting it to warrant our issuing the preliminary injunction pending appeal. (citing Adams v. Walker, 488 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir.1973)). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 8 Plaintiffs-Appellants move this Court to issue a preliminary injunction staying all state proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal.

3. Plaintiffs-Appellants also request an immediate hearing on this motion at the
Courts’ earliest convenience.

EXPEDITED APPEAL

4. Along with the injunctive relief sought herein, Plaintiffs-Appellants seek an
expedited appeal. Because the issues presented in this case are time sensitive and involve First and Fourteenth Amendment issues, an expedited appeal schedule is appropriate. Highway J Citizens Group v. Mineta, 349 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2003) (Expedited appeal appropriate in case were plaintiffs were seeking to prevent opening of bridge); Second City Music, Inc., v. City of Chicago, 333 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2003) (Expedited appeal granted in case involving licensing case which implicated First Amendment).

5. This case presents urgent issues which need to be addressed immediately due to
the circumstances of this case. As discussed herein, there is a hearing scheduled by the State Board of Elections for August 5, 2006, the validity of which hinges on the determination of the issues raised here. There will be a final hearing on August 11, 2006. Thus, Plaintiffs-Appellants request that this Court consider this Appeal on an expedited based pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Illinois Election
Code, 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1-1 et. seq. Plaintiffs-Appellants commenced this action with the filing of a summons and complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction on July 18, 2006. (The complaint was subsequently amended). A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit C. The parties agreed on an expedited briefing schedule pursuant to which the Defendants-Appellees filed a motion to dismiss on July 28, 2006 . Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a memorandum in support of their preliminary injunction on July 31, 2006 at which time Defendants-Appellees also submitted a memorandum in opposition to the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs-Appellants submitted a memorandum in opposition to Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss on August 1, 2006. Copies of these documents are attached hereto as Exhibits D, E, F and G respectively. As of August 1, 2006 all briefing on the relevant motions had been submitted to the District Court. On August 2, 2006, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo issue a written decision/order denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction and granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss. See Exhibit B.

UNDERLYING FACTS

7. This case involves a petition to place an “advisory question of
public policy” on the election ballot in November, 2006. The Illinois Election Code 10 ILCS 1-1 et seq. gives voters the ability to prepare a petition for presentation to statewide to the voters for an advisory question of public policy. ILCS 5/28-1 through 5/28-13. Plaintiff Protect Marriage Illinois (“PMI”) initiated a statewide petition defining marriage for presentation to the Illinois voters in the November 7, 2006 general election. The Advisory Question reads: “Shall the Illinois General Assembly submit an amendment to Article IX of the Illinois State Constitution to the voters of the State of Illinois at large at the next General Election stating as follows: ‘To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State’?”

8. This question is designed to be a petition to government for redress of grievances. Id. In order to be submitted to the voters for their approval or disapproval, the petition must contain signatures of registered voters equaling at least 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. ILCS 5/28-9. The signatures must be submitted at least 6 months before the General Election at which the petition is to be submitted and not be circulated more than two years before that election. Id. If the voters approve of the Advisory Question, the Illinois general assembly is under no obligation to act upon this petition for redress contained in the question. In this case, the PMI petition was required to contain approximately 283,000 signatures. PMI timely filed the Statewide Petition with the State Board of Elections (“SBE”) on May 8, 2006, with approximately 347,000 signatures.

9. Illinois law treats citizen initiated statewide advisory questions (as well as citizen initiated statewide petitions for a constitutional amendment described in 10 ILCS 5/28-9), statewide candidate petitions and new party petitions differently. For example, the state requires that each petition sheet for a statewide referendum contain only signatures from registered voters of a single election jurisdiction, and that all the petition sheets for a single jurisdiction be bound together before filing. 10 ILCS 5/28-10. The result of this requirement is that if a person signs the petition on the wrong sheet, his or her signature will “not be counted toward the minimum number of signatures required to qualify the . . . statewide advisory public question for the ballot,” since they will be deleted in a signature “conformity examination” conducted by the State Board. 10 ILCS 5/28-9 and 5/28-10. This provision alone has resulted in the invalidation of more than 20,000 signatures for the Protect Marriage Illinois referendum.

10. This requirement that all signatures on a statewide initiative petition sheet be from a single election jurisdiction does not apply to other kinds of petition efforts in Illinois. For example, signatures on petitions for a statewide candidate or a statewide new political party are not so limited to sheets with only signatures from the same election jurisdiction. 10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-2, 10-4. Moreover, signatures on petitions relating to voter initiated petitions for political districts involving more than one election jurisdiction but not statewide, are not so limited. 10 ILCS 5/28-3, 28-5, 28-6, 28-7.

11. Another regulation that applies only to statewide initiative petitions is that each signature on the petition “reasonably compares” with the signature shown on that person’s registration record card.” 10 ILCS 5/28-11(2). Again, there is no such requirement for any other petition. Id. This requirement leaves it to the discretion of each election jurisdiction employee examining signatures to interpret what “reasonably compares” might mean to him or her.

12. The SBE deleted approximately 10,000 signatures from the petition because the signature on the petition did not “reasonably compare.” An additional approximately 10,000 signatures were deleted from the petition because they were signed on the wrong sheet. Still another 44,000 signatures were deleted as not registered at the address shown opposite their signature on the petition sheet. The SBE made no attempt to notify any of these voters that their signatures had been stricken. The Election Code does not provide for notification to these voters. Still another regulation that applies to no other petitions is that the State Board conducts a random sampling of the petition to determine whether it has a signature validity rate in excess of 95%. If it does not, the petition is presumed invalid. If it does, its validity is held to be “inconclusive,” subject to a validity challenge under separate objection proceedings that may be brought by any legal voter. 10 ILCS 10-8, 10-9, 10-10. Following the completion of the random sampling, the SBE then projected that 91.1% of the total number of signatures on the petition would be valid. This percentage was approximately 3.9% below the 95% validity required. Id. The SBE found that the petition was presumptively invalid in the last week of June, 2006 following the completion of the random sampling. Id.

13. The SBE is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/28-12 to allow the petition proponent, PMI, to present evidence to rebut the SBE’s presumption of invalidity. But, there is no Election Code provision that allows petition signers to present evidence on their own behalf that his or her signature is actually valid. The hearing will begin August 5, 2006 in front of a single hearing examiner. The SBE will begin an en banc evidentiary hearing on August 11, 2006, using primarily the report and recommendation of the hearing examiner. Following that hearing, the SBE will issue a final order declaring the validity or invalidity of the petition. Id. But, PMI is unable to present sufficient evidence to the State Board’s hearing examiner to rebut the presumption at the August 5, 2006 hearing without a favorable ruling on some of the issues raised in this cause This is due to the 5 week period available to gather such evidence which must be done in the offices of the 110 election jurisdictions during business hours. 10 ILCS 5/4-6, 5/5-5 and 5/6-24. It is only in the election jurisdictions’ offices where the voter registration cards are maintained.

5/4-8, 5/5-7 and 5/6-35. These cards contain the signatures of the voters, as well as their addresses, i.e., the address required to match the address shown on the petition opposite the voter’s signature. These are the same records that were used by the election jurisdiction to determine whether the randomly selected signatures they examined reasonably compared and whether the address on the petition was the same as that shown on the voter registration card.

14. PMI recruited and supervised volunteer manpower to collect the signatures on the petitions during the 18 months prior to the filing period. For PMI to conduct a verification of the findings of the election authorities as to signature validity, that volunteer manpower must be available to work during business hours in each of the 110 election jurisdiction offices. PMI was unable to recruit enough manpower to work during business hours.

BASIS FOR RELIEF

15. Plaintiffs contend that the petition process at issue in this case involves core
political speech and as such, the Board’s regulations must undergo strict scrutiny. Plaintiffs-Appellants position in this regard is reflected in the their memoranda of law both in support of their motion for preliminary injunction and in opposition to Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss. See Exhibits E and G. Based on Plaintiffs-Appellants arguments therein, and the most recent legal authority on this issue, Plaintiffs-Appellants have a likelihood of success on the merits of this appeal.

16. The district court erred by denying Plaintiffs-Appellants motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing their case in several ways. First, the court failed to recognize that this case involves regulations on core political speech that are subject to strict scrutiny. Slip Op. at 14-16. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Georges v. Carney, 691 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1982), for the proposition that because the state is not constitutionally required to allow the advisory petition, it was subject to less scrutiny. Slip Op. at 12-13. The court ignored that the rationale of Carney has clearly been repudiated by the Supreme Court, particularly in Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 420, 424-25 (1988).

17. The Court also ignored that the state has failed to establish that the danger of
fraud or any other interest exists to justify requiring that signatures on the petition “reasonably compare” to the signer’s voter registration card. The state does not apply that requirement to candidate petitions, or any other petition in Illinois. This requirement does not advance a legitimate much less compelling state interest. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 790 (1978) (“The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections, simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue”). Additionally, the court failed to recognize that requiring separate petition sheets for each jurisdiction directly violates the First Amendment because if interferes with petition solicitors’ ability to efficiently communicate the message of the petition and gather signatures.

18. Moreover, the system violates Plaintiffs-Appellants right to equal protection
because it gives each local election judge standardless discretion to determine if the signer’s signature reasonably compares with the voter registration card. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 103 (2000). Finally, the court erred in finding that the state is not violating petition signers’ right to due process by failing to give any notice or opportunity to be heard that their signatures are deleted from the petition. Slip Op. at 23-26.

19. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive
relief. The petition at issue in this case is in danger of irreparable extinction. On Saturday, August 5, 2006, the Board will conduct a hearing wherein a hearing officer will receive evidence concerning “presumptively” invalid signatures. Unless the Plaintiffs-Appellants are able to overcome this presumption, the hearing officer will recommend to the full board that these signatures be removed and the petition will die.

20. Under the current unconstitutional regulatory guidelines, the Plaintiffs-Appellants cannot rebut the presumption of invalidity. Therefore, the Plaintiffs-Appellants need this Court to enjoin the proceedings while an expedited appellate review proceeds.

21. If this process is not enjoined, Plaintiffs-Appellants’ will lose the opportunity to participate in the upcoming election forever. By contrast, if this Court grants this application, the Defendants-Appellees will simply be delayed from conducting the hearing this Saturday, August 5th, 2006, until this matter can be reviewed on expedited appeal.

NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS’-APPELLEES’

22. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ counsel notified Defendants-Appellees’ counsel via email
concerning the filing of this motion on August 3, 2006 at approximately 10:30 CT. A copy of this motion was also provided by the same means prior to its filing on August 3, 2006.

WHEREFORE, based of the foregoing, Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully request that this Court grant a preliminary injunction and expedited appeal.

Dated: August 3, 2006
Respectfully submitted,



______________________________
One of Plaintiffs’ attorneys
Michael E. Lavelle, #1590723
Kevin E. Bry, #6200436
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lavelle & Motta, Ltd.
218 N. Jefferson St., Suite 102
Chicago, IL 60661
312-559-0600
Facsimile: 312-559-1335

Benjamin W. Bull
Glen Lavy
Brian W. Raum
Dale Schowengerdt
ALLIANCE DEFENSE FIND
15333 North Pima Rd., Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 8526
(480) 444-0020

It was one of the first, if not the first, campaign against unfunded state mandates. (Local school districts were mandated to offer special education at a much higher to teacher-to-pupil ratio than for students in regular classrooms.)

Walker vetoed the bill and in what we used to call the “veto override session,” his rejection was rejected, making the bill law. That bill may have been one of the first to break the dam, because at the time a successful override was considered quite remarkable.

(Now, people probably would be surprised that a governor would have his vetoes regularly overridden. But when Walker was in office, it was a common occurrence, though never before him.)

Dolly was the instigator of the green carnation veto override campaign for the bill.

She recruited ISU School of Education students to lobby legislators the day of the vote. The young women went office to office pinning green carnations on those who agreed to vote for the override.

(I was “pre-sold.” I remember a mother’s educating me. Her son went to Summit School in East Dundee. She lived north of Huntley Road west of what is now Spring Hill Mall and east of Sleepy Hollow Road. She explained that her husband and she were going to have to subdivide their property to be able to finance her son’s education. I watched over the years as more houses appeared near theirs. I’m sure it was she who convinced me to vote for the bill and the override.)

There were so many Republicans wearing the green carnations in the Republican conference meeting before the floor session that those not wearing them were kidded, building even more momentum for an override vote.

Dolly was working with a volunteer group called “ICOULD,” the Illinois Council on Understanding Learning Disabilities, to promote special education.

“The filter through which Dolly looked at every piece of legislation was,

‘Was it good for kids?’"

former colleague Penny Pullen remembered.

Dolly lost her husband shortly before filing for state representative in 1978. She had intended to run and knew that he would have wanted her to do so, even though it was emotionally very difficult her to follow through.

A couple of months after the primary, she suffered a stroke which affected her writing hand, so she learned to write with her other hand. She was unable to walk, so she used an electric scooter.

Still she won the general election, bringing a profile in courage to the Illinois House.

The sessions ran incredibly late while Bill Redmond was House Speaker. Several members made it a habit to leave the chambers at 8 to hit the bars or even left in the afternoon to play golf, but not Dolly.

She stayed at her desk, sometimes until 6 AM.

Her courage carried through after she was stricken with fast acting macular degeneration, losing her sight within about a week.

She was serving on the Illinois Human Rights Commission, traveling downtown and to Springfield for meetings. That continued after blindness further crippled her.

Dolly attended the Springfield reunion of state representatives, convened by Secretary of State George Ryan. Folks who had served from 1973-1981 – and who had not seen each other for over a decade – gathered.

Unable to navigate the room, Dolly held court on her wheeled throne. There were not many who missed the opportunity to come greet and kiss their now blind, dear colleague.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.