Category Archives: Elections

Democrat Party, Elections

Woodmancy’s criminal record cannot be easily set aside

10 Comments

I’ve been getting press releases from a Democrat candidate for the 18th Congressional District, Matthew Woodmancy. They invariably include a disclaimer that goes like this:

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government.

The rap sheet on Woodmancy is well known, but for the sake of completeness, here it is again, courtesy of the Peoria Journal Star:

  • Convicted felon, still on probation until 2013
  • Convicted of criminal theft for stealing from a family member and that person’s now-shuttered Bloomington-based business in 2006
  • Sentenced to jail time, probation and $45,000 in fines and restitution
  • Charged with misdemeanor battery and pleaded guilty in 2008
  • Pleaded guilty in 2009 to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol
  • Has more than a dozen other traffic tickets, including driving on a suspended license
  • His license has been revoked and most of his fines from the traffic tickets have been referred to collections

Woodmancy’s campaign strategy is to be up-front about his criminal past, point out that he has paid and is currently paying his debt to society, and assure us that he’s a changed man and has “moved on with his life,” from which I infer he means we should move on as well and not hold any of his criminal past against him now.

Do you need a National Police Check for Commonwealth employment, working / living in Australia, overseas adoption or travelling overseas? Make sure to check out rapidscreening.com.au Rapid Screening is a trusted organisation authorised to provide national police clearances within Australia.

It’s my contention that his criminal past cannot so easily be set aside, despite his obvious desire to put it behind him. These are not crimes that took place in the distant past. These were just committed within the past three to six years. One of them is a crime for which he’s still doing the time. Indeed, one wonders, were he to win, if he could even go to Washington without breaking his parole.

Woodmancy wants us to see his transparency about his criminal past as a virtue. He’s coming clean and not trying to conceal anything. I would counter, first of all, that calling the above rap sheet “a foolish act” in his press release is not completely honest. It whitewashes the fact that it wasn’t a foolish act, but rather several, some more serious than others, but all indicating a lack of principle, integrity, and self-control. These are not generally the kinds of character qualities most people are looking for in a Congressional candidate. In fairness, he has in other contexts owned up to all his crimes.

That said, publicly acknowledging a matter of public record that you know will come out anyway is not really a virtue. What other option did he have? I suppose he could have tried to convince us he was wrongly convicted, so there is some refreshment in having a convicted felon admit he is, in fact, guilty. Still, when you honestly admit you defrauded someone, the honesty and fraud sort of cancel each other out.

But why can’t we just let bygones be bygones? Woodmancy claims to be a changed man. He’s “turned [his] life around, thanks to the help of friends and family,” he says. So is his criminal past relevant now that he’s paying his debt to society? Can’t people change? How long should we hold these crimes against him?

I would suggest that we wait at least until he’s done serving his time, has paid his fines, and has made full restitution. That would seem to be a reasonable minimum expectation. Even Jehan Gordon (finally) paid her fine for shoplifting before she was elected.

Woodmancy’s friend Fred Smith points out in a recent blog post, “Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up.” True enough, but Woodmancy is still doing the time. His parole isn’t up until next year. So there’s no “clean slate” yet, even by Smith’s standards.

Beyond that, it would be nice to see a few years go by without any additions to his rap sheet. The only sure way to know if a person has changed is to see proof of that change over time. I want to believe that Woodmancy really has changed, as he claims. But recidivism rates are high in Illinois—over 51% of parolees commit another crime or violate the rules of their supervision within three years according to a 2011 Pew Research study. So putting a little more time between the crime and a run for office would likely inspire greater confidence in voters.

I believe people can change. I don’t think we should hold past convictions against people forever. I understand why Mr. Woodmancy would want to put these crimes behind him as quickly as possible. But when you commit a crime, you break trust not only with the victim, but with society, and you can’t rebuild that trust overnight. I applaud Woodmancy for wanting to serve in public office, but he really needs to spend more time rebuilding his trustworthiness in the community first.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Rewind: History of City Council election process

4 Comments

Back in November 1987, the last time the City Council’s election process was changed, then-Journal Star reporter Paul Gordon wrote a very interesting story on the history of the process.

I’ve reprinted the complete article below, but here’s the summary, with some additional information to bring us up to 2011:

Years Election Process
Before 1845 Governed under township system, with a board of trustees and a board president
1845-1953 Mayor and, initially, eight aldermen elected from four wards, with elections held annually. The council grew with the city, and by 1951, there were 11 wards and 22 aldermen.
1953-1960 Council-manager form of government adopted; one mayor and all council members elected at-large.
1960-1972 In a special election, voters decide to reestablish the ward system. Ten wards are established with one councilman elected from each; terms are not staggered. There are no at-large seats.
1972-1991 Under new state legislation, a binding referendum was held that established five districts and three at-large seats (total of 8 council members, plus the mayor), with staggered terms.
1991-present As a result of the 1987 Voting Rights lawsuit settlement, our current system was established with five district councilmen and five at-large councilmen elected via cumulative voting. The first at-large election under the new system was held in 1991.

Now in 2011, there is talk of doing away with the current system and returning to possibly ten districts and no at-large councilmen, which would be essentially what we had in the 1960s. It’s also the resolution originally sought in the voting rights case of 1987.

In 1987, a lawsuit (Joyce Banks, et al. v City of Peoria, case number 87-2371) was filed against the City of Peoria, District 150 Board of Education, and the Peoria Park District, alleging that the method of electing at-large members “prevented minorities from getting elected to the boards because the number of white voters outnumbered minorities.” The suit originally sought to abolish at-large voting completely from all three boards. But in a settlement before the case went to trial, plaintiffs agreed to eliminate at-large voting from the school district and park boards, and develop a different solution for the City Council: a total of five at-large members (an increase from three) plus the implementation of a cumulative voting system.

Why? According to a Nov. 1, 1987, Journal Star article, one of the plaintiffs, Joyce Banks, stated “their original demand for across-the-board district voting was dropped because blacks reasonably could be assured of one seat on a district-only council…. With the agreed-upon changeover to cumulative voting for at-large seats on the City Council, Banks said a well-organized black community could capture two or three seats on what would become a 10-member council.”

That’s more or less how it has worked out. Today, there are two black members on the council: first-district councilman Clyde Gulley and at-large councilman Eric Turner. If the council were to change back to a ten-district system, it’s hard to say how minority representation would change. Minority population has increased over the past 24 years, so presumably more than one district could be made up of a majority of minority voters. Plus, it’s not as if white people only vote for white people or black people only vote for black people. For instance, Turner lives in the fifth district of the City, which is predominantly white, and he received a large number of votes from that area in the last at-large election. There’s no reason he couldn’t continue to win a seat in that area of town even under a district-only process.

It is interesting that changing to a ten-district council would be a trip back to the future, so to speak. One wonders if, in another ten or twenty years, there will be yet another group vying for a return to the good old days of cumulative voting, or perhaps a strong-mayor form of government. It seems we’re never satisfied with whatever process is currently in place.

Continue reading Rewind: History of City Council election process →

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

City to comply with HB3785

3 Comments

You may recall that the State passed HB3785, which says political signs can be displayed on residential property at any time. The law takes effect January 1, 2011, but the City of Peoria will be bringing it sign ordinance into compliance this coming Tuesday. The text amendment leaves intact size restrictions for all political signs, as well as the requirement they be removed from public property and commercial property within seven days after an election. Residential properties are excepted from the post-election removal requirement.

City of Peoria, Elections, General News, Peoria County, Voting

Attention Tea Party participants: Change happens at ballot box

25 Comments

From the Journal Star:

A crowd estimated at more than 500 gathered outside the Peoria County Courthouse during the noon hour Wednesday to protest what they believe to be out-of-control government spending during a tax day “TEA (taxed enough already) party,” designed to echo the rebellion of the Boston Tea Party.

I don’t disagree with these wandering fiscal conservatives in principle. And I certainly don’t deny their freedom to assemble and petition the government in this way. But there’s a big difference between the colonists in Boston and the American population today. The colonists couldn’t vote. They were taxed without representation. We, on the other hand, can vote, but most of us don’t. Not only do our representatives raise our taxes, we raise our own taxes when given the ability to decide directly.

Consider this little pie chart I whipped up based on the last election:

April 7 Sales Tax Referendum Chart

It doesn’t look like many people (in Peoria, anyway) are interested in reining in “out-of-control government spending,” does it? And if anyone feels taxed without representation, there’s a greater than 75% chance it’s their own fault.

The TEA Party participants would see greater results if they could just convince more people to participate at the ballot box rather than downtown marches.

2009 Campaign, City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Beth Akeson to run for Third District council seat

77 Comments

I just received this e-mail from the vice-chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson:

I have gathered the required signatures and completed the necessary paperwork to run for Peoria’s third district council seat.

These documents will be turned in tomorrow, December 15, 2008. I look forward to a positive campaign as I champion Peoria’s older neighborhoods, advocate for doing the right thing, for the right reason, in the right way.

In other correspondence, she also says she will be “an advocate for proactive policy.” Beth has served on the Heart of Peoria Commission since its inception in 2004, having been appointed by former Mayor Dave Ransburg. She ran unsuccessfully for a Peoria Board of Education seat in 2007. Beth has also contributed several guest editorials here at the Peoria Chronicle.

Current third district councilman Bob Manning recently announced he is not running for reelection. The only other candidate to formally announce a run for Manning’s seat is Peoria County Board member Tim Riggenbach. Candidates have until 5 p.m. Monday to file petitions, so more candidates may come forward.

City Council, City of Peoria, Elections

Council to consider keeping elections the way they are

3 Comments

State election law has changed, but the city council has a chance to override the changes and keep everything in Peoria status quo. Here’s the skinny:

The state legislature last year changed the requirements for when a primary election has to be held in municipal nonpartisan elections — things like mayor, councilman, clerk, etc. Under the old rules, you had to have a primary election if there were more than two candidates for each office.

For example, in the mayor’s race, if there were three or four people running for mayor, there had to be a primary to narrow the field to two. Then those two would face off in the general election. In the case of at-large council seats, the issue is simply multiplied. There are five at-large seats, and there can’t be more than two candidates per seat — that means that ten (5 x 2) is the magic number. If there are more than ten candidates for at-large seats, then a primary election must be held.

Clear as mud? Okay, so now the state legislature has gone and changed the numbers. You now have to have a primary election only if there are more than four candidates for each office.

So now, using the same examples above, if there are three or four people running for mayor, no primary needed. They’ll all face off in the general election. That means, of course, that one could win with a mere plurality of voters. And considering how low voter turnout is these days, that means a pretty small number of people could be deciding who the next mayor is. In the case of at-large seats, there can’t be more than four candidates per seat, and there are still five seats, which means twenty (5 x 4) is the new magic number. If there are more than twenty candidates for at-large seats, then a primary election must be held.

Peoria is a home-rule municipality, which means it can set its own rules for holding a primary election. But there’s a catch: they can only do it by referendum. So, on the council agenda for Tuesday (8/26) is resolution that would put that referendum on the November ballot. The question on the ballot would read as follows:

Shall the City of Peoria hold nonpartisan primary elections, to reduce the field of candidates to 2, when more than 2 persons have filed valid nominating papers and/or notice of intent to become a write-in candidate for the office of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer or District Councilman; and, in the case of At-Large Councilmen, to 10, when more than 10 persons have filed valid nominating papers and/or notice of intent to become a write-in candidate?

YES or NO

My suggestion would be to vote yes. I don’t think we want a mayor to be elected by plurality. A win by plurality would arguably weaken that mayor’s administration. Same for the district council members.

Furthermore, this system seems to me to favor the incumbent. Imagine, for instance, if this had been in place when Gale Thetford, Bob Manning, and Angela Anderson were running in the third district, and Thetford was the incumbent. She probably would have won because the votes against her would have been split. That right there is enough reason to change it back!

UPDATE: I knew I was going to write on this, so I deliberately didn’t read Billy’s post on it until after I wrote my own. I’m amazed at how similar our conclusions were. He’s smarter than I thought…. 😛

Elections

Primary election results and comment

2 Comments

18th Congressional District (Republican)

Aaron Schock 55,576 71%
Jim McConoughey 13,307 17%
John Morris 9,108 12%

The only thing surprising about the outcome of this race is the margin of victory. Schock was expected to win with at least a plurality, but most likely a small majority of votes. Instead, he won in a landslide, getting over 70% of the vote in a three-way race. I don’t think this can be characterized as anything less than a mandate. This primary gives Schock tremendous momentum going into the general election in a traditionally conservative district.

Republican voters evidently were not concerned about Schock’s early foreign policy gaffe when he suggested that the U.S. sell “Pershing nuclear missiles” to Taiwan in an attempt to pressure China to stop aiding Iran. Rather, they looked to Schock’s constituent services, his conservative record, and his youthfulness and energy. Schock’s name recognition and campaign experience certainly helped him as well.

92nd Legislative District (Democrat)

Jehan Gordon 5,694 52%
Allen Mayer 5,332 48%

County Board member Allen Mayer did very well in the county, collecting roughly two-thirds of the votes there. However, in the city, Jehan Gordon won well over half the votes, and since the city has more voters than the county, she rode those city votes to a slim victory. Only 362 votes separated the two candidates when all was said and done. There was a large number of undervotes in this race (voters who skipped this contest, not voting for either candidate), as much as 10% in the county and 11% in the city.

Gordon did better in early voting results than in the election, likely due to controversy that came to light late in her campaign. A radio ad indicated she had graduated from the University of Illinois, when in fact she was still three hours short of a degree. Then, just a couple weeks before the election, she admitted to select news outlets (WEEK-TV and the Journal Star only) that she had been convicted of shoplifting in Champaign County nearly eight years ago when she was 18. Her missteps evidently turned off a few voters, but enough were unconcerned or forgiving, making her the primary winner.

Not reported in the mainstream media was the fact that she left her shoplifting fines unpaid until January this year, almost eight years after the incident, after she entered the race, and just days before she admitted her indiscretion to select media. Why this information went unreported is mystifying to me, but journalists I’ve talked to frankly didn’t find it all that newsworthy.

Ms. Gordon goes into the general election without a mandate, and the issues that came out in the primary are likely to follow her through this year’s campaign. She’ll face Joan Krupa, CEO of Heartland Community Health Clinic. Cindy Ardis-Jenkins is the candidate that appeared on ballots for the Republican nomination, but she dropped out of the race before the primary, and Republican party officials appointed Krupa to run in the general election.

U. S. Senate (Republican)

Steve Sauerberg 370,204 56%
Andy Martin 225,069 34%
Mike Psak 69,812 10%

Willowbrook medical doctor Steve Sauerberg won the nomination handily, beating out perennial candidate Andy Martin and truck driver Mike Psak. The Senate race hasn’t gotten much coverage because it would take a miracle for anyone to unseat Democrat Dick Durbin. He’s the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate and has a huge campaign war chest. It’s not unprecedented for such a strong incumbent to lose in a general election, but it is rare, and highly unlikely this year especially.

Peoria County Auditor (Democrat)

Carol Van Winkle 13,090 70%
Kent Rotherham 5,499 30%

When Rotherham got on the phone to talk about conceding to Van Winkle in this race, he sounded incredulous. Van Winkle was appointed to the position after Steve Sonnemaker took the Peoria County Clerk position, and she’s not a certified public accountant. Rotherham, a CPA himself, says that not having a CPA as county auditor is like not having a lawyer as state’s attorney. He’s considering running against Van Winkle again in the general election as an independent candidate.

Peoria County Coroner (Republican)

Johnna Ingersoll 12,362 72%
George Blackburn 4,746 28%

Ingersoll handily dispatched challenger George Blackburn in the coroner’s race. There had been some controversy in the past over how quickly she got the county morgue established and operational, and how long it took to hire a forensic pathologist. But since those issues have been resolved now (and resolved well, I should add; the forensic pathologist is shared with McLean County and is paid on a per-incident basis rather than being on salary with benefits, which saves the county money), Blackburn was unable to get any traction on them in his bid to unseat the incumbent Ingersoll. Blackburn also tried to make hay of Ingersoll’s lack of a college degree, but that didn’t give him much of a boost either.

This race is deja vu all over again for all the candidates — the same candidates ran in the primary four years ago, with the same outcome. Ingersoll will face Democrat Steve Schmidt in the general election; that’s also a repeat of the last election. It’s hard to unseat an incumbent in races that are not high-profile, and in the absence of any scandal to compel voters to look to another candidate.

Elections, Peoria County

Early voting not without risk

2 Comments

Vote!Did you vote early? Is your candidate still in the race?

In Peoria County, registered voters could cast a ballot between Jan. 14 and Jan. 31 for the Feb. 5 primary. The trouble is, since Jan. 14, several candidates have dropped out. If you voted for Fred Thompson, John Edwards, or Rudy Giuliani, sorry, they’re not in the race anymore and there’s no way to change your vote.

Similarly, in the weeks leading up to a campaign, you may find out some new information that will change your mind about a particular candidate. Blogger BlueOllie found that out the hard way:

[N]ow I find out that a candidate I voted for has some serious ethical issues. First a misstatement about her graduating from college in a radio ad. Then a shoplifting conviction, as an adult. Then she paid the fine 8 years later, and now has a 3 year old moving violation that she has just paid. Oh boy. That sign is not staying up in our front yard. I am sorry that I voted the way that I did.

Now that’s not to say that early voting is a bad thing. It just has considerably more risk in a primary election than a general election. In a general election, I’ve never heard of a candidate dropping out, although I don’t doubt there’s some obscure situation where that did happen. Likewise, voters are unlikely to cast a ballot for the other party’s candidate unless there were some really devastating revelation about their own party’s candidate (like, “he was the man on the grassy knoll that shot Kennedy”).

As for me, I’m in no hurry. I can wait until election day to vote.

City of Peoria, Elections

Spain’s election could be contested

54 Comments

Ryan SpainSounds crazy, doesn’t it? I mean, the guy got a ton of votes, came in third place, and bested one of the three incumbents. What’s there to contest?

Answer: Whether state law will allow him to serve.

There’s this part of Illinois law called the “Prohibited interest in contracts” clause (50 ILCS 105/3) that says:

No person holding any office, either by election or appointment under the laws or Constitution of this State, may be in any manner financially interested directly in his own name or indirectly in the name of any other person, association, trust, or corporation, in any contract or the performance of any work in the making or letting of which such officer may be called upon to act or vote.

Ryan Spain works for Heartland Partnership, a private company. The City of Peoria has a contract with the Heartland Partnership for $50,000 per year through 2008 (it was passed by the council on 4/19/05). Spain has an indirect interest in that contract since he is an employee of Heartland Partnership.

The Illinois Attorney General’s office published an opinion in 1996 that said employees of contracted organizations benefit indirectly from those contracts, and are thus prohibited from serving on municipal councils. They quote People v. Sperry (1924) as precedent:

If we attach any significance to the words used by the statute, “directly or indirectly interested in the contract,” we think the conclusion cannot be escaped that the officers of the city, who are also employees of the contractor, must be considered as indirectly interested in the contract, without regard to the fact that they derived no direct benefits from the contract itself.

I don’t know if anyone will actually contest it, but one would think it’s likely. I don’t imagine the council wants to take the chance of being in violation of state law. I’ve sent an e-mail to city attorney Randy Ray seeking comment. I’ll post his response as soon as I receive it.

If my interpretation of the law is correct, this situation raises a lot of questions. For instance, could this problem be removed if Heartland Partnership cancels their contract with the city before Spain takes office? I don’t know if that’s even possible, but if it is, I guess we’ll see what is more valuable to the Heartland Partnership — Spain on the council, or $50,000/year from the city.

Another question that arises is what will happen if Spain is found to be disqualified from service. Will the city try to get state law changed to allow him to serve, like they did with George Jacob? Jacob was originally ineligible because he held a liquor license, but state law was changed to allow him to serve as long as he abstained from any liquor-related decisions. If Spain ends up not being able to serve, would the sixth-place finisher (Dan Irving) be installed as a councilman instead?

Interestingly, this is not the first controversy surrounding Spain’s campaign. He set up a campaign teleconference event — a virtual town hall meeting — that took place at the Workforce Development Center at One Technology Plaza. Several people questioned whether tax-payer money was used for the event, but Spain says the meeting was paid for completely by his campaign, and that his forthcoming campaign disclosure reports will show this.

UPDATE: I’d just like to say, as far as communication goes, Randy Ray does a great job. He’s always timely and informative in his responses. Here is what he had to say on this issue:

Thank you for the question. I do my best to answer citizens’ legal questions concerning their city government, and I intend to answer this one. I have always addressed conflicts first with the affected official, and then, if no resolution is reached, with others. Accordingly, I will address this issue first with Mr. Spain, and then with you. Obviously, the time frame is short, so you can expect to hear from me on or before May 1.

I think that’s a fair way to handle the situation. Of course, I will post Mr. Ray’s follow-up when I receive it. As you can see, it may be a few days. Legal stuff always takes a while.

Elections, Peoria Park District

Park Board President Election Results

Incumbent Tim Cassidy easily won reelection as president of the Park Board over sitting board member Robert Johnson. The vote wasn’t even close:

Tim Cassidy 9,200 72.46%
Robert Johnson 3,496 27.54%

There wasn’t a lot of controversy surrounding Cassidy; he endeared himself to many voters by voting against the land-sharing deal with District 150 for a new school adjacent to Glen Oak Park. Robert Johnson was outspoken in his criticism of Cassidy’s vote on that issue and intimated that the decision could be reversed if he were elected president instead of Cassidy. I think that hurt him. Also hurting him was his off-the-cuff remark that the Junior League wouldn’t be able to build their children’s museum if the City Council approved historic landmark designation for certain elements of Glen Oak Park. He later retracted that statement.

The ultimate result is that the Park Board remains completely unchanged.