HOI News is reporting that General Parker, candidate for mayor of Peoria, has a criminal past that includes two felony convictions. According to state law, convicted felons cannot hold the office of mayor.
But there’s a catch. Evidently, the only way this is enforced is if someone contests Parker’s candidacy.
The State Board of Elections said it is not illegal for a felon to run for office, in fact they can even win and serve.
Only when someone formally objects to the state’s attorney is it investigated.
Parker is trying to get a pardon from Governor Quinn. Parker is the only candidate running against incumbent Mayor Jim Ardis.
UPDATE: The Journal Star has an article up about this now. It’s not looking good for Parker’s mayoral run.
I honestly didn’t know that he had been convicted of a felony. It was mentioned on my blog several days ago that a convicted felon couldn’t serve as mayor, but I didn’t think anything of it because I thought Parker’s offenses were misdemeanors. Guess I missed the boat on that one.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the rationale is for barring felons from being mayor. Obviously, if they’re in prison or on parole that would make sense. But what if they already served all their time and had paid their debt to society? Why should it be the unpardonable sin?
You can bet your last Euro that Jim Ardis will never bring the matter up-too much class. I guarantee you that Ransburg and Maloof would raise the objection tho! That’s why they are LOSERS!!
Bad news locally on the way next week………can’t say more sorry.
Anonymous, you dirty dog, you leave us hanging with a note like that?
Is it a person, place or thing?
Only two known thus far. He actually has the nerve to ask for a pardon. There much more to this individual than meets the eye. What lie will he tell next.
As a strong advocate of the democratic process, I am not encouraged that candidate Parker is facing such an obstacle. Ardis as a shoo-in is not a good sign for our community. What can we do??
Whatever his history, I will always admire and respect General Parker and the public stands that he takes on behalf of our schools and our students.
I don’t think Parker has gone out of his way to hide his felony convictions. He isn’t required by law to preface his public role by declaring he is a convicted felon nor does he seem to be hiding it. Where he is required to declare it, he does. He probably knew that going into this that he would probably be kicked off the ballot. Not everyone runs for office to win, some run to bring issues to the debate. Had their been a third candidate, his advocacy might have been more effective. c’est la vis.
The barring of felony convictions needs to be reviewed in some manner. If these happened 20, 30, 40 years ago and he ‘did his time’… does it really matter now? The type of conviction could be relevant but then shouldn’t the public be the one’s to decide?
Then there is also the question of the disproportionately large conviction rate among African-Americans in general. Where are the future leaders to come from when a third of the men have felony convictions of one sort or another (mostly drug related)? Can’t people learn from their mistakes? Hasn’t General Parker?
I am not happy that this is an uncontested election. It’s probably too late to run a write in either.
I AM very glad because Mayor Ardis is one of the best Mayors we have had. He really cares about our community and beyond. Mr. Parker knew this would come back to bite him.But he did it anyway. I want a strong leader and with Mayor we have that. However i can see alot of you have never worked with him on neighborhood issues. I have , and he gets it and i will be voting for him as i have always voted for him. Because he gets it.
Thank you for your input, Mrs Ardis.
Some citizens are convicted of felonies before they become politicians; some wait until after they are elected. Whatever the law is regarding candidates and felonies, it, of course, should be followed. However, I agree with what Mahkno stated. Unfortunately, a good many young African-Americans have been convicted of felonies, etc., in their youth. I still hold out hope that many learn from their mistakes and go on to live productive lives as good citizens. I trust that General Parker falls into that category. My theology advocates redemption, forgiveness, etc., and–on occasion–when my own nature doesn’t interfere, I try to follow God’s lead. I find it interesting that this law about felons not running for office (according to PJS) applies to municipal office, but not state or federal. Do I read that correctly?
Kcdad,
Your very welcome . Like i said, have many who write on this . Have worked with our Mayor ? As a councilman who closed down drugs houses etc. Like i said , Hegets it and understand it . We need a leader who shines and he does . So if you want to make fun of me go ahead, but i have seen how Mayor Ardis cares about us and our community.
Guess “Old George Burns at PHS” put something in the Civics class that made me ask this question about CONVICTED FELONS and holding Office!!
Didn’t anyone else wonder??
Again, he’s not the person the public sees or thinks they know. He hasn’t been clean all these years. I don’t understand why he was dumb enough to pull this stunt.
If you haven’t read the article written by John Parker (General’s father) on Elaine Hopkins’ blog Peoria Story, please do. My life (on the other side of the fence, so to speak) intersected with his. I think he went to Roosevelt and Manual before I started my teaching career there, but much of what he relates and the people about whom he speaks are very familiar to me. I truly appreciate Parker’s look back at Peoria’s past–one for which we cannot be proud but, nevertheless, one which makes me strangely nostalgic about my own experiences in the southside during those times and grateful that the circumstances of my life helped me understand that period of history. General, please tell your father how much I appreciated his writing.
General, your father’s name is starting to sound familiar (memory loss, you know)–ask him if our paths crossed at Roosevelt (1962-1969). However, Adrian Hinton (Ken’s brother) graduated from Bradley and started teaching at Roosevelt at the same time, but Adrian left a few years before me to be the first black teacher at Manual High School.
I’d rather have someone who was convicted get elected, than have someone who was elected get convicted.
Kcdad: Yes, it is interesting that we all too often have elected people who do get convicted or do dishonest things while in office even though they might not be convicted–yet we are so hesitant to elect those who have convictions in their past.
I wonder sometimes at the wisdom of our system. Does a conviction in the distant past really mean you are unsuitable to serve? Or does it mean you have lived a bit, gained some wisdom (having not repeated the offense in lo these 20 years), and have a unique perspective that many others can’t begin to understand?
I’d rather have a bucket of dirt and pour water into it then have a bucket of water and pour in dirt. In the end you still have just plain mud.
What is the distant past? 10 years, 20 years, 35 years. Who decides?
What is a unique perspective? Versus a regular perspective? At what point is regular changed into unique.
What of the fact the he blatantly disregarded the qualifications necessary to run for the office in the first place? That just further reinforces the notion that he still finds it okay to break the rules that aren’t to his benefit.
Technically, as pointed out before, General isn’t breaking any rules by running for office–if he wins, he won’t be allowed to take office. He’s counting on two ifs–winning and getting a pardon.
That’s just not true Sharon. When he delivered his paperwork to the election commission he had to submit a statement of candidacy stating that he was legally qualified to hold that office which he is not. According the the Illinois State Board of elections he would have had to “swear to and sign the Statement of Candidacy and the statement must be notarized”. So he straight up lied after swearing to the contrary. Last time I checked lying on an official document like that was considered “breaking a rule” whether he gets prosecuted for it or not.
No, I didn’t know about that–I was just referring to what Kevin Lyons said about not taking any action until he is elected. In this case, the law seems to be just a bit strange, also, in that everyone involved already knew about General’s prior history, etc., but he has been allowed to proceed anyway. The strangest part of the law is that a convicted felon can run for state or federal office, but not local. I don’t live in Peoria, so my opinion doesn’t count for much any way. Has anyone else locally ever tried to run for a local office with a criminal record? I guess not.
Here’s what I could find in the Journal Star archives:
In August 2001, Steve Shannon was appointed to the Village Board in Creve Coeur. He resigned in January 2002 after his 1981 felony conviction for delivering cocaine came to light.
In November 2003, Dan Fishel was forced to resign during his second term as Mayor of Brimfield because of his 1976 felony damage to property conviction. He was eventually pardoned in January 2008.
Kingston Mines village trustees Kevin Barnes and Donald Rudd served for quite a while despite being convicted felons because they didn’t know they were disqualified. Rudd served for 10 years, but had been convicted at 18 for robbing a gas station at knifepoint in 1981. Barnes served three terms, but had been convicted in 1982 of delivering marijuana. After 2005, they were no longer trustees. It’s unclear whether they were forced to step down or if they simply didn’t run again after they discovered they weren’t qualified because of their convictions.
Also, not in Journal Star archives, but pertinent here, is a 2006 ruling by the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District. Kim Hofer was elected village trustee in 2003 and president of the village board in 2005 for the Village of Sorento in Macoupin County, despite having been convicted of a felony for driving on a revoked license in 1999. The State’s Attorney barred Hofer from taking the oath of office and Hofer fought it on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Hofer lost.
Basically, there are two types of offices — constitutional and statutory. The court found that it was not a violation of the Constitution to have different standards for service under each of those types of offices. That’s why a person can be barred from serving as mayor (statutory office) due to being a convicted felon, but not barred from serving as governor or congressman (constitutional offices) for the same reason.
So, it’s constitutional, according to the courts, but I still think it’s a stupid law. If you’ve already served your time and paid your debt to society for a felony you’ve committed, I don’t see the public benefit of barring that person from office by law. I could see the benefit of requiring that felony be disclosed to the public so they can consider it when going to the polls, but what purpose does it serve to exclude that person from service, especially since arguably higher offices — constitutional offices — don’t have the same requirement?
It’s interesting that state laws barring people from service sometimes get changed. For instance, it used to be against state law for someone holding a liquor license to serve on a city council, but that law was changed to allow George Jacob to be appointed to the Peoria City Council. Why was no effort made in any of these past cases to change Illinois law to take away the prohibition on felons being able to serve in statutory offices? Is it simply a matter of political connectedness?
I fail to see from what we’re being protected by this statute. Precinct Committeeman asked, “What is the distant past? 10 years, 20 years, 35 years. Who decides?” I say that should be up to the voters to decide. What compelling reason is there for state statute to take away the voters’ rights to decide whether a convicted felon should be allowed to serve? Voters in Brimfield and Kingston Mines knew about their officials’ past convictions; they also knew they had since become model citizens who had given back to the community and wanted those people to have the opportunity for public service. They were denied from having the representatives of their choice because of this statute.
The law should be changed.
Thanks, C.J., for a very thorough answer to my question. Now that you have provided the facts, I agree the law should be changed.
I am the Kim Hofer that was elected to Village President and was ousted when the losing village president filed a complaint with the states attorney’s office.
I had asked a lawyer before I ran if I could and the law said if you where convicted of a felony or other infamous crime you can not serve any village or city office. You can serve on any county seat or you can be a governor ot senator or a congressman but you cant be on a municipal board.
My conviction was for dui on a suspended license. As one deputy sheriff put it, “you cant serve because you had a traffic ticket?”
Exactly!
This particular law was written before changes were made to crack down on dui’s. There are other minor violations that the penalties were increased to crack down on these infractions.
Whats the difference in doing it and getting caught and doing it and not getting caught?
I think the goal is for people to not do it in the first place.
what’s the difference?
getting caught