Connect with us

Illinois

7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of GOP Challenge to Illinois’ Mail-in Ballot Receipt Deadline

Published

on

7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of GOP Challenge to Illinois’ Mail-in Ballot Receipt Deadline


Image of a mail-in ballot. (Adobe Stock)

As a result of a decision from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Illinois election officials can continue to count mail-in ballots for up to two weeks after an election so long as they are postmarked or certified by Election Day. 

The 7th Circuit’s ruling affirms a Trump-appointed judge’s previous dismissal of a lawsuit from GOP Congressman Michael Bost and Republican voters who sought to invalidate Illinois’ post-election ballot receipt deadline.

“Because Plaintiffs have not alleged an adequate injury, we agree that they lack standing to bring this suit and affirm the district court’s dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds,” the 7th Circuit’s decision states. Judge John Lee, a Biden appointee, authored the ruling.

Today’s rejection of Bost’s suit comes as the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Trump campaign are currently litigating similar challenges to mail-in ballot receipt deadlines in Mississippi and Nevada, both of which were rejected by district courts in recent weeks and are now on appeal.

Advertisement

Since the beginning of this year, Republicans and conservative groups have lost a total of four lawsuits challenging mail-in ballot receipt deadlines.

Aside from Illinois, approximately 20 other states and U.S. territories have post-election ballot receipt deadlines, which ensure that voters are not disenfranchised due to postal delays beyond their control. 

Bost predicated his legal challenge on the notion that Illinois’ 14-day mail-in ballot receipt deadline effectively “expands” Election Day in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, which requires states to hold Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Bost and his Republican co-plaintiffs — who were represented by the right-wing legal group Judicial Watch — also alleged that the two-week receipt deadline for mail-in ballots burdens their right to vote by allowing “illegal ballots” to “dilute the value of timely ballots cast and received on or before Election Day.”

The RNC and Trump campaign’s ongoing lawsuits in Mississippi and Nevada put forth largely similar arguments, which have fallen flat even among Republican-appointed judges.

Advertisement

While all three 7th Circuit judges in today’s ruling agreed that the plaintiffs cannot adequately demonstrate that their votes are “diluted” by the state’s deadline, Judge Michael Scudder — a Trump appointee — dissented in part after concluding that Bost, as a congressional candidate, has standing.

In particular, Scudder wrote that the state’s ballot receipt deadline “will increase Bost’s campaign costs this November—a fact that gives Bost a concrete stake in the resolution of this lawsuit.”

In February, a Trump-appointed federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the right-wing Public Interest Legal Foundation challenging North Dakota’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline, which allows for the counting of mail-in ballots up to 13 days after Election Day. 

In the Illinois, Mississippi and North Dakota cases, the U.S. Department of Justice chimed in to underscore the importance of post-Election Day mail-in ballot deadlines for military and overseas voters, who often face logistical challenges with transporting ballots from distant locations. 

The Democratic Party of Illinois highlighted in an amicus brief how the state’s receipt deadline “guards against the disenfranchisement of all qualified voters, including Bost’s constituents and supporters.” 

Advertisement

Read the ruling here.

Learn more about the case here.



Source link

Advertisement

Illinois

Illinois in the trenches again to protect fair housing

Published

on

Illinois in the trenches again to protect fair housing


Is housing discrimination illegal even if the action wasn’t intended?

According to the Fair Housing Act, yes.

Should the federal government go after errant housing providers in those scenarios? Well, that depends on the president.

In 2013, Barack Obama codified what’s known as the “disparate impact” rule, in other words, recognizing discriminatory practices not motivated by discriminatory intent. The Biden administration reinstated the rule. Now President Donald Trump seeks to roll it back by preventing agencies from investigating housing discrimination complaints.

Advertisement

Still, the disparate impact remains legal — federally and locally. And Illinois ensured extra protections by codifying disparate impact into state law. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has reduced the workforce in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is antagonistic toward fair housing.

Let’s go back to the legal origins. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. spent time in the city for the Chicago Freedom Movement, which protested housing segregation and slums. Part of that campaign sent Black people to real estate offices, and agents told them they had no listings. Soon after, the campaign sent white people to the same offices, and agents gave them listings. After King’s assassination in 1968, Congress quickly passed the Fair Housing Act. The civil rights law prohibited discrimination against people trying to rent or buy a home. Race, sex and national origin are among the protected classes.

Today that King campaign is called “testing,” and fair housing organizations continue the practice. They send two people — one pair Black and one pair white — with otherwise similar profiles to visit the same housing provider. The volunteers are trained to see how they are treated and report back if discrimination occurs. State and local fair housing centers do a variety of education and fight discrimination — to the chagrin of the Trump administration, which has also sought to gut their funding. To advance fair housing, HUD is a primary source of financing. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, along with other states, filed a lawsuit to challenge the attacks. Some contracts have been reinstated, but not every center received back money.

“A lot of our worst fears have kind of already happened. We know that it’s going to take at least a decade to rebuild the federal infrastructure to what it was before with the number of federal workers,” said Emily Coffey of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “What we had a couple of years ago was never enough. We are still one of the most segregated cities in the country. What worries me the most is that we won’t be able to sustain what we have, and rebuilding that is so much more challenging than just weathering a storm.”

To counter the political climate, fair housing groups have formed the Illinois Housing Equity Collective, which seeks $5 million from the state for fair housing enforcement. So far philanthropy has contributed to the collective.

Advertisement

Michael Chavarria leads HOPE Fair Housing Center, which serves DuPage and Kane counties and parts of Northern Illinois. The mixed messaging from the federal government has prevented growth and also caused rearranging their budget while waiting on reimbursements. He doesn’t want to tap into reserves to cover a bill when the federal government promised that money.

“Just last year we held over 40 events that were targeted at training individuals, be it housing seekers, housing providers, local government. We reached about 3,500 people through our online educational campaigns. We reached almost 750,000 people across Illinois. So we really aim to prevent discrimination by making sure everyone knows their rights and responsibilities. We do not want to have to sue people,” Chavarria said.

Illinois finds itself once again on the front lines of protecting residents — see reproductive, immigration or First Amendment rights. And now must add fair housing, which Trump pushed against just last week by refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill.

The reason? He first wants Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act — legislation designed to create more inequity and burn democracy to the ground.

Natalie Y. Moore is a senior lecturer at Northwestern University.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

New Illinois bill aims to overhaul public defense system | The Chicago Report

Published

on

New Illinois bill aims to overhaul public defense system | The Chicago Report


A major overhaul to the Illinois justice system could be officially underway.
 House Bill 3363 lays the foundation for a brand new agency, the state public defender office. 
 The goal is to bring more consistent legal representation for Illinois residents who can’t afford an attorney.
 Joining us now to discuss the rolled-out timeline is the bill’s sponsor, State representative Dave Vella, who actually started his legal career as a public defender, before heading to Springfield.



Source link

Continue Reading

Illinois

Illinois Democrats face backlash after blaming Trump in Chicago cross-burning case | Fox News Video

Published

on

Illinois Democrats face backlash after blaming Trump in Chicago cross-burning case | Fox News Video


Illinois Democratic leaders Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are slammed for weaponizing a Chicago cross burning incident by blaming former President Trump. Despite the suspect, Murlin Lue, admitting his motive was to protest Trump, not racism, Pritzker and Johnson doubled down. Critics, including Illinois GOP State Rep. Chris Miller, accuse them of playing politics and fostering division rather than seeking truth.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending