In today's news....
From the Dispatch/Argus (free registration for subscribers to print edition or QC online, paid registration required for others):
"Last month, Terry Brooks won a legal battle to run for two political offices simultaneously after a judge found that his opponent should not be the one deciding whether or not he should be eligible.
Mr. Brooks lost his campaign for Rock Island Township supervisor, but some worry the judge's ruling will complicate future elections in Illinois and make it impossible for clerks to apply state election rules.
Last month, Circuit Judge John Bell ruled that it would be unfair to let the current Rock Island Township supervisor, John Brown Jr., who was also Mr. Brooks' opponent in the Feb. 22 primary, decide or have influence over the decision to let Mr. Brooks run for both township supervisor and Rock Island alderman."
"The city council Monday will vote on a long-term plan to revitalize the area around the Quad City Industrial Center.
The plan calls for turning the former Farmall plant into a new neighborhood, including an adjoining 20-acre community park along the river's edge.
The plan, dubbed Columbia Park, mixes retail stores, restaurants, offices, light industry, high-rise condominiums and a community center between Sylvan Slough and 6th Avenue."
**UPDATE** The Rock Island council approved this plan Monday
"I never stabbed Dustin Behrens or Raymond Behrens," he said. "I'm an innocent man, and I will be back in court soon."
After losing the fight to allow the Albany grade school to remain open, area residents now seek annexation with the Erie school system.
From the Times:
posted by The Inside Dope @ 3/07/2005
2 comments
2 Comments:
Here is an excerpt from an Attorney General Opinion 99-015 regarding compatibility of offices:
"The common law doctrine of incompatibility of offices precludes simultaneous tenure in two public offices where the constitution or a statute specifically prohibits the occupant of either office from holding the other, or where the duties of the two offices conflict so that the holder of one cannot, in every instance, properly and faithfully perform all of the duties of the other. (People ex rel. Fitzsimmons v. (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 458, 465; People ex rel. Myers v. Haas (1908), 145 Ill. App. 283, 286.) There is no constitutional or statutory provision which prohibits a person from holding both of the offices in question. The issue, therefore, is whether the duties of either office are such that the holder of one cannot fully and faithfully discharge all of the duties of the other."
If two offices are not prohibited by statute to be held simultaneoiusly, then an objection must be filed to the proper election commission. The objector should then have to prove incompatibity and the candidate given an opportunity to respond. Judge Bell got it right and the voters solved the problem. If the election officials follow the law next time we won't have a problem. These issues need to be considered on a case by case basis and ultimately we should let the voters decide. We don't need to rush to change the statute or grandstand to make headlines that "something needs to be done" without looking at the big picture. It is hard to get qualified people to serve in public office and we don't need to overreact and limit our choices.
Thanks LL.... Excellent comment. Your argument makes perfect sense to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home