The Statute of Liberty

You may have already read this at John Beydler's "The Passing Parade", but it's an interesting bit of info regarding the potentially explosive debate over whether appointed, selected precinct committeemen should or will be allowed to vote for Lane Evans' replacement on the general election ballot.

Beydler cites, apparently via Don Johnston, a section of code which would appear to indicate that only elected committeemen are eligible to vote in this process.

"In the organization and proceedings of congressional committees composed of precinct committeemen or township committeemen or ward committeemen, or any combination thereof, each precinct committeeman shall have one vote for each ballot voted in his precinct by the primary electors of his party at the primary at which he was elected ...''
-- Article 7, Sec. 7-8, Paragraph (e) Illinois Election Code (emphasis added)

But a commenter to Beydler's post cites yet another passage of code which they argue indicates that the unelected should be able to cast votes, votes which, at least in Rock Island county, are strictly according to who county chair John Gianulis tells them to vote for, namely Phil Hare.

(10 ILCS 5/7‑9)(from Ch. 46, par. 7-9)
(i) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever a vacancy exists in the office of precinct committeeman because no one was elected to that office or because the precinct committeeman ceases to reside in the precinct or for any other reason, the chairman of the county central committee of the appropriate political party may fill the vacancy in such office by appointment of a qualified resident of the county and the appointed precinct committeeman shall serve as though elected

Of course, we don't have the full section of law to put things in context, but from those two citations, what do you think to be the case?

Yet another comment notes that the section of the last passage noting that a committeeman slot can become vacant because the committeeman no longer resides in the precinct (37 of the 41 appointed committeemen in R.I.County don't even live in the precinct they've been appointed to represent) would indicate that those who don't reside in the precinct are ineligible to vote.

It seems to me that the first section of code should have precedence over the second, but the arguments could go on until the sun goes dark, and likely will.

Beydler also lays out the folly of those who argue that not allowing appointed committeemen to vote is somehow "disenfranchising" those who live in precincts without an elected committeeman.

If the appointed committeemen are, as freely admitted by John G., all people who are pledged to vote as he wants them to, then how is inserting them into vacant precincts, in which many of the appointees don't even live, considered to be "enfranchising" the residents of those precincts? The argument makes no sense, really. It's only enfranchising John Gianulis.

If John G. wishes to try this approach in order to ensure he bigfoots the process and ensures that his guy, Phil Hare, gets selected, then that's his right, of course. There's nothing remotely illegal about appointing committeemen, and if you're in favor of things going this way, that's perfectly fine.

But it's silly for those who favor giving John G. this extra power to try to hide behind some phony baloney concern over "disenfranchising" voters. The right to vote is truly a sacred thing. Plugging in placeholders for John G./Phil Hare votes essentially disenfranchises residents. To argue in favor of that under the guise of fighting for those same resident's right to have their voices heard is disingenuous and well, phony. (In my oh-so-humble opinion.)