Illinois

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US primary elections: Biden and Trump notch wins with surprises in store down ballot

      by

      Donald Trump and Joe Biden swept up more delegates in Tuesday’s primary elections as they set their sights on a rematch in November.Trump and Biden picked up wins in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio. Trump also won the Republican primary in Florida, where the Democrats are not holding a primary.In Ohio, Illinois and Florida, the former South Carolina governor and presidential candidate Nikki Haley still captured a sizable fraction of the Republican vote, despite no longer being in the race.The president and former president had already won enough delegates to capture their parties’ presidential nominations, and most of their challengers have dropped out. Trump’s last Republican challenger, his former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, ended her presidential campaign after Super Tuesday. Biden’s long-shot challenger, the Democratic congressman Dean Phillips, dropped out as well.With the presidential nominating contests clinched, the candidates were focusing on campaigning in swing states they will need to win the general election in November.In recent days, Biden visited Arizona and Nevada, where he is looking to shore up the support of young and Latino voters who could be key to his re-election. Biden is touting economic policies and attacking Trump on immigration and abortion as he seeks to win over wavering voters and waning enthusiasm among groups that backed him in 2020.Democrats seeking to register frustration with Biden over his handling of the war in Gaza are urging supporters to vote for the self-help guru Marianne Williamson in Arizona – as she, unlike Biden, has called for a permanent ceasefire. Pro-Palestinian protesters in Ohio, meanwhile, are urging supporters to “Leave It Blank”.Trump, meanwhile, has continued to court controversy on the campaign trail amid ongoing legal troubles. He claimed that Jewish people voting for Democrats “hate their religion” and Israel, in an interview on Monday – drawing outrage. As he criss-crosses the country to rally supports and raise funds, he has also increasingly made the January 6 attack on the Capitol a cornerstone of his campaign, saluting rioters as heroes.In Illinois, Ohio, Illinois and California, a few key down-ballot races have been hotly contested.OhioIn Ohio, Bernie Moreno, whom Trump endorsed, has won the Republican US Senate primary, and will face the Democratic incumbent, Sherrod Brown, in November, the AP projects. Moreno, a wealthy former car dealer who has never held an elected office, was leading in polls ahead of election day, edging out the state senator Matt Dolan and the secretary of state, Frank LaRose.Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians baseball team, had the backing of establishment Republicans, including the governor, Mike DeWine.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMoreno’s candidacy had been weighed down by questions about his qualifications and lack of experience. Having espoused virulently anti-LGBTQ+ policies, he was also the subject of an Associated Press report that found his work email was used to create an account on an adult website seeking “men for 1-on-1 sex” in 2008. Moreno had denied the report.Republicans have targeted Brown’s seat as one they could flip in November – he is Ohio’s only statewide elected Democrat in a state that has moved dramatically to the right in recent years.IllinoisIn Illinois, the 82-year-old Democratic incumbent congressman Danny Davis will defend his seat in November after fighting off a progressive challenge, the AP projects. Davis was backed by the state’s governor, JB Pritzker, and the Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, but faced a tough challenge from the community organizer and gun-control advocate Kina Collins, a community organizer and gun control advocate.
      Biden v Trump: What’s in store for the US and the world?On Thursday 2 May, 8-9.15pm GMT, join Tania Branigan, David Smith, Mehdi Hasan and Tara Setmayer for the inside track on the people, the ideas and the events that might shape the US election campaign. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Primaries to Watch Today: Races in Ohio, California, Illinois and More

      by

      Five states will hold presidential primaries on Tuesday — Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio — the largest such set of contests since Super Tuesday three weeks ago.But with the presidential nominating contests already decisively clinched, neither of the presumptive nominees will make appearances in those states today. Instead, President Biden will travel to Nevada, a top fall battleground, visiting Reno and Las Vegas, while Dr. Jill Biden, the first lady, will campaign across New England. Former President Donald J. Trump campaigned in Ohio on Saturday.The attention today is on a handful of down-ballot races.Chief among them is the Republican primary for a competitive Senate seat in Ohio. Three Republicans are duking it out for the chance to run against Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.Mr. Trump stumped for his preferred candidate, Bernie Moreno, a former car dealer from Cleveland, on Saturday but mentioned him only sparingly in his caustic, freewheeling speech at a rally in Vandalia in which he said that some migrants were “not people” and that the country would face a “blood bath” if he lost in the November election. Mr. Moreno will face off against Frank LaRose, the Ohio secretary of state, and Matt Dolan, a wealthy state senator, in the primary.In Illinois, a number of competitive House primaries could signal some of the contours of the fall election.In the 12th Congressional District, Mike Bost, the incumbent, is facing a Republican challenger to his right in Darren Bailey, who lost the governor’s race to J.B. Pritzker by a wide margin in 2022. Mr. Bailey is an ardent pro-Trump Republican, but Mr. Bost has Mr. Trump’s endorsement.Danny Davis, 82, is running to keep his seat in the Democratic primary for the Seventh Congressional District. He has two significant opponents: Chicago’s treasurer, Melissa Conyears-Ervin, and a youthful community organizer named Kina Collins. But the Democratic establishment in Illinois has rallied around Mr. Davis — who is a year older than Mr. Biden, making his age a sensitive issue for the primary.In the Fourth Congressional District, Representative Jesús “Chuy” García, a progressive Democrat, will face off against Raymond Lopez, a Chicago alderman, in a Democratic primary that has centered on immigration in Chicago. Mr. García, “a proud immigrant,” was one Democrat who criticized Mr. Biden when he referred to an undocumented migrant as “an illegal” in his State of the Union speech. Mr. Lopez is more conservative on immigration.In California, a special primary in the 20th Congressional District will be held to complete the term of former Representative Kevin McCarthy, a Republican who was ousted from his role as speaker of the House and resigned soon after. A separate primary was held on Super Tuesday for a full term in the seat starting January 2025, with two Republicans — Vince Fong and Mike Boudreaux — advancing to the general election in November. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump appeals Illinois judge’s ruling removing him from primary ballot

      by

      Donald Trump has appealed a decision from an Illinois state judge who decided he should be removed from that state’s ballot because of the 14th amendment, an ongoing issue for Trump in the courts.Tracie Porter, the Cook county circuit judge, made the decision on Wednesday, reversing the previous decision by the Illinois state board of elections, which said Trump could stay on the ballot. The order was put on hold pending an appeal from Trump, which came swiftly on Thursday.The Illinois decision came after the Colorado supreme court ruled similarly, saying Trump couldn’t hold office again because he had participated in an insurrection while an officer of the United States. Another decision in Maine, by the state’s secretary of state, decided to keep Trump off the ballot there as well, though that is now on hold.The Colorado decision went before the US supreme court in February, which has yet to rule on the case, though the justices expressed a load of skepticism of the claims that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to run again.The 14th amendment’s third clause, a little-used provision of the constitution that came about after the US civil war, in the Reconstruction era, intends to keep those who engaged in insurrection from holding an office again. It was used mostly against Confederates shortly after its adoption, but some legal scholars and activist groups revived it recently to argue that Trump fit its provisions because of his actions to overturn the results and incite an insurrection after he lost the 2020 election.Voters in several states, often backed by non-profits seeking to hold Trump accountable, have filed challenges to keep him off the ballot over the 14th amendment. Trump has called these efforts “election interference”. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballot

      by

      The judge, a Democrat, stayed her ruling until Friday, leaving Donald J. Trump’s team time to appeal the decision.A state judge in Illinois ruled on Wednesday that former President Donald J. Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot. The decision creates uncertainty for the state’s March election, in which early voting is already underway.It also adds urgency for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide a national answer to the questions that have been raised about Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots in more than 30 states.The judge, Tracie R. Porter of the State Circuit Court in Cook County, said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board “shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the general primary election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed.”But the decision by Judge Porter, a Democrat, was stayed until Friday, which means Mr. Trump can remain on the Illinois ballot at least until then. A spokesman for the Trump campaign said the ruling was unconstitutional and vowed to appeal.Tracking Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 BallotSee which states have challenges seeking to bar Donald J. Trump from the presidential primary ballot.“Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state’s Board of Elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions,” the spokesman, Steven Cheung, said in a statement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to appeal ruling barring him from Illinois primary ballot over January 6 role

      by

      An Illinois state judge on Wednesday barred Donald Trump from appearing on the Illinois Republican presidential primary ballot because of his role in the attack at the US Capitol on January 6, but she delayed her ruling from taking effect in light of an expected appeal by the former US president.The Cook county circuit judge Tracie Porter sided with Illinois voters who argued that the former president should be disqualified from the state’s March 19 primary ballot and its 5 November general election ballot for violating the anti-insurrection clause of the US constitution’s 14th amendment.Illinois joins Colorado and Maine in attempts to disqualify Trump from running for president because of his role in the 6 January insurrection, in which Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to try to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.Trump is currently appealing those decisions to the supreme court, which is seen as likely to reject the states’ attempts to remove the former president from their ballots.The Colorado and Maine decisions are on hold while Trump appeals. Porter said she was also staying her decision because she expected Trump’s appeal to Illinois’ appellate courts, and a potential ruling from the supreme court.The advocacy group Free Speech for People, which spearheaded the Illinois disqualification effort, praised the ruling as a “historic victory”.A campaign spokesperson for Trump, the national frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination, said in a statement that this “is an unconstitutional ruling that we will quickly appeal”.In oral arguments on 8 February, the US supreme court appeared skeptical of arguments for removing Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot, and analysts suggested the court was poised to allow Trump to remain on the ballot.The court’s chief justice, John Roberts, suggested that if the supreme court allowed Colorado to take Trump off the ballot, then the “big, plain consequences” of the decision would be a scenario in which states regularly disqualified candidates from parties they opposed.“I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot, and others, for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot. It will come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election. That’s a pretty daunting consequence,” Robert said.“What’s a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?” the liberal justice Elena Kagan said.The justices focused more on the potential consequences of their decision than on whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection on 6 January and thus should be barred from holding office.Colorado and Maine earlier removed Trump from their state ballots after determining he is disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was created in the wake of the US civil war.Section 3 bars from public office anyone who took an oath to support the US constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.In her opinion, Porter wrote that she had considered Colorado’s ruling in her decision, and noted that the court “did not reach its conclusions lightly” and that it “realized the magnitude of this decision”.Reuters contributed to this report More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Illinois Judge’s Ruling

      by

      Amendment, examining the meanings of the words “office,’ “officers,”27 “insurrection,”28

      ·“engaged”29 and “oath”³0 and, thereby, concludes that the plain language and plain meanings of Section 3, applies to the former president now seeking to hold office again as the President of the United States. See Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 79, ¶143; 84, ¶152; 87, ¶158.

      In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the U.S. Constitution’s “provisions governing elections reveal the Framers’ understanding that powers over the election of federal officers had to be delegated to, rather than reserved by, the states.”.514 U.S. at 804. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that federal elections is one of the few areas in which the constitution expressly requires actions by the states, with respect to federal elections. Id. As previously identified, qualifications of candidates for federal offices are conducted by the states, not Congress, based on the U.S. constitution, and application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be an exception.

      9926

      Based on the comparable rationale for interpreting Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finding that it applies to Respondent-Candidate, as made by the Colorado Supreme Court, this

      26 The Colorado Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution refers to the Presidency as an “office” twenty-five times. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 72, ¶133; U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. at 861 (“qualifications for the office of President” is stated twice by the High Court.

      27 See U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 803 (1995) (recognized that “Representatives and Senators are as much officers of the entire union as the President.”

      28 Justice Boatright, dissenting, drew the conclusion that a conviction was necessary for an insurrection, but this Court notes that there no such language in Section 3. Anderson v. Griswold, 2023 CO at 11 (dissent). 29 Respondent-Candidate cites to an “overt, voluntary act’ being required. 12 Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 164 (1867). He then provides a dictionary meaning of “to be involved, or have contact, with someone or something.” (EB Record, C-6691 V12). He does not refuted that he gave a speech on January 6 at the Ellipse Rally, that he sent out tweets entitled, “Stop the Steal”, Storm or Invade or Take the Capital, and to disburse or be peaceful (but only after violence had occurred almost 3 hours prior). These facts alone created by a preponderance of the evidence using the Respondent-Candidate’s own definition that by his conduct he engaged with the crowd, deemed to be engaging in insurrection. (EB Record C-6691 V12, C-6694 V12); Colorado Trial Exhibit Nos. 49, 68 and 148.

      30 Oath of the President of the United States effectively is language that can be interpreted as supporting the U.S. Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8 (“preserve, protect and defend”)

      30 More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Jennifer Crumbley’s Conviction Offers New Legal Tactic in Mass Shooting Cases

      by

      The guilty verdict in Michigan against the mother of a school shooter will reverberate in prosecutors’ offices around the country. But don’t expect a flood of similar cases, experts say.The guilty verdict on Tuesday against the mother of a Michigan teenager who murdered four students in 2021 in the state’s deadliest school shooting is likely to ripple across the country’s legal landscape as prosecutors find themselves weighing a new way to seek justice in mass shootings.But, legal experts say, don’t expect a rush of similar cases.“I have heard many people say they think a guilty verdict in this case will open the floodgates to these kinds of prosecutions going forward,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “To be honest, I’m not convinced that’s true.”That’s because prosecutors in Michigan had notably compelling evidence against the mother, Jennifer Crumbley — including text messages and the accounts of a meeting with school officials just hours before the shooting at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021 — that jurors felt proved she should have known the mental state of her son, Ethan Crumbley, who was 15 at the time.Ethan pleaded guilty in 2022 and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ms. Crumbley was convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each student her son killed. She faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, and sentencing is scheduled for April 9.Ms. Crumbley’s husband, James Crumbley, 47, will be tried separately in March.“Could more prosecutors file charges emboldened by this kind of ruling and the verdict?” Professor Primus said. “Sure. Do I think they will be successful around the country getting charges to stick if they don’t have the requisite facts that can demonstrate real knowledge? No.”Still, Professor Primus and other legal experts who have followed the case say the successful prosecution of Ms. Crumbley, 45, provides a template for prosecutors around the country to pursue similar cases.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Illinois board votes unanimously to keep Trump on primary ballot

      by

      The Illinois board of elections has voted unanimously to keep Donald Trump on its primary ballot, rejecting objections brought by voters who challenged Trump’s eligibility on grounds that he had aided in insurrection on January 6.The decision was made on narrow procedural grounds, and is almost certain to be appealed. It is just the latest in a mixed series of official rulings on whether Trump can appear on the ballot amid a wave of challenges to his candidacy in multiple states.Officials in Colorado and Maine have ruled that Trump cannot appear on their ballots, though those decisions are facing further legal challenges, while Illinois becomes the latest state where officials have rejected attempts to boot Trump from the ballot.The US supreme court has scheduled oral arguments on this question for next week, and will likely have the final say on whether Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president because of his actions leading up to the January 6 attack at the US Capitol.At issue in this particular case was the question of whether or not the board of elections has the authority and jurisdiction to interpret constitutional questions. Matthew Piers, an attorney representing the objectors, argued the board “not only has the authority to determine an objection based on the United States constitution, but indeed you have the clear mandatory duty to do so”.Adam Merrill, Trump’s counsel, flatly denied Trump had participated in insurrection and argued the elections board could not make a determination on the question anyway.One Republican member of the bipartisan board made it clear that her decision was based on the question of whether the state board had the authority to weigh in on this question, not on whether Trump should be disqualified.“I want it to be clear that this Republican believes there was an insurrection on January 6,” declared GOP board member Catherine McCrory. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he manipulated, instigated, aided and abetted an insurrection on January 6. However, having said that, it is not my place to rule on that today.”The Illinois petitioners calling for Trump to be excluded from the Illinois ballot argued he is disqualified from office given article 3 of the 14th amendment, which states that any public official who has taken an oath of allegiance to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to its enemies must be disqualified from running for office again.In their 87-page petition, the Illinois voters said the January 6 attack was insurrectionary – and that “the effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 election by unlawful means” amounted to rebellion.On 28 January, Clark Erickson, a hearing officer for the board of elections tasked with evaluating the ballot challenge, said he agreed that Trump had committed insurrection and should be disqualified from appearing on the ballot – but that the matter should be left to a higher court.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe attorney representing the challengers seeking to remove Trump from the ballot indicated immediately after the decision that the petitioners would appeal it in court.Petitioners in more than a dozen states have invoked the 14th amendment to attempt to bar Trump from the ballot in 2024 on grounds that his involvement with the January 6 insurrection disqualifies him from office. Ratified in the wake of the civil war, the 14th amendment also establishes birthright citizenship and guarantees everyone in the US “equal protection” under the law.Trump’s lawyers have asked the US supreme court to put a “swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts”, which, they argued, “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans”.The Trump campaign has similarly argued the push to disqualify him from ballots across the US amounts to an unfair and anti-democratic campaign by his detractors. More