2005 Election

Buried at the bottom of this AP/Pravda election wrapup was this tidbit:

Voters in the Texas community of White Settlement, named 160 years ago after white settlers moved into a mostly Indian area, emphatically rejected a proposal to change the town's name to West Settlement.

Elections are such interesting things. 

I don't think there's any question, despite what national GOP figures might say, that last night was a bad one for Republicans. I'm especially disheartened by the failure of Proposition 77 (Redistricting) in California, as I thought non-partisan redistricting might spread to the rest of the country as a result.

I also think it's clear that right now the GOP has a larger problem.  While Iraq might be as unpopular as it has ever been, we need to stay the course, even if it mean losing elections.  Politically, though, our problems in Iraq could be overcome if our party were united.  Unfortunately, our national leadership has spent the past few months giving conservatives a reason to be very distrustful of GOP leadership on the Federal level: Miers, immigration, and spending in general and pork in particular.  Additionally, I'm disgusted by the inability of our Party to protect the free speech rights of our citizens, by rolling over for MSM-empowering and Constitution-gutting campaign finance "reform" proposals that threaten our ability to discuss the issues of the day.

If the national GOP thinks it can continue to win elections in marginal districts while acting like liberals on the traditional conservative, limited-government and national security bread-and-butter issues, then last night will not be an anomaly.

The GOP's recipe for success for 2006: Judges.  Taxes.  Spending.  Immigration.  National Security.  Let's make our positions on those issues clear, let's make taking action on them a priority, and let's hear the Democrats counter that message with their own. 

For links to election-related news, go here.  And feel free to discuss, gloat, or mope about last night and the state of our national parties in the comments.

Great news from the Land of Schwarzenegger, where polling indicates that, with three weeks remaining before election day, four important ballot initiatives look likely to pass.  I'm particularly interested in (and supportive of) the redistricting initiative.

(Hat tip: Ace of Trump)

UPDATE:  This article, though, paints a completely different picture:  "The efforts to redraw legislative districts and cap state spending are running well behind, and the teacher tenure initiative has yet to gain majority support. The measure requiring unions to get their members' permission before dues could be used for political purposes appears to have the strongest support, even gaining favor among many rank-and-file union members."

Governor Schwarzenegger's ballot initiative to enact non-partisan re-districting of California's legislative and Congressional districts is up 23 points roughly month before the election.

I was somewhat surprised by this:

In the four months before she assumed office, the general assistance caseload was an average 21 people per month. Since Abernathy took office, the number rose to 60 clients in May, 75 in June, 96 in July and 102 in August, including six people who relocated from New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina.

"People ask why, but it wouldn't be outrageous for the city of Champaign to have 140 clients per month," Abernathy said. "I don't know all the reasons why the caseload was so low during the previous administration. People need to understand poor people come here who have no other place to go."

The article focused on the budgetary and tax implications ("Eeeek!  Tax Caps!") of the Township's generosity.  But I'd like a better understanding of the reasons for the increase in the caseload.  A five-hundred-percent increase since April seems like something that could be explained a little more clearly. 

Some other questions:

• Is the switch from vouchers to cash responsible for the increase?  If so, was making that switch wise?
• Is there any accountability of this program?  With vouchers, expenditures were restricted.  With cash, there are obviously no restrictions.
• How does the township verify that recipients aren't recieving any other government assistance?
• Is there a time limit for the assistance?
• Are there work or job application requirements for the assistance?
• What happens if the money runs out?

Thanks, and pardon my ignorance. We wrote a little about this when Urbana switched from vouchers to cash payments last Spring, and re-visited the issue when Champaign followed suit after Abernathy was elected in April.

The Phyllis Clark vs. John "J.J." Farney contest for Urbana City Clerk in April got interesting when the incumbent City Clerk's delinquent tax bill became an issue. Clark somehow held on to win won anyway because she's a Democrat running in Urbana.

But the spending in the race was pretty uninteresting. Clark's never even created a committee, meaning she raised or spent less than $3,000 and doesn't have to disclose anything. (Her old committee for her Circuit Clerk run is still inactive.)

And Farney created a committee and spent $4,687.93, but filed on paper, so we cannot examine his donors or expenditures in detail.

Still, Farney quite clearly outspent Clark, by at least a 3:2 ratio, and still lost. Clark, however, had the advantage of being able to run as a ticket with an unopposed Laurel Prussing, who had won the Democratic Primary for Mayor and had a very active, enthusiastic organization that probably shifted to helping Clark after the Primary.

This spring, incumbent Champaign Council member Vic McIntosh earned two lopsided victories over challenger Matt Varble District Three Council seat. After petition technicalities knocked all candidates off the ballot, McIntosh was victorious in the write-in Primary 277 to 81, but both candidates advanced to the April 5 General Election. McIntosh again drubbed Varble, 559 to 263, better than two-to-one.

However, the campaign spending for the race reveal that Varble outspent McIntosh by at least a two-to-one margin, once again illustrating that spending more money doesn't always result in victory.

For the 2005 campaigns, McIntosh did not create a campaign committee nor did he file disclosures, meaning that he raised and spent less than $3,000. His campaign committee, Vic McIntosh for Champaign City Council, has been closed since 1999. His opponent has half-raised allegations of campaign finance violations, alleging that volunteer time and re-using old campaign signs must be disclosed, among other things, and maintains that he finds it difficult to believe that Mr. McIntosh did not spend at least $3,000.

First, I've almost never seen volunteers' time listed as an in-kind contribution to any campaign. The one exception is when there are some expert services involved (for example a well-regarded statewide campaign consultant manages a friends campaign for County Board for free), and even then, I've only seen such an in-kind donation disclosed once or twice in the years I've been examining campaign finance documents.

Second, I've never heard anyone suggest that a campaign that recycles old yard signs needs to somehow disclose an in-kind contribution from the old campaign to the new one. State Rep. Jakobsson reused some of her 2002 campaign signs in 2004, and they weren't disclosed as a contribution. In addition, a committee disclosing an in-kind donation from itself seems beyond ridiculous.

Varble's disclosure is also interesting. His committee, Citizens to Elect Matt Varble, is also now closed. His final report was filed in early June, and reveals that he spent almost $7,900, almost all of it as itemized in-kind contributions. He filed on paper rather than electronically (which is allowed for committees raising or spending less than $10,000), so we cannot now determine exactly how he spent his funds, but we're working to locate a copy of his paper filing. I'm sure that almost all of his in-kind contributions were personal expenditures that Varble made on behalf of his campaign, as such practices are very common for local candidates running for office for the first time.

Regardless, the spending ratio is interesting, in that Varble spent almost $8,000 and McIntosh spent less than $3,000, and McIntosh outpolled Varble better than two-to-one in both elections. We discussed briefly yesterday a "passion gap" between the Urbana Mayoral campaigns of Laurel Prussing and Tod Satterthwaite, in which Satterthwaite was paying for some services that Prussings volunteers were performing for free. I think this race also illustrates that concept, as McIntosh, along with his allies in the Champaign Republican Party, had a much broader volunteer base and better organization. McIntosh's volunteers were spreading his message for free, while Varble was purchasing radio ads. In campaigns, money is a necessary component for success, but it's not sufficient by itself. And this is why McIntosh was able to win so easily in both races, despite being heavily outspent.

First, the numbers:

Satterthwaite for Mayor:
Opening Balance: $8,415.57
Raised: $11,895.32
Spent: $20,310.89

Prussing for Mayor:
Opening Balance: $3000.00
Raised: $20,975.12
Spent: $23,975.12

Tom Kacich already covered the spending in the Urbana Mayor's race on his blog. He details the sources of funding, and says, "Satterthwaite pulled in some campaign contributions from business types, but not as much as had been expected."

That's one of a million reasons why he lost. While he was certainly seen as the more business-friendly candidate in this race, he hadn't exactly been a business-friendly Mayor. There was little reason for Urbana's business owners (both of 'em!) to be motivated about supporting either Satterthwaite or Prussing.

On the expeditures side, there are some interesting nuggets. Prussing spent $7,200 on postage (including the payments to Robert Skirvin), over a quarter of her total expenditures. Her campaign printing was done by Salsedo Press, a "progressive" Chicago printshop with no website but some fascinating Google results. She spent significantly more on TV (WCIA, Insight, WICD - $7,827.50) than on Radio (AAA, Illini Radio Group, WBCP, WDWS - $2,205).

Satterthwaite paid for no TV and less than $2,500 in radio advertising, and focused almost exclusively on mailings. But the most interesting thing about Satterthwaite's expenditures: he paid for office personnel, which means he didn't have volunteers willing to handle those duties for free - a clear sign of the "passion gap" that existed between Satterthwaite's campaign and his (victorious) opponent's.

Both candidates have closed their campaign committees.

During the Urbana Municipal election, I ridiculed the Philo Road "redevelopment" plans of both candidates, as I was certain that the area's time had passed - I just don't think the future is bright for decaying strip malls without highway or interstate access. And I didn't envision anyone tearing down the empty big-boxes and starting from scratch.

I was wrong:

The former Kmart site in southeast Urbana would become home to a $20 million luxury apartment complex under a development agreement under consideration by the Urbana City Council.

The mixed-use project, proposed by Tolono developer Chris Creek, also would include 40,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor, providing room for eight to 10 shops or restaurants.

The apartments, mostly one- and two-bedroom units, would be marketed to University of Illinois juniors, seniors and graduate students and would offer many amenities, according to Creek.

"What we envision is for older students," Creek said. "We've done a lot of traveling around the country looking at different properties, and I'm amazed at the amenities offered. These apartments will be amenity-laden."

City officials said work on the five-story apartment project should begin this fall. It should be completed by May 2007.

"It's positive for that whole area," said Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing, who pledged while running for mayor earlier this year to work to revitalize the Philo Road business district. "It will help the other businesses and create new businesses."

Kudos to Urbana and Mayor Laurel Prussing - I didn't think they could get something like this done. And kudos to Chris Creek, too.

This ought to remind the conspiracy theorists (and I was as cynical as anyone) that coincidences really do exist:

Green said he's aware that some are spinning political conspiracy theories about his decision to resign so soon after being re-elected.
"Deb Feinen does not need my help," he said. "She can get by on her own qualifications. If I was looking to help her, I would not have run for re-election and she would have run and she would have been tough to beat."
Green said he did telephone Feinen last Friday and inform her of his decision to resign. He said he did so because Feinen had asked him last year whether he intended to seek re-election and had expressed interest in the District 4 council seat.
Meanwhile, Schweighart ”“ who on Friday had seemingly given Feinen his endorsement ”“ said this week he won't back her if she intends to run again against state Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, in 2006. Jakobsson beat Feinen by a 62 percent to 35 percent margin in the November 2004 election, with Socialist Equality candidate Tom Mackaman getting 4 percent.
"If she only wants to serve two years on the city council, I don't think that's in the best interests of the city," Schweighart said. "I want someone committed to the Champaign City Council and the city of Champaign."

First, the appointment to fill the seat won't take place until June 7, well after the new council members are seated.

Second, Mayor Schweighart's support for Deb Feinen no longer appears certain.

Third, Feinen hasn't yet decided on a second bid against Naomi the Brainless - and until she does, she won't find much support on the Council.

Fourth, I think the bolded sentences above are referring directly to the post and discussion we had here on IlliniPundit on Monday. So congrats to the readers and commenters (you really are awesome!) - I think this is the first time I've seen us referenced in the News-Gazette, and I think the hue and cry raised here may have had a small role in the tone of this follow-up article. (I'd like to think so, anyway.)

Thus, this no longer appears like a well-orchestrated bait-and-switch, but rather like comically bad timing by one Council member, Jim Green.

Cheers to Mayor Schweighart, the Council, and Deb Feinen for being forthcoming. Bonus cheers to Deb Feinen for commenting directly on this blog on Monday in an attempt to address some of the skepticism.

And jeers to those of us who jumped to conclusions - especially a certain former candidate for City Council, who was especially vicious in his criticism of Mayor Schweighart, Councilman Vic McIntosh and Feinen.

And jeers to the News-Gazette, who were seemingly unable to ask the obvious follow-up questions for their original front-page story last weekend.

The campaign of Republican John Farney, who's running for Urbana City Clerk, sent me (in a very roundabout fashion) some interesting documents last night.

I've spent all morning trying to figure out what I should do with these, and I've decided that I'll just let the documents speak for themselves:

Phyllis Clark is deliquent in payment of Urbana Sewer Benefit Tax; Farney calls for immediate action and investigation into possible misconduct

For Immediate Release March 22, 2005

Contact: John Farney 217-637-5468

URBANA – John Farney, Republican candidate for Urbana City Clerk, today called for immediate action and an investigation into the possible official misconduct committed by current City Clerk Phyllis Clark after it was learned that Clark is delinquent in payment of her sewer benefit tax.

“I am appalled that Phyllis Clark continues to collect a taxpayer supported salary when she doesn’t pay her own taxes,” said Farney. “If Phyllis Clark going to live off of the taxpayers, she should be one herself.”

According to a memorandum from Liz Walden, a Finance Department staff member, to City Attorney Steve Holz, dated March 3, Ms. Clark’s taxes are “extremely past due”. The memorandum also states that at least five notices, including one personally delivered to Clark in her City Hall office, have gone unanswered. “I am unable to get payment” and “I have not received any communication or payment from her,” Walden contined.

Urbana City Attorney Holz confirmed that Ms. Clark was deliquent in payment of her tax as of 5 p.m., Tuesday, March 22.

Furthermore, a review of Clark’s account activity shows that the City Clerk received late penalties for her 2002 tax (due June 2002, paid January 1, 2003), her 2003 tax (due June 2003, paid October 23, 2003), and the currently deliquent 2004 tax (due June 2004, still unpaid).

Farney said that Clark’s tax issues call her candidacy and ability to serve into question; “Phyllis Clark published qualifications to run for office in before the December filing period. She doesn’t meet those qualifications, and hasn’t for most of her current term of office.” Those qualifications include that the candidate “must not be in arrears in the payment of any tax or other indebtedness due the municipality.” (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5)

Farney also questions the legitimacy of Clark’s signed Statement of Candidacy where she states that she is qualified to hold office. “Phyllis signed a document that was false. She lied.”

There is also a scanned copy of what appears to be a memo from Liz Walden to City Attorney Steve Holz asking for help in collecting the delinquent amount. The memo:

Questions:

• Is the memo authentic? It looks real enough to me, but all I've seen is a scanned copy, although it's pretty high-quality, and I can email it to anyone who wants to inspect it.
• Is Phyllis Clark really failing to pay her "Sewer Benefit Tax" promptly? If so, it appears to be a chronic problem.
• How much is she in arrears?
• Most importantly, if being behind in these payments is a disqualification for office, why did no one challenge her candidacy for office when she filed her petitions?

If anyone has a response from Phyllis Clark, please email it to me.

Any other thoughts?

(Who'd have guessed that the Urbana City Clerk's race could get this interesting?)

For your reading pleasure, here's what the News-Gazette and Daily Illini had to say.

And in the blogosphere, it's Dan Johnson-Weinberger, Discursive Recursions, Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (are they a blog?), and Tom Kacich.

And Rich Miller, in his subscription-only newsletter Capitol Fax (subscribe now!), writes about future implications:

More than a few people have scratched their heads lately about why Sen. Rick Winkel (R-Champaign) is sponsoring his own tax swap plan, which would raise the state income tax from 3 to five percent (a 67 percent hike).

He probably believes in what he's doing, but you don't have to look much further for a political reason than yesterday's Democratic primary in Urbana. Former state Rep. Laurel Prussing, an unabashed ultra-liberal, defeated incumbent Mayor Tod Satterthwaite, a liberal progressive who, believe it or not, was tagged as too conservative and Republican-leaning by Prussing. Prussing lost a congressional bid and then a House Dem primary two years ago, and many people had counted her out for good. Wrong.

Yesterday's result followed by four months the suprisingly sound trouncing that Rep. Naomi Jakobsson (D-Urbana) meted out to popular liberal Republican Champaign County Board member Deb Feinen. In a three-way race, with a Socialist Equality Party candidate snaring 3.5 percent of the vote, Jakobsson won with almost 62 percent. Yes, it was during a presidential year, when student voting is high, and, yes, areas outside of Urbana are a lot more Republican-leaning, but Prussing's win indicated that a solid trend is brewing.

Winkel's expected 2006 opponent is Michael Frerichs, a hard-charging young man who ran respectably well against his Madigan-supported opponent in the House district's 2000 Democratic primary. Frerichs was a delegate to the Dem ocratic National Convention last year and is expectted to give Winkel, who is no stranger to tough opponents, a real run for his money.

So, proposing a big tax hike for education and property tax relief doesn't seem so strange for a Republican when a huge chunk of his district is now solidly in liberal hands.

On February 22, there will be a Consolidated Primary Election, and the hottest race in Champaign County is for Mayor of the People's Republic of Urbana. Urbana is a strange, strange place, where the locals like their Birkenstocks, high property taxes, and ultra-liberal elected officials. Most of the University of Illinois is located in Urbana, and most of the faculty and many of the students live within Urbana city limits, making the city the among most liberal in Illinois.

Urbana has 27 precincts ”“ the 23 in Cunningham Township (which shares a government with the city of Urbana) are all within city limits, and the four precincts of Urbana Township, which are outside of city limits. On this map, the Cunningham precincts (on the right) are marked with CN#, and the Urbana Township precincts are UR#. For the purposes of the city elections, we'll only be talking about the 23 Cunningham precincts (1-12, 14-24 ”“ they skipped number 13 when numbering precincts for a few years, then changed 24 to 13).

To give you an idea of the partisan breakdown of those precincts, here's how they voted for President and Governor in the last three elections: