Rahm Emanuel uses Dick Daley’s playbook.

rahm emanuel monkee on Chicago clout Thank you to everyone that takes my advice and continues to protest at Rahm Emanuel’s home in the 4200 Block of Hermitage. The major newspapers in Chicago will not cover the protests as they seem to still be under the control of Rahm. Chicago is still a killing field due to the lack of jobs in the west and south sides of the city. Chicago is slowly rotting and the union workers are taking the fall. Rahm Emanuel is now privatizing, busting unions, and working with Quinn to destroy the middle class in Chicago. These goons just want a bunch of losers gambling away their minimum wage paychecks hoping to hit it big at the casino. Watch the way the Chicago Alderman vote when the Midway Airport deal comes across the table. I am ready to run for Alderman again and cost these “rubber-stamps” more money. I was hoping Rahm would be a better mayor then Daley, and he is, he just needs a Harold Washington playbook.

Obama is President Again thanks to some Chicago City Workers

Just a quick update. Thank you to everyone that enjoys Chicago Clout. We are ramping up for another year of first rate video at CAN-TV. I think Rahm Emanuel was at the Department of Water Management, 39th and Iron, to thank all the City Workers that help make Barack Obama enjoy another term. (11-26-12 at 11:00 a.m.) I also hope Rahm thanks all the members of Laborers Local 1092 that worked the phone lines getting the vote out for the President. I interviewed some of the folks that participated in the get out the vote and they all expected preferential treatment at work during the next two years. In a surprising twist, many members of the Plumber’s Union did not take off Election Day, but purchased political tickets on city time instead. The FOIA officers at several Chicago City Departments are going up against legal challenges very soon. The passion of the elections makes city workers make many mistakes.
I also want to thank the new hosts of Chicago Clout T.V. series as I am very busy on other matters. I also want all City Workers to be very careful with contacts to the Chicago Office of the Inspector General. The OIG is not issuing proof letters regarding your complaints and on a regular basis is losing cases in court. The OIG is also following your PERSONAL E-MAILS and PERSONAL PHONE CALLS. Yes, Rahm Emanuel’s puppets at the Office of the Inspector General are not independent at all. I hope Fran Spielman at the Chicago Sun-Times stops the phony bullshit coverage of the OIG, it is all propaganda. We are going to expose the corruption, the wild sex, and the cover-ups they thought they keep hidden. We also have X-rated video of high ranking city employees, but are in a legal tangle on that matter. Enjoy the ride.

Chicago Department of Law Karen M. Coppa protects Rahm Emanuel’s Langdon Neal

Chicago Election Board Chairman Langdon Neal makes millions and millions of dollars from the City of Chicago and Cook County. Jay Stone is becoming a major thorn in the side of the Chicago newspapers big secret. Landon Neal’s legal deals stink real bad. A conflict of interest at the very least. Langdon was again hoping people in Chicago will register to vote for Barack Obama and that is what made the newspapers. What? Why will the Chicago Sun-Times keep a lid on Langdon Neal’s business dealings? I tangled personally at Rahm Emanuel’s residency hearing with Langdon Neal. If you want some great dirt on Chicago politics and Langdon Neal go to Jay Stone’s website.
Just recently Karen M. Coppa, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel is riding shotgun for Langdon Neal threating Jay Stone with possible legal action. Is Langdon Neal too cheap to use his own lawyers? and again will the Chicago Taxpayers pick up the freight for ole Neal? WTF? Karen is putting the heat on Jay for disclosing Langdon’s massive tax returns. Langdon Neal had to disclose his tax information and make it public so the multi-millionaire can keep cleaning up on minority business set asides. The old no bid stuff Daley made famous… Karen is with the Legal Information, Investigations and Prosecutions Division and she made that abundantly clear to Jay. Karen would not return my phone call. Make sure you go to Jay Stone’s website….good stuff. http://stoneformayor.com/

Paul "Manson" Hansen DUI UPDATE Inspector General still does nothing

Paul Hansen City of Chicago 2.jpg
From the Chicago DUI Blog. Who keeps covering up for Paul Hansen, lets add the Office of the Inspector General. More on Paul Hansen soon. Seems all the complaints Paul Hansen has gotten into is still covered-up by bosses. What happened to the assault claims and the claims at the Illinois Department of Human Rights? Please read this blog update on Paul Hansen. Rahm Emanuel talks a big game, but he needs to control his goons. Enjoy.. Former Ald. Bernie Hansen’s Son Gets Promoted After DUI Stop
By Steven Tanner on December 23, 2010 9:07 AM
Just six months after he was put on unpaid leave for a DUI arrest, Chicago Department of Water Management employee Paul Hansen was given a job promotion, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. His father just so happens to be former Ald. Bernie Hansen (44th).
Paul Hansen is Chicago’s new district superintendent of water distribution, a $103,632 position that netted him a 6 percent raise.
But while an Examiner story about the promotion suggests the former politician’s son benefited from nepotism, the Sun-Times article seemed to conclude that he’s just really good at what he does and deserved the job. In any event, it’s certainly awkward timing.
Paul Hansen was stopped for speeding, told the officer he had “four or five” beers and was questioned for DUI. He refused a breathalyzer test but was charged with DUI anyway; then he pleaded guilty to reckless driving and had his license suspended for a year.
It’s not clear whether he used his connections, as the Examiner suggested, or just had a really good Chicago DUI lawyer.
The Examiner didn’t cite any sources indicating a conflict of interests or the presence of other shenanigans.
After he was arrested, he reportedly asked the officer “if something could be worked out,” stating he knew the state’s attorney, according to the Sun-Times. That certainly should raise a few eyebrows.
The Sun-Times article indicated he formally applied for the job, was tested and interviewed with a federal hiring monitor present and was reviewed by the inspector general. Mayoral aide Lisa Schrader said the IG “found no issues with the hiring process and no basis to object.”
Water Management spokesman Tom LaPorte called Paul Hansen a “very effective employee” who “gets things done.”
Most Chicago DUI lawyers would tell you that drunk driving never helps your career. And while there’s no factual indication that Paul Hansen is corrupt, his story still raises questions.

The Chicago Way is to Deny Voters a Choice at the Polls by Jay Stone

Sixty Percent of State Legislative Candidates from Chicago Ran Unopposed
The way the Chicago machine churns out votes and victories is unconstitutional and unAmerican. The Chicago machine can't deny citizens their right to vote because election fraud of this kind is too obvious. Instead the Chicago political mafia devised a more devious and subtle way to maintain its death grip on the City of Chicago and state of Illinois politics. The machine put its people in charge of elections to keep candidates who are unaffiliated with the machine from appearing on the ballot. In the elections between 2004 and 2010, Chicago voters had two options in 60% of the state representative and state senate races: either vote for the machine candidate or not vote at all. The machine's philosophy is, "You have your right to vote as long as you vote for one of ours."
The Chicago Board of Elections (CBOE) and the Illinois General Assembly who empowered the CBOE are responsible for so many state legislative candidates running unopposed. The machine's legislators in the state capitol passed a law to deliberately give the CBOE a disproportionate number of state representative and state senator elections to conduct and certify.
There is a reason why the machine wants the CBOE to conduct as many elections as possible; a third generation machine politician named Langdon Neal is the CBOE chairman. Neal's law firm has received over $100 million in suspicious no-bid city contracts and Neal himself has collected over $11 million in fees to lobby the same politicians whose elections he conducted and certified. When non-machine state legislative candidates file to run against machine candidates, Neal and his CBOE underlings apply election laws created by machine legislators to deny non-machine candidates ballot access. In other words, Illinois state legislators protect their jobs with anti-competition election laws that they wrote and passed.
Neal has earned an estimated income of $30 to $40 million off of taxpayers during his 16 years as CBOE chairman. Neal has a huge, personal financial incentive to use his CBOE authority to rule in favor of machine politicians because the elected officials Neal certified to hold office are steering no-bid contracts his way and provide cozy lobbying relationships for him and his clients.
Chicago's population of 2.7 million people comprises 21% of the 12.9 million Illinois residents. And yet, the CBOE is in charge of 34% of the state representative and state senator elections (60 state legislative districts under CBOE authority divided by 177 total Illinois state legislative districts = 34%). The corruption that starts at the top of the CBOE with Chairman Neal's suspicious no-bid contracts and lobbying business ends with the machine candidates running unopposed 60% of the time. The CBOE's systematic denial of non-machine candidates' ballot access is one of the main reasons why Chicago Democrat Michael Madigan has remained Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives for 27 years in spite of Illinois being in the worst financial shape of any state in the nation.
CBOE Denial of Candidates' Ballot Access Comes from State Law
There are two main state laws that expanded the CBOE's authority to deny ballot access to non-machine candidates. The first law gave the CBOE the right conduct and certify elections when only part of state legislative district is in Chicago. If a portion of a ward or even a part of a precinct is in Chicago, a state law (See 10 ILCS 5/6-26, 3. Jurisdiction) gives the CBOE jurisdiction over the election. The CBOE is the only election board in the state of Illinois that conducts elections outside of the election board's territory. Thanks to this special jurisdictional state law for the City of Chicago, the CBOE has the authority over several more state legislative races each election season.
The second state law that increased the CBOE's power allows the CBOE to conduct quasi-judicial hearing. Previously, the circuit court determined whether or not candidates were granted ballot access. Currently the CBOE hires hearing officers to review an objector's challenge to a candidate's nominating petitions prior to each election. CBOE honchos make sure that they only hire hearing officers who follow orders and decide election cases in favor of the machine's candidates whenever possible. For example, CBOE hearing officers recently invalidated 72% of the signatures that nine Republican candidates submitted to the CBOE. Consequently, the CBOE denied ballot access to all nine Republican candidates, and now nine Democrats will not have an opponent in the November, 2012 election.
52% of Democratic State Senate Candidates Ran Uncontested between 2004 and 2010
Tables 1 and 2 summarize all state senate elections between 2004 and 2010. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Chicago's Democratic candidates for state senate had no opposition. No Republican candidate under the authority of the CBOE had the luxury of running for state senate unopposed. Given that Democrats have ruled Springfield for so long, a high percentage of uncontested Democratic state senate candidates is not surprising. Democrats continually passed election laws, such as the two laws that expanded the CBOE's power, to insure their candidates for state senate ran unopposed.
Contested and Uncontested State Senate Elections1
Year
Total Elections
Contested Elections
Uncontested Democrats
Uncontested Republicans
2010
6
2
4
0
2008
16
7
9
0
2006
14
9
5
0
2004
8
3
5
0
2004 to 2010 totals
44
21
23
0
Table 1
2004 to 2010 State Senate Elections in Percents
Year
% of Uncontested Democrats
% of Uncontested Republicans
2010
67%
0%
2008
56%
0%
2006
36%
0%
2004
53%
0%
2004 to 2010 total percent
52%
0%
Table 2
58% of State Representative Candidates Ran Uncontested between 2004 and 2010
Tables 3 and 4 summarize all of Chicago's state representative elections between 2004 and 2010. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the Democratic candidates for state representative had had no opposition. Six Republican candidates for state representative were lucky enough to run unopposed. Nonetheless, a Democratic candidate for state representative is 15 times more likely to have no opposition than a Republican candidate.
Contested and Uncontested State Rep Elections
Year
Total Elections
Contested Elections
Uncontested Democrats
Uncontested Republicans
2010
39
11
26
2
2008
39
12
26
1
2006
39
19
18
2
2004
39
17
21
1
2004 to 2010 totals
156
59
91
6
Table 3
State Representative Elections in Percent
Year
% of Uncontested Democrats
% of Uncontested Republicans
2010
67%
5%
2008
67%
3%
2006
46%
5%
2004
54%
3%
2004 to 2010 total percent
58%
4%
Table 4
Referendums: Another Way the Machine Denies Voters their Right to Self-Govern
The denial of the voters' right to choose doesn't end with 60% of the machine's state legislative candidates running unopposed. As with candidates, the same is true for referendums. The Illinois General Assembly–which Chicago machine legislators rule with absolute authority–made sure the people of Chicago could not enact their own laws through a referendum. According to state law, Chicago referendums can only be advisory, not binding. The state law that limits Chicago referendums to only advisory information is most likely unconstitutional because citizens have a right to self-determination.
Limiting the number of referendums to three per election is yet another way the machine denies voters their right to self-govern. Recently the three referendum limit per ballot law was used to stop the grassroots movement of an elected school board. When Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his puppet aldermen heard a referendum for an elected school board in the works, they pushed through three meaningless referendums. Since state law only allows three advisory referendums on any given ballot, Chicago residents will not be able vote for or against an elected school board.
The Chicago Way Must End
Democratic state legislators are not winning their elections based on their ability, merit, or selfless public service. Manipulating election laws is the sole reason Democrats control the Illinois General Assembly. The longer Democrats are in power, the more they will continue their practice of using election laws to suppress or eliminate their political opposition.
The General Assembly has performed poorly for years,. Rather than holding the general assemblymen more accountable for their lousy job performance, Democratic state legislators have made it increasing more difficult to challenge them. The U.S. trend is to reduce the obstacles for candidates to access the ballot. Instead Illinois legislators aligned with the machine have purposely made ballot access more difficult. As the research in tables 1 through 4 show, the more restrictions state legislative candidates faced, the more Democratic candidates ran unopposed on election day.
The people of the state of Illinois will know the Chicago way is ending when nearly all of the candidates for state representative and state senate have an opponent. For the Chicago and State of Illinois political nightmare to end, voters need more than a few token candidates at the ballot box. The courts have reaffirmed numerous times that voters and candidates have an inalienable right to free speech and campaign for public office. Now more than ever the honest people of Illinois need to hear the voices of candidates and voters who are unaffiliated with the Chicago machine.
Related Articles:
Obama's Strategy to Win at All Cost Violated His Challengers' Civil Rights
Chicago Election Commissioner Visited the White House 9 Days before Deciding the Rahm Emanuel Residency Case
Chicago Board of Elections Refused Nine Republicans Ballot Access
Notes
1. To collect the data from tables 1 through 4 visit the CBOE's website. Click here, and select the "General Election" for 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. Next select the district for each state senate and state representative election.
The CBOE doesn't include candidates' political party when it lists general election results. For contested general elections view the preceding primary election to determine each candidate's party affiliation. Conducting an Internet search by a candidate's name is another way to determine the political party of a candidate.
About the Author
Jay Stone is neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. Jay is an independent who supports political competition, accountability, fairness, and good, honest government.
Special Thanks to Jay Stone and his father Alderman Stone for their unwavering support, Patrick D. McDonough 48th Ward Chicago, Illinois 60640

Chicago is not ready for Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel's Tricks Jay Stone

Obama's Strategy to Win at All Costs Violated His Challengers' Civil Rights
The Chicago Board of Elections' Biased Decisions Eliminated Barack Obama's Four Opponents for State Senate
Political pundits often joke about Chicago corruption: "Vote early, vote often." "Chicago is where the dead resurface to vote." The Chicago machine has controlled the Chicago Board of Elections (CBOE) since the early 1990s. To insure that Cook County Circuit Court judges would receive favorable treatment from the CBOE when they ran for office, local judges appointed a corruptible, third generation Chicago machine politician named Langdon Neal to head the CBOE. Neal is infamous because his law firm received $101 million in no-bid government contracts from the same politicians whose elections he conducted and certified.
With influential members such as Langdon Neal in charge of the CBOE, the machine no longer needs the dead to vote or voters to stuff the ballot boxes. The Chicago political mafia found a much easier way to win their elections. The political hacks in charge of the CBOE use their election authority to stop candidates who are unaffiliated with the machine from appearing on the ballot. Machine candidates have an unimpeded path to public offices because they often run unopposed-like Barack Obama did when he won his first election in 1996.
The machine's henchmen working at the CBOE showed Barack Obama's four 1996 state senate opponents no mercy. The CBOE ruled that 62% of the signatures that these opponents submitted with their nominating petitions were invalid. Two of Obama's state senate challengers were so outraged, they filed federal court lawsuits. However, the two Obama opponents who sued could not present the evidence nor make the arguments below because in 1996 ballot access information wasn't readily available on the Internet. Whether it is a future U.S. presidential candidate or candidates for other offices, unjustly denying anyone their inalienable right to run for office is unconstitutional and no laughing matter.
Obama Chose a Surrogate to Do His Dirty Work
According to Chicago election laws, a challenger must come forward to object to signatures on nominating petitions. Because candidates want to make it appear that they respect their opponents' and constituents' civil rights, they appoint a trustworthy surrogate to challenge their opponents' nominating signatures. During Obama's 1996 state senate primary race, it was Obama campaign worker Ron Davis who acted as Obama's surrogate. The fact that Harvard law school graduate Barack Obama chose Ron Davis instead of himself to knock his four opponents off the ballot shows that Barack Obama was steeped in dirty Chicago politics from the inception of his political career.
Ron Davis' name appeared as the objector to the nominating petitions of Obama's four opponents, but there is little doubt it was Barack Obama who provided Davis with a lawyer. According to CBOE records, a lawyer represented Davis through the entire objection process that eliminated Obama's four challengers. Attorney Thomas Edward Jones represented both Barack Obama and Ron Davis in one of Obama's challenger's federal court lawsuits.
Altogether, Obama's four opponents submitted 5,865 signatures. Obama and Davis's lawyer had to carefully scrutinize all 5,865 signatures before the attorney for the Davis-Obama state senate campaign filed formal objections with the CBOE. Because the Davis-Obama lawyer challenged more than 4,000 of Obama's opponents' 5,865 signatures, the attorney needed to attend a minimum of two or three full days of hearings while the CBOE compared the signatures from Obama's opponents with the signatures that the CBOE had on file.
The CBOE was Prejudiced in Favor of Obama
The names of Barack Obama's four 1996 state senate primary opponents are as follows: Gha-is F. Askia, Marc Ewell, Ulmer D. Lynch Jr., and Alice J. Palmer (See Table 1 below). The four candidates who wanted to run against Obama turned in 529 to 1,142 signatures more than the legal requirement of 757. Yet an insufficient number of valid signatures was the reason all four of Barack Obama's opponents were denied the opportunity to run against the future president. Obama's four opponents were not frivolous candidates seeking publicity. Who knew in 1996 that first-time state senate candidate Barack Obama would be elected president of the United States in 2008?
Obama's 1996 State Senate Primary Opponents1
Candidate's Name
Signatures Submitted
Invalid Signatures
Percent of Invalid Signatures
Gha-is F. Askia 1,899
1,211
64%
Marc Ewell 1,286
615
48%
Ulmer D. Lynch Jr. 1,100
770
70%
Alice J. Palmer 1,580
1,023
65%
5,865
is the total number of signatures of the four Obama challengers
3,619
is the total number of invalid signatures for the four Obama challengers
62%
is the percentage of invalid signatures for the four Obama challengers
Table 1
The CBOE's rejection of 62% of Obama's state senate opponents' signatures is quite a revealing and shocking statistic. It wasn't just one of Obama's opponents who allegedly turned in a majority of bogus signatures. Remember the 62% invalid signature rate is for all four Obama opponents. There is not an election board in the U.S. that invalidates candidates' signatures anywhere close to the 62% that Obama's opponents endured.
More Proof the CBOE was Biased in Favor of Obama
No objector came forward to challenge Obama's state senate signatures; hence, no one knows the number or percentage of invalid signatures Obama might have submitted to the CBOE when he filed for state senator in 1996. The invalidation of Obama's opponents' signatures at a rate of 62% certainly suggests the CBOE was biased in his favor. However, there is more compelling proof that the CBOE gave Obama special treatment. The percentage of invalid signatures was significantly lower for candidates who ran in other state senate and state representative districts at the same time as Obama (Table 2).
Richard D. Taylor was the only other state senate candidate who was denied ballot access by the CBOE for invalid signatures at the same time CBOE election commissioners were denying Obama's four challengers ballot access. CBOE election commissioners determined that 43% of Taylor's signatures were invalid. However, Taylor's invalid signatures were 19% fewer than the 62% average for Obama's four opponents.
The election laws that determined the validity of the candidates' signatures in Table 2 and of Obama's four opponents in Table 1 are one and the same. Richard Cowen, Michael Hamblet, and Annette Hubbard were the same election commissioners who ruled on all four Obama cases and the 10 election cases listed in Table 2. Cowen, Hamblet, and Hubbard decided the challenges to 9 of the 10 candidates in Table 2 within 14 days of deciding the election cases against Obama's four opponents.
1996 State Legislature Candidates2
Candidate
Total Signatures Invalid Signatures
Invalid Percent
Sabrina Barker
497
200
40%
Ronald Gaines
996
237
24%
James Haring
1,518
661
44%
Audrey Kenner
822
251
31%
Larry McKeon
924
309
33%
Mable McMiller
600
171
29%
John Pollack
385
111
29%
Derome Stovall
421
149
35%
Richard Taylor
725
314
43%
David Zalewski
539
281
52%
7,427
is the total number of signatures from candidates
2684
is the total number of candidates' invalid signatures
36%
is the percentage of candidates' invalid signatures
Table 2
The CBOE's Questionable Decisions Made Barack Obama the Chosen One
The CBOE declared 62% of Obama's four opponents' signatures invalid, yet the CBOE deemed that only 36% of 10 other Illinois legislative candidates' signatures were invalid. The figures of 62% and 36% were the result of the same CBOE officials using the same Illinois elections laws to evaluate candidates' signatures during the same period of time. Barack Obama's candidacy in one legislative race is the key variable that is different.
The invalid signature difference of 26% between Obama's opponents and the 10 other Illinois state legislative candidates clearly shows the CBOE was biased in favor of state senate candidate Barack Obama or prejudiced against Obama's four opponents. There is no other way to explain why the CBOE deemed so many more of Obama's four opponents' signatures were invalid other than the fact that Barack Obama was the CBOE's chosen one.
Obama opponent Alice Palmer was highly educated and politically experienced. In fact, Palmer was the incumbent state senator when the CBOE denied her a chance to run for reelection. Palmer graduated with a master's degree in urban studies from Roosevelt University and a PH.D. in education administration from Northwestern University. Given Palmer's political experience and education, other than the CBOE commissioners and employees' favoritism of Obama, it's hard to comprehend why Palmer failed to reach the 757 valid signatures that were necessary for her name to appear on the ballot. Palmer never forgot Obama's mistreatment of her; Palmer was a Hillary Clinton delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Indeed, the CBOE and the machine honchos wanted Barack Obama in the state senate and they were ready to violate his opponents' civil rights if necessary. Table 1 shows that candidates Askia, Ewell, Lynch Jr., and Palmer combined to turn in two and half times the amount of legally required signatures; thus, the CBOE needed to invalidate a high percentage of them in order to stop the four from appearing on the ballot with Obama. State senate candidate Obama needed the CBOE to invalidate his opponents' signatures at a rate of 62% and that was what Obama got. Had Obama needed his opponents' signatures invalidated at 70% or 75%, he would have gotten that from the CBOE.
Obama was the machine's choice for state senator, and the CBOE made sure Obama assumed office without facing any Democratic primary opposition. Obama's state senate district voted 80% Democratic in the general election. When the CBOE handed Obama an uncontested primary victory, the CBOE guaranteed Obama an Illinois state senate seat.
Indeed the lessons Obama learned from his first state senate election remain with him. Obama extended the CBOE's unchecked power and corruption while in the White House. President Obama suspiciously invited CBOE Chairman Langdon Neal to the White House nine days before Neal decided an election case in favor of Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Barack Obama has a reputation as a civil rights icon, but there is no record of Barack Obama making any effort to change the onerous signature requirements needed to run for political office or the ballot access process that allowed him to run unopposed in his very first election. As a state senator, Obama was in a position to write a senate bill to make it easier for candidates to reach the ballot. Moreover, the CBOE would have been obligated to follow any Illinois election law that Obama championed through the Illinois legislature. Barack Obama neither wrote such a bill nor championed such a cause.
Related Article
The Chicago Board of Elections Refuses to Let Nine Republican Candidates on the Ballot
Notes
1. To view the CBOE records on Barack Obama's four state senate primary opponents, click here and scroll down to 1996. You'll see Obama's objector Ron Davis' last name listed three times in column 2 and three Obama opponents' last names listed in column 3 on the bottom of page 49. Obama opponent Askia's name is listed in column 3 at the top of page 50. To read the CBOE's decisions concerning the four Obama challengers, click the word "Decision" that is highlighted in blue on the right-hand side of the page.
The number of signatures filed and the number of signatures the CBOE invalidated are clearly stated in Gha-is F. Askia and Marc Ewell CBOE decisions.
The CBOE did not include the total number of signatures that Ulmer D. Lynch Jr. filed nor the total number of signatures the CBOE invalidated. Therefore, these numbers were deduced from the CBOE's decision. According to the CBOE decision, Lynch Jr. had 350 signatures on the 14 sheets that the CBOE did not review. This means Lynch Jr.'s petition sheets had 25 signatures on each sheet (350 signatures Ă· 14 sheets = 25 signatures per sheet). Lynch Jr. filed 44 sheets with 25 signatures. The total number of signatures on Lynch Jr.'s 44 petition sheets was 1,100 signatures (44 petition sheets x 25 signatures per page =1,100 signatures).
During the CBOE's examination of Lynch Jr.'s first 750 signatures, the CBOE accepted 222 signatures and rejected 528 signatures (30 sheets x 25 signatures per sheet = 750 signatures and 750 total signatures – 222 valid signatures = 528 invalid signatures). The CBOE deemed 70% of Lynch Jr.'s signatures invalid (528 invalid signatures Ă· 750 total examined signatures = 70% invalid signatures).
At this point the CBOE stopped Lynch Jr.'s hearing because it was mathematically impossible for him to reach the legal requirement of 757 signatures. Because Lynch Jr. could not reach the legal minimum with his remaining signatures, the CBOE did not review Lynch Jr.'s last 14 petition sheets. CBOE's 70% rejection rate of Lynch Jr.'s signatures was extrapolated to include all of Lynch Jr.'s 1,100 signatures, including the Lynch Jr. signatures on the 14 petition sheets that the CBOE did not examine.
The CBOE's Alice Palmer decision did not state the number of Palmer's invalid signatures because Palmer withdrew from the race against Barack Obama after the CBOE invalidated nearly two-thirds of the signatures she filed. There are numerous stories circulating the Web about the Obama-Palmer feud, and her dropping out of the 1996 state senate race. For starters, click here or here.
The Obama camp made unfounded claims that Palmer circulators sat around a table and fraudulently signed voters' names to her petitions. Obama supporters have offered no evidence or proof to support their "round tabling" accusations against Palmer. Obama's supporters' unproven vote fraud accusation against Palmer is an attempt to justify denying her ballot access. Obama backers need to recant their vote fraud claims and apologize to Palmer unless they can provide solid proof of Palmer's vote fraud.
2. To view the information on the 10 legislative candidates who filed their petitions at the same time as Barack Obama, click here. The files I reviewed start with state senatorial candidate Schreiner, 4th name from the bottom listed on page 48, and end with state senatorial candidate Anderson III, 4th from the top on page 50. Several names listed were frivolous candidates who only submitted 1, 7, 16, etc., signatures when several hundred signatures were required. Frivolous candidates were not included in Table 2 because the CBOE did not need to examine the signatures to know that frivolous candidates did not meet the minimum signature requirements to appear on the ballot.