CHICAGO, ILLINOIS — In compliance with the Federal Appellate Court’s August 31 order, the State Board of Elections has clarified that the Lake County Clerk is currently planning to send ballots to the printer on “approximately” September 8, 2008 and the Cook County Clerk is currently planning on sending ballots to the printer on September 20, 2008.

The Federal Appellate Court has denied a request for a preliminary injunction, but has approved an expedited briefing schedule. Stevo’s brief is due Friday, September 5. The State’s response is due Friday, September 12, and Stevo’s reply is due Monday, September 15.

In the case, 10^th Congressional District Candidate Allan Stevo is seeking to be placed on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The matter is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The text of the State’s response can be found at: http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/ under the heading “State’s Response to Court’s August 29, 2008 Order”

The original text of the Court Order can also be found at: http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/ under the heading “Court Order – August 29, 2008″

Background
In the case, Stevo v. Keith, ballot access expert Richard Winger has filed a memo in support of Stevo’s request to be placed on the ballot. In it, Winger points to the draconian nature of Illinois’s ballot access laws. Illinois is widely regarded as having some of the most draconian ballot access laws in the country, esp. in regard to so called “third party” and independent candidates.

Allan Stevo, a candidate for U.S. House, is bringing suit against the State Board of Elections, based on Illinois’s policy of requiring 5,000 signatures in order to appear on the ballot in some years and 10,285 signatures for independents to appear on the ballot in other years. This year 673 signatures was required of Stevo’s Republican opponent, 1,001 signatures was required of Stevo’s Democratic opponent.

Mark Brown is a practicing attorney and an expert in constitutional law at Capital University Law School. He is co-author of the textbook Constitutional Litigation Under § 1983 and has written and practiced extensively on the issue of government’s violations of rights under the Constitution. Brown also has represented Libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and socialist Brian Moore in their quests to gain ballot access in Ohio.

Richard Winger is the long-time publisher of Ballot Access News and is widely-regarded from all parts of the political spectrum as an authority on ballot access policies.

Highwood resident, Allan Stevo is running for U.S. House in the Tenth District of Illinois on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

Stevo, who is running full-time, is a writer and teacher by trade, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in numerous better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

Stevo v. Keith et al (08-03162), was brought forward in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division. It is now proceeding at the federal appellate level.

More information about the case can be found at www.StevoForCongress.com. All filings related to the case can be accessed at http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – Federal Judge Richard Mills has ruled against Tenth Congressional District Candidate Allan Stevo’s request to appear on the November 4 ballot. Mills not only denied injunctive relief, but also refused to hear the case. In response, Stevo, through lead counsel Mark Brown, appealed the decision and is seeking emergency relief from the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mills ruled Wednesday; Stevo filed an immediate appeal and has requested an expedited briefing schedule.

“We’re going to keep fighting this issue in the courts because our campaign deserves to be on that ballot. We’re going to keep fighting this issue in the courts because the people of Illinois deserve something better of their electoral system,” commented Stevo.

Background
In the case, Stevo v. Keith, ballot access expert Richard Winger has filed a memo in support of Stevo’s request to be placed on the ballot. In it, Winger points to the draconian nature of Illinois’s ballot access laws. Illinois is widely regarded as having some of the most draconian ballot access laws in the country, esp. in regard to so called “third party” and independent candidates.

Allan Stevo, a candidate for U.S. House, is bringing suit against the State Board of Elections, based on Illinois’s policy of requiring 5,000 signatures in order to appear on the ballot in some years and 10,285 signatures for independents to appear on the ballot in other years. This year 673 signatures was required of Stevo’s Republican opponent, 1,001 signatures was required of Stevo’s Democratic opponent.

Mark Brown is a practicing attorney and an expert in constitutional law at Capital University Law School. He is co-author of the textbook Constitutional Litigation Under § 1983 and has written and practiced extensively on the issue of government’s violations of rights under the Constitution. Brown also has represented Libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and socialist Brian Moore in their quests to gain ballot access in Ohio.

Richard Winger is the long-time publisher of Ballot Access News and is widely-regarded from all parts of the political spectrum as an authority on ballot access policies.

Highwood resident, Allan Stevo is running for U.S. House in the Tenth District of Illinois on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

Stevo, who is running full-time, is a writer and teacher by trade, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in numerous better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

Stevo v. Keith et al (08-03162), is being brought forward in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division.

More information about the case can be found at www.StevoForCongress.com. All filings related to the case can be accessed at http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - In Stevo v. Keith two new arguments have been presented to Judge Mills.

The defendant, the State Board of Elections, begs for a continuation of the status quo, and argues that the doctrine of laches must be applied in this case.

According to defendants’ (Illinois State Board of Elections) August 18 filing, “Laches applies in a particular case when the plaintiff: (1) was not reasonably diligent in pursuing their claim; and (2) plaintiff’s lack of diligence created prejudice.”

Plaintiff, Allan Stevo, filed in Federal court seven calendar days after the Illinois State Board of Elections ruled on the matter of Stevo v. LeBeau, in which Republican insiders had Allan Stevo removed from the ballot.

Commented Stevo “Basically, the State’s argument is that I should have predicted that the State Board of Elections was going to rule against me and that waiting until after the Board of Elections ruled was just too late. I’m well read on the US Constitution and the mistakes made by governments over and over again throughout history, but asking me to predict the ruling of the State Board of Elections is like asking me to be a mind reader.”

The lead attorney for Stevo, Mark Brown, responded to the State in his Thursday filing “It is worth noting that Defendants fail to cite a single election case using laches to prevent voters and/or candidates from pressing their constitutional challenges. This is so because few federal courts have invoked laches in election settings. The Supreme Court, for example, has apparently NEVER used laches to deny relief or to avoid an election dispute.”

All documents are now in the hands of Judge Mills as he decides whether or not to grant Stevo a Temporary Restraining Order, which would require the State of Illinois to place Allan Stevo on the November 4, 2008 ballot.

Background
In the case, ballot access expert Richard Winger has filed a memo in support of Stevo’s request to be placed on the ballot. In it, Winger points to the draconian nature of Illinois’s ballot access laws. Illinois is widely regarded as having some of the most draconian ballot access laws in the country, esp. in regard to so called “third party” and independent candidates.

Allan Stevo, a candidate for U.S. House, is bringing suit against the State Board of Elections, based on Illinois’s policy of requiring 5,000 signatures in order to appear on the ballot in some years and 10,285 signatures for independents to appear on the ballot in other years. This year 673 signatures was required of Stevo’s Republican opponent, 1,001 signatures was required of Stevo’s Democratic opponent.

Mark Brown is a practicing attorney and an expert in constitutional law at Capital University Law School. He is co-author of the textbook Constitutional Litigation Under § 1983 and has written and practiced extensively on the issue of government’s violations of rights under the Constitution. Brown also has represented Libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and socialist Brian Moore in their quests to gain ballot access in Ohio.

Richard Winger is the long-time publisher of Ballot Access News and is widely-regarded from all parts of the political spectrum as an authority on ballot access policies.

Highwood resident, Allan Stevo is running for U.S. House in the Tenth District of Illinois on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

Stevo, who is running full-time, is a writer and teacher by trade, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in numerous better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

Stevo v. Keith et al (08-03162), is being brought forward in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division.

More information about the case can be found at www.StevoForCongress.com. All filings related to the case can be accessed at http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - In Federal Court on Wednesday, a memorandum authored by Ballot Access Newsletter publisher, Richard Winger, was filed in support of Tenth Congressional District candidate Allan Stevo’s lawsuit against the State of Illinois.

“We are trying to bring Illinois law inline with the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, before the November ballots are printed,” commented Stevo.

Winger’s memorandum is filled with information comparing Illinois ballot access laws for independent candidates to the laws in other states. The laws can seem arbitrary at times, with 10,285 signatures being needed from Stevo in this election, but only 5,000 signatures being required of independent candidates in elections following a census in order to appear on the ballot. Of additional concern to voters is the uneven burden placed on independent candidates. Stevo was required to file 10,285 signatures while Republican Mark Kirk was made to file 687 signatures and Democrat Dan Seals 1,001 signatures.

“The law makes it essentially impossible for an independent to appear on the ballot unless he or she has the blessing of his Republican or Democratic opponents to be there” said Stevo.

The following excerpt from San Francisco based ballot access expert Richard Winger’s memorandum helps put this burdensome ballot access law into perspective:

“I have calculated the number of signatures needed for an independent candidate for U.S. House, in each district in the nation. In 2008, there are 435 U.S. House districts. The median number of signatures required for an independent candidate is 2,750 signatures. There are 318 districts in which the requirement is below 5,000 signatures. There are 62 districts in which the requirement ranges between 5,000 and 9,999. There are 55 districts, including some in Illinois, in which the requirement is at or above 10,000 signatures. There is no state that ever experiences a crowded ballot for US House in the November election, with the possible exception of Tennessee (which requires only 25 signatures for an independent, and no filing fee) and occasionally New Jersey (which requires only 100 signatures for an independent and no filing fee).”

The memorandum was filed by lead attorney for Plaintiff Allan Stevo, Mark Brown. Mark Brown is a practicing attorney and an expert in constitutional law at Capital University Law School. He is co-author of the textbook Constitutional Litigation Under § 1983 and has written and practiced extensively on the issue of government’s violations of rights under the Constitution. Brown also has represented Libertarian Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and socialist Brian Moore in their quests to gain ballot access in Ohio.

Richard Winger is the long-time publisher of Ballot Access News and is widely-regarded from all parts of the political spectrum as an authority on ballot access policies.

Highwood resident, Allan Stevo is running for U.S. House in the Tenth District of Illinois on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

Stevo, who is running full-time, is a writer and teacher by trade, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in numerous better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

Stevo v. Keith et al (08-03162), is being brought forward in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division.

More information about the case, as well as a collection of filings submitted by Mark Brown to date can be found at www.StevoForCongress.com and also at http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - In Federal Court Wednesday, Tenth Congressional District candidate, Allan Stevo filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against the state of Illinois, seeking his immediate placement on the November ballot.

Wednesday’s filing in Federal Court on Stevo’s behalf by Mark Brown, Capital University Law Professor and lead counsel for Plaintiff Allan Stevo, is meant to bring the State into compliance with the US Constitution before the ballots are printed for the November election.

According to the filing “The Attorney General could not provide to Plaintiff any date by which the ballots absolutely had to be printed. Plaintiff appreciates the Attorney General’s offer to file its responsive pleading by September 4. However, in the absence of any assurance that this date is well before the date when ballots are finally printed, Plaintiff can not rest assured that his case will not be rendered moot or meaningless.”

“For these reasons, Plaintiff now requests a Temporary Restraining Order directing the Defendants to include his name on the ballot,” continued Brown later in the filing. The case against the state is built around the fact that Stevo was required to submit 10,285 signatures this year, as an independent candidate, as opposed to the 5,000 signatures he would be required to submit in years following redistricting. For purpose of reference, Republican candidate Mark Kirk was required to submit 687 signatures and Democrat Dan Seals required to submit 1,001 signatures.

The filing cites the Seventh Circuit which “in Lee v. Keith 463 F.3d 763 (7^th Cir. 2006), described Illinois’s restrictions on independent candidates as ranking among the most draconian in the land.”

SIDENOTE: The filing, which can be easily found at http://localpolitics.meetup.com/206/files/, under the name “Stevo.TRO.memo” is 14 pages of excellent reading on exactly what courts have said about ballot access measures in Illinois and offers many comparisons to other states. Other documents related to this case may be found at that same web address.

The signature threshold for independent candidates to run for Congress, according to Wednesday’s filing “is not necessary to achieve any compelling, or even legitimate state interest.”

Cited as evidence is a memorandum from San Francisco-based ballot access expert, Richard Winger, in which Winger stated “Since the 1973 change, independent candidates have been required to obtain exactly 5,000 signatures, in these elections years: 1982, 1992, and 2002. In none of these years did Illinois experience a November ballot crowded with too many candidates for U.S. House of Representatives.”

Using a comparison to the case Citizens Party of Illinois v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Brown argues “that 10,000+ signatures cannot be the least restrictive alternative when 5,000 worked in 2002 and will work in 2012 to achieve the state’s interests.” Brown goes on to add “The state’s distinction, to use then-[U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Rehnquist’s words, “makes no sense.”

According to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, in “Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1″: “Illinois is the only state that requires a flat number of signatures (for either independent or minor party candidate for U.S. House) in some elections years, and a number calculated as a percentage (of any type of base) in other election years.”

According the Richard Winger’s statement filed with the court “In the 61 instances at which the 5,000-signature requirement has been in effect in Illinois, there are no instances in which the November ballot ever had more than four candidates in a single race, and only one instance when there were even as many as four candidates.”

Highwood resident, Allan Stevo is running for U.S. House in the Tenth District of Illinois on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

Stevo, who is running full-time, is a writer and teacher by trade, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in numerous better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

Richard Winger is the long-time publisher of Ballot Access News and is widely-regarded from all parts of the political spectrum as an authority on ballot access policies.

Mark Brown is a practicing attorney and an expert in constitutional law at Capital University Law School. He is co-author of the textbook Constitutional Litigation Under § 1983 and has written and practiced extensively on the issue of government’s violations of rights under the Constitution.

Also filed on Wednesday were “Declaration of Richard Winger in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief” and “Richard Winger’s Curriculum Vitae.” The case, filed as 08-03162 Stevo v. Keith et al, is being brought forward in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division.

Dear Friends,

Monday afternoon, a supporter, who is more computer savvy than me, contacted me by phone with the following: “Allan, your MySpace and Facebook accounts have been hacked. You need to get on there immediately and change your password. Your Stevo for Congress account is generating ads from adult websites.” Other such messages and emails quickly followed.

We immediately took care of this problem. I would like to thank that supporter and others for the quick response and to thank our campaign volunteers as well for the quick response in solving this matter. My apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced by this material being sent out from our MySpace or Facebook accounts.

We do not share our supporters’ contact information with third party vendors. This use of my MySpace and Facebook accounts was unathorized. While we have always taken many precautions with our internet sites, we have organized an improved internet security plan to ensure that we have greater security standards in place to avoid future infiltration attempts.

Thank you again to the proactive supporters who quickly helped prevent this problem from becoming something bigger.

We have once again proven that our liberty movement has strength in its numbers.

Sincerely,
Allan Stevo

Letter to the editor written for the Tribune – July 29:

Dear Sir,

Thursday you ran a brief article mentioning that I was “dropped” from the ballot. This is true, yet I feel it was dishonest to not mention the related federal lawsuit that we filed Monday in federal court in Springfield.

In the State of Illinois it’s very easy to kick an independent off the ballot if either Democrat or Republican opponent does not want him there. The odds are further against the independent based on a drastically disproportionate number of signatures required to even appear on the ballot. Illinois, in this regard, has some of the least “free and equal” ballot laws in the nation (worse only in Georgia and North Carolina).

Usually because of the steep legal fees, challenged candidates are forced to roll over and accept the challenge. After all, how can every little guy come along and challenge the virtually unlimited resources of the State of Illinois in court?

Well, I want to live in a better state and the powers that be have left me with a chance to have a better state without leaving my home state. I want freer ballot access laws in Illinois, and I’ve asked a federal judge to review these unconstitutional election laws.

Sir, because it is likely that both you and I would like to see liberty and justice for all, I hope that you will cover my lawsuit and subsequent return to the ballot in your paper, especially since you’ve printed word of my dismissal from the ballot.

Best regards,

Allan Stevo
Independent Candidate for U.S. House, IL-10
Highwood, IL

A week after the State Board of Elections failed to affirm Allan Stevo’s independent bid for the U.S. House of Representatives, the 10^th congressional district candidate has filed a federal suit against the Board, demanding that they comply with the U.S. Constitution.

Stevo is challenging Illinois’s draconian restrictions on independent candidates who attempt to gain a spot on the ballot. Illinois’s restrictions are widely considered among ballot access experts to be the most severe in the country, ranking next to those in Georgia and North Carolina.

Stevo was required to submit 10,285 signatures to the State Board of Elections. His Republican opponent was required to submit 673. His Democratic opponent was required to submit 1,001. That is a difference of 9,612 and 9,284 respectively. In percentage terms, that is approximately 1600% and 1000% more respectively.

“When you collect many times the signatures your opponent needed to get on the ballot, but still don’t get a chance to run, you know that election laws aren’t the ‘free and equal’ election laws called for in the Illinois constitution. Furthermore, such laws do not fall in line with our US Constitution, the highest law of the land,” commented Stevo.

The complaint, attached to this release, is brought forth under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. Stevo will not be seeking financial damages. He has asked the court to direct the Illinois State Board of Elections to not enforce unconstitutional provisions in the Illinois election code which have been consistently used to keep third party or independent candidates, such as Stevo, off ballots.

Mark R. Brown filed the case in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, located in Springfield. In addition to Stevo’s federal court case in Illinois, Ohio attorney and constitutional scholar Mark R. Brown has represented Bob Barr (Libertarian), Ralph Nader (Independent), and Brian Moore (Socialist) in their quests to gain ballot access in Ohio.

“From Wilmette, all the way up to Waukegan, voters in every part of the 10^th District have looked me in the eye and have said to me ‘Everyone deserves a chance to run,’” said Stevo. “Everyone does deserve a chance to run, and based on how fed up people are with DC, someone with my platform may very well win.”

Stevo is running on a pro-Constitutional platform, based on the fact that every Congressman must take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

“Following the Constitution puts us on a path of liberty and justice for all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just Democrats in some years and Republicans in others, not just corporate lobbyists or lawyers. Liberty and justice for all,” declared Stevo.

He continued, “This is an opportunity for this campaign to fight an unconstitutional law face-to-face. While we would much rather prefer to be hitting the campaign trail with our full intensity, the Board’s ruling seems to me like a blessing in disguise.”

Documents: Complaint, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Memo, Motion.

Monday, July 28, we filed this in federal court calling for a judge to place me on the ballot for U.S. House in IL-10. This lawsuit was triggered by the following events.

After the months of petition collection, in which many of you played a part, on Monday June 23, we turned in many times the number of signatures required of my opponents – about 7,000 total.

Do candidates get to choose who their opponents will be,
or do the people of the 10th District
get to choose who their candidates will be?

There is an important legal argument here. These 7,000 or so signatures were below the required minimum to file in Illinois in years ending in ‘0, ‘4, ‘6 ‘8. It was above the required minimum for years ending in ‘2. Of course, this being a year ending in ‘8, I did not meet the minimum. However, with those 7,000 signatures I have enough signatures to have standing before the court and to challenge an arbitrary and unconstitutional part of Illinois election law. The law requires 5,000 signatures in certain election years (years directly following a census), yet irrationally requires more than twice that in other election years. 10,285, to be exact, is what was required in my instance. If this distinction in the law does not make sense to you, don’t worry, a number of people employed by the partisan State Board of Elections have told me that it makes no sense to them either. Experts on election law agree with you on that one too. Lawyers and politicians all over the state of Illinois agree as well. I am with them on this one, the law just doesn’t have a logical basis.

On Monday June 30, a challenge was brought forward by an allegedly independent challenger. He used the usual Republican Party attorney. A hearing officer was assigned and written arguments exchanged hands a few times before the hearing officer issued his recommendation to the Illinois State Board of Elections that I be removed from the ballot.

The man who brought forth the challenge was entirely within his rights to bring forth the challenge. What is interesting about these challenges is that they are in no way independent. Party apparatchiks decide what independent and third party contenders are a threat and then see to it that they are gotten rid of, in an entirely legal fashion. I am running in such a race where I pose a threat to both the Republican and Democratic candidate. Both of whom would prefer to not have to deal with me broadening the scope of the debate that will be taking place over these next 14 weeks. At the heart of that matter is an important question – do candidates get to choose who their opponents will be, or do the people of the 10th District get to choose who their candidates will be?

July 21, twelve supporters and I walked into a hearing at the State Board of Elections where I argued for them to have the sense of decency to overrule the challenge brought forward under Illinois’s unconstitutional ballot access laws. The ballot access laws essentially state that everyone has the freedom to political participation, Democrats and Republicans just have more of it.

The room was filled by people from one of two groups:

1. People paid to be there.
2. Supporters of my candidacy, people who love the Constitution and who just want to see Liberty and Justice for all.

It’s very unusual for anyone but the first group of people to appear in that room, hidden within the Thompson Center, where the State Board of Elections meets. The fact that those twelve people attended was, in itself, a victory since that room, where very important decisions are made, seldom sees the light of public scrutiny.

That day, even video footage of the oral arguments was taken by a man doing a documentary film on the campaign. This is a further unusual step for such a hearing. That room, lit with the pale glow of fluorescent, for a few minutes that morning had daylight streaming in.

Do I role over when confronted with this little obstacle,
or do I push forward all the more vigorously?

The board denied my request made to them to be more than government functionaries, to be Americans, who strive to uphold the US Constitution. In all fairness, the Board of Elections is not permitted to fulfill the kind of request I was making. However, I am one who believes that you should always do the right thing, no matter who (even the State Legislature) insists that you enforce an unconstitutional law. I was not hoping to appeal to them as functionaries, I was hoping to appeal to them as Americans, operating in good faith and in deference to the highest law of the land. That is something they would not do for me.

Worse things have happened, so being ruled against by the Illinois State Board of Elections is no big deal, and could have been expected. It was something I had limited control over. What I do have control over is the decision that the board’s ruling left me with – do I role over when confronted with this little obstacle, or do I push forward all the more vigorously?

Because your rights end where your will to protect them ends,
we are taking this matter to federal court.

As much as I enjoy all of the following, and as much as they have their own benefits, no amount of press releases, screaming into microphones, or marches will, on their own, protect your rights, or my rights. Direct pressure must be used as well to achieve that. I plan to pressure the State of Illinois to do the right thing in this matter. I plan to pressure the elected leaders of Illinois to change our draconian ballot access laws and to pressure the Illinois State Board of Elections to disregard them. I don’t want this because it is expedient for me, I want it because it is a case worth fighting to make elections in Illinois more free. That is why I am stepping forward and going to federal court. As far as we can tell, this lawsuit is the first of its kind dealing with this specific issue and brought forward in Federal court in Illinois. The suit, when all is said and done, could have a tremendous impact on freedom and elections in Illinois. Illinois, third to only Georgia and North Carolina, has some of the most draconian ballot access laws in the US. This fight is a fight worth fighting, for our Constitution and our rights. We have the right team, we have the right political conditions, we have the right argument, and I hope we have your continued support through this.

This case may have far-reaching consequences for anyone who just wants to live a freer life. The outcome may affect Illinois, other states in the district, and because it’s federal court, the entire US.

We look forward to pushing forward this congressional campaign with intensity from now until November 4, 2008, confident that a federal judge will perform his or her role of upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you all so much for your many phone calls, emails, letters, hours of volunteer work and contributions over the last months.

We have unexpectedly been able to build this campaign into something even bigger than a congressional bid. What a golden opportunity we have to fight for our U.S. Constitution in this court case.

What we are dealing with is an Illinois law that says if you profess allegiance to the Republican Party you need only 687 signatures to run for office. If you pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party, only 1,001. If you pledge allegiance to no party, only the US Constitution, your country, your fellow Americans, you need the signed support of 10,285 people.

We can run a good campaign, we can fight this unconstitutional law and we can win two big victories between now and November 4.

We can accomplish this with your help.

With much gratitude,
Allan Stevo

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, August 1, 2008 - Documentary film maker and editor of Republic magazine, Gary Franchi has released a scene from his upcoming film How to Run for Congress. Franchi’s documentary, currently being filmed, is about Highwood resident Allan Stevo and his independent bid for U.S. Congress in the 10^th Congressional District of Illinois. The film seeks to encourage others to run for U.S. House by demystifying the process.

In the recently released selection, Stevo is shown arguing his case for ballot access before the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Stevo, on Monday of this week, July 28, filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of a ballot access law that randomly requires 5,000 signatures for ballot access for independent candidates after a census is taken, but 10,285 in all other years. He will submit evidence showing that in years in which the requirement is only 5,000 signatures, the ballot is never crowded. The 5,000-signature requirement for years after redistricting has been in effect starting with 1982, and when one looks at the record for 1982, 1992, and 2002, one finds that there were no U.S. House races in Illinois with more than four candidates on the ballot. The case is Stevo v Illinois State Board of Elections, U.S. District Court, Central District, no. 08-3162.

This year, Republican candidates in the 10^th Congressional district needed 687 signatures in order to be placed on that ballot. Democrats needed 1,001 signatures. In addition to being difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot, election practices in Illinois make it relatively easy for independent and third party candidates to be thrown off the ballot with relatively little effort from their opponents. Illinois is considered by ballot access experts to have some of the most biased election laws in the nation, behind only Georgia and North Carolina.

A University of Illinois graduate, Stevo’s campaign is based on the need for the federal government to operate in obeisance to the U.S. Constitution. “No undeclared wars, innocent until proven guilty, no searches without probable cause, everyone gets his or her day in court, small central government,” he said.

His campaign website touts personal choice on health care and a “more humble” foreign policy. Stevo also vows, on his website, that he never would vote to increase taxes, spending or national debt. He believes strongly in the need to protect all individual rights, no matter how popular or unpopular those rights may be.

“As our founders understood from their dealings with the tyrannical King George III, it is the job of the federal government to protect life, liberty, and property, and to do little else beyond that. Their concerns about an overly powerful government resonates with many Americans today. Yet Congress, and our representative in the 10^th District especially, refuses to perform its constitutional duty to uphold that vision. In fact, it does quite the opposite.”

Stevo is running full-time but he has previously worked as a writer and teacher, having lectured in British literature. He also has participated in several better-government projects and served as an international observer of the 2004 Russian presidential elections in addition to having trained Iraqi NGO leaders.

The scene from Franchi’s film How to Run for Congress can be viewed here.