Looking at the Ashonta Rice story from inside the bubble

Mystified.

Watching (and listening to and scrolling through) the news over the weekend, it struck me that the talking heads were downright mystified that early voting had been stopped, so soon after it started, because the Appellate Court ordered a name off the ballot.

I assume most FWIW readers knew what was going on: The Appellate Court had rejected Ashonta Rice's appeal. The court's order, as is typical in these ultra-time-sensitive cases, does not explain the court's reasoning, but promises that a decision will follow at a later date.

Early voting was impacted because, on February 5, the Appellate Court had entered a different order in that case.

That order was entered pursuant to Rice's Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of the January 10, 2024 Electoral Board Decision and the January 30, 2024 Trial Court Order. (The links here are to prior FWIW coverage, but those articles link back to the source decisions.) On February 5 the Appellate Court granted that emergency motion, ordering the election authorities "to include, print, and maintain the name of Ashonta C. Rice as a Democratic Party candidate for Circuit Court Judge for the Cook County Judicial Circuit (vacancy of Hon. Laura M. Sullivan) on all electronic voting machines, vote by mail ballots, overseas ballots, and other forms of ballot at the March 19, 2024 primary election, until further order of court."

The further order turned out to be the Appellate Court's February 16 Order advising that, upon due consideration, it agreed with the Electoral Board and the Circuit Court and Ashonta C. Rice should be removed from the ballot after all.

That outcome was not preordained by the February 5 Order -- obviously -- and I admit that I did not know what to make of that order at first. So I reached out to smart people. After getting some helpful responses, I provided this February 5 update to my post about the Circuit Court's disposition of Rice's appeal:

The Appellate Court has indeed this day entered a stay order directing that the candidate's name remain on the ballot, pending further order of court.

That's not a merits disposition; it was an order entered in response to the candidate's emergency motion for a stay.

There is a very expedited briefing schedule in place (everything, on both sides, must be in by Wednesday, as I understand it). Today's order prevents any actual diminution of the candidate's potential rights while the court addresses the merits of her claims.

Today's order is certainly not bad news for the candidate... but neither is it a 'ruling in her favor.'

(I included that bit about the February 5 Order not being a ruling in Rice's favor because I had earlier allowed in a comment that said, "The Appellate Court just ruled in favor of Ashonta while you are spewing all this negativity.)

I reported the facts, but I didn't put up a separate post about the February 5 order. Given the administrative nature of the order and the hyper-compressed briefing schedule, it seemed likely (at least to the smart people I talked to) that a merits decision would soon follow, one way or the other, and probably before early voting. Therefore, it seemed to be kind of a non-story.

Eleven days from the entry of an order in a not-yet-fully-briefed appeal to a merits disposition is extraordinarily prompt. Unfortunately, even at that torrid pace, the Appellate Court's merits order was not issued until after early voting began.

I probably should have put up a post.

But, even without a separte post, what was available right here on FWIW -- not behind any paywall -- should have been sufficient to allow local media outlets confused by the brief February 16 order to put together an accurate explanation of the events surrounding the temporary suspension of early voting. Instead, the initial reporting could have been interpreted, by the general public, as an instance of our Appellate Court running amuck through our fragile democratic institutions for no apparent reason.

Looking again this morning, it seems that most of the TV websites have caught up with the facts of the story, and have traced the brief pause in early voting to the February 5 order.

Better late than never, I suppose.

This little factoid in an updated NBC5 story caught my attention, however: "At this stage of early voting, the [Chicago Board of Elections] typically expects about two to 300 ballots be cast each day."

I assume this was badly written... the writer probably meant 200 to 300... not that there would be a day where only two persons might stumble into the downtown Supersites looking to cast a ballot. But, still, is the enormous expansion of early voting really worth it for the 1500 or 2000 votes a week it brings in during the early stages of the early voting period? If obliged to make different arrangements, wouldn't most of these super-early-voters make them, and vote at different times? Has anyone figured out a way to measure this?

I will concede that expanded early voting is offered with the best of intentions. But the Appellate Court was likewise acting with the best of intentions when it ordered Ashonta Rice back on the ballot temporarily, whilst it considered her appeal. The drafters of the Election Code presumably also had the best of intentions when they mapped out the methods by which disappointed candidates could appeal adverse electoral board determinations. Ultimately, however, when you increase the number of days for early voting, you put candidate challenges on a collision course with principles of due process. The more you push one way, the more conflicts result. Because the number of available days on the calendar does not expand despite the jumble of all these accumulated good intentions. And confusion can result.

It did result here.

Maybe we should talk about this.