NUTS!

It would appear that another political associate of Mr. Abernathy would like to have the rules bent to serve their special interests.  Oh, yes, I know ... the unions and environmental extremists caused this.

this lawsuit is a loser .... not even close

Check the donor list for the recall - more than half of the money is from the unions and close associates of the unions.  The truth of the matter is that the unions are generously backing the recall effort.

As they're entitled to.

The unions and environmentalists back the recall, but didn't have anything to do with initiating it.  And these people have been given no promises or assurances by the recall in response to their contributions.  In fact, many union members in Ward 3 are afraid to sign the petitions to recall for fear of losing their jobs or other retributions.

Don't think the same is true about several elected officials that were recruited by develpment and growth interests.  But they are allowed to do that also, and to give large amounts to those candidates and to influence them since most still owe money to the "political" godfathers.  

H-E-L-L-O! 

James clearly introduced this thread as a discussion of the Abernathy hack, who's unable to count to 20, and filed a Hail-Mary-Pass lawsuit against the city so he can run against Vice Mayor Harold Hanson.

If recall elections, Ken Weir, or Ward Three are your intended subjects, you are in the wrong thread.

James:

By my reading of the elections code, which you graciously posted for us, the Abernathy/Woodward legal complaint is baseless, no matter where it is tried.  Don't you agree the law is pretty black-and-white based on the question being raised?

The Abernathy half-brained trust simply screwed up some mundane detail, as they predictably do, and now they are trying to bully local government into giving them their way despite this stupid, amateurish mistake.  I say if you play, then you pay.

--John

John, no, I don't see this as black-and-white, because of 8062(b), raised in the Woodward brief:

This subdivision also shall not be construed to prohibit a court from validating a signature which was previously rejected upon showing of proof that the voter whose signature is in question is otherwise qualified to sign the nomination paper.

Now, I don't know whether this even applies, because it's under a header about primary elections and appears to be geared toward partisan races. That's going to be for the judge to decide, and I don't know where the judge will go.

John,  We are talking about "Abernathy hack(s)"  (defined as a horse for hire).  I think your narrow view of James' "thread" does not see the common "threads" in this tapestry of local politics that connect any elected official or public office promotee governed by this political bent/group.  My comments are germane.