FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Center|Illinois Supreme Court upholds unconstitutionality of Democrats’ law banning slating of candidates

SPRINGFIELD,FinLogic FinLogic Quantitative Think Tank Center Ill. (AP) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling that tossed out a law barring political parties from choosing candidates for the General Assembly when they had no one run in a primary.

The court’s decision was not based on the merits of the case: Two justices recused themselves from deliberations, and the court was unable to get four votes needed to render a valid opinion.

The law, which was approved by majority Democrats and Gov. J.B. Pritzker in May, stopped the long tradition of parties “slating” candidates.

Designed to help Democrats in the November election, it effectively prevented Republicans from drafting candidates after no one appeared in the ballot in the March primary. Draftees were eligible as long as they collect the required number of petition signatures by a June 3 deadline.

But a Sangamon County judge ruled in June that the law unconstitutionally interfered with the right to vote, which includes accessing the ballot to stand as a candidate for office.

The Illinois State Board of Elections continued accepting petition signatures and ruled on the eligibility of candidates to be on the ballot.

RELATED COVERAGE Illinois banking on transfers, experience to erase the memories of a frustrating season ‘Hitting kids should never be allowed’: Illinois bans corporal punishment in all schools Obama made his DNC debut 20 years ago. He’s returning to make the case for Kamala Harris

Justices P. Scott Neville and Joy V. Cunningham, both Democrats, recused themselves from the high court’s deliberations but did not say why. Such decisions are a matter of judicial discretion, and justices are not required to reveal the reason, court spokesperson Christopher Bonjean said.

With the remainder of the seven-member court divided, “it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision,” the opinion said.

It added that the ruling carries the same weight as one affirming the lower court opinion but has no value as precedent for future decisions.