Clout on trial? Madigan rival demands jury weigh in on speaker’s ‘unmatched public power’

In a years-long effort to put their allegations of election tampering before a jury, lawyers for an unsuccessful primary challenger to Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan contend the state’s most powerful politician and his organizations “debased” the ballot, “the very crux of democracy.”

Lawyers for Jason Gonzales on Tuesday made that claim, and many others, as they rebutted Madigan’s attorneys’ arguments that the practice of running sham candidates constitutes acceptable political shenanigans.

In their filing last week, Madigans’ lawyers didn’t admit any interference by the powerful Southwest Side Democrat, but argued that “complaints about campaign strategies, even ‘dirty tricks’ that successfully undermine candidates are not actionable in federal court.”

Gonzales’ attorneys want the case set for a jury trial, which Madigan’s attorneys are fighting.

“The idea that the scheme could have been conceived and executed without the direct approval of Madigan borders on ludicrous,” Gonzales’ lawyers argue. “A jury could find that the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives was at the heart of a scheme to corrupt a public ballot. The issue must be put to trial.”

Gonzales’ lawyers also argue Madigan’s tactics took a deep personal toll on their client, contending that the “sham candidates being on the ballot left him ‘incapacitated,’ ‘ personally and emotionally devastated, hopeless and helpless.’”

In a federal lawsuit initially filed in 2016, Gonzales contends the head of the Democratic Party of Illinois planted fake candidates — Joe Barbosa and Grasiela Rodriguez — on the ballot to split the Hispanic vote in his Southwest Side district. Gonzales’ attorneys have dissected Madigan’s political operations in the matter — and have even deposed Madigan himself — to try to show an intersection between the veteran speaker’s public and political roles.

Gonzales’ lawyers want jurors to act as a traffic cop at that intersection.

“Sufficient connection to state power exists for jury decision because the scheme could never had been conducted without the use of precinct captains, political clout and public officers stemming from Michael Madigan’s unmatched public power,” the document says.

Justin Fowler/The State Journal-Register via AP

While Gonzales’ lawyers seek a jury trial to outline a “scheme to corrupt a public ballot,” they are also pushing for monetary damages. Gonzales was deprived of his constitutional right of equal protection, his lawyers argue.

“Gonzales described his depression and anxiety, his bouts of uncontrolled tears, his panic attacks and hopelessness, and his difficulty functioning for over three and one half months,” the filing says. “He went under mediation (sic) from a psychiatrist.”

Gonzales’ lawyers say that after “years of investigation and over 60 depositions,” they have “overwhelming evidence” that the defendants engaged in “wilful conduct which undermines the organic processes by which candidates are elected.”

“The ability to recruit sham candidates, the efforts of a series of precinct captains and volunteers to obtain signatures, and even the rewards bestowed after the election were all impossible without the public political power of Michael Madigan,” the filing says.

Lawyers for Gonzales claim that Hispanic voters told him personally that “with the multiple Hispanic candidates there was no reason even to vote.” They also claim Hispanic organizations wouldn’t support him and other Hispanics “told him he was a fool for running at all since there would be no two-man race. He also claimed it affected his ability to fundraise and wealthy donors withdrew the support they had promised.

Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times

Last week, Madigan’s attorneys — collectively with attorneys for the other defendants — advanced two defenses in the case: the First Amendment right “to participate in the political process,” and the “First Amendment right to seek access to ballot and run or office.”

While Gonzales’ attorneys claim the two candidates being on the ballot were “unlawful,” Madigan’s attorney Adam Vaught wrote that both candidates, Barbosa and Rodriguez, had the First Amendment right “to seek access to the ballot and to run for public office.”

Madigan ultimately beat Gonzales 65.2 % to 27.1 %. Rodriguez had 5.8 % of the vote and Barbosa trailed with just 2%.