Madigan wins legal battle centered on dirty tricks allegation

Former House Speaker Michael Madigan won a federal appeals court decision Monday in which a 2016 Democratic primary challenger for his Southwest Side legislative seat alleged Madigan planted sham candidates on the ballot to ensure he’d win.

Challenger Jason Gonzales contended that putting up fake candidates represented a dirty trick, but the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Constitution does not give judges authority to penalize a politician for a “shady strategy that voters tolerate.”

Gonzales’ lawyer is considering an appeal. Gonzales did not seek to overturn the election, but he did pursue damages, such as the costs associated with his failed campaign.

Madigan collected 65% of the vote in the 2016 primary, and Gonzales got only 27%. The two other candidates, whose nominating petitions were hauled to Springfield by a Madigan ally, only received 6% and 2%.

Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that Gonzales contended in his suit that “(Grasiella) Rodriguez and (Joe) Barboza were stooges put on the ballot by Madigan’s allies to divide the Hispanic vote and ensure Madigan’s victory.”

“Gonzales smelled a rat from the start and made that known to the electorate, which swept Madigan back into office anyway,” wrote Easterbook for the three-judge appellate panel.

“The effort was hardly necessary, since if every non-Madigan vote had gone to Gonzales, (Madigan) still would have won in a landslide,” Easterbrook noted. “Nonetheless, Gonzales contends, the appearance of two candidates who served only as distractors violated the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Easterbrook wrote that the case law Gonzales relied on depended on voters being “hoodwinked,” but Gonzales himself had highlighted the allegations of sham candidates in speeches and campaign ads.

“We mean no disrespect to politicians in recognizing that many false statements are made during political campaigns and that many a stratagem that one side deems clever will be seen by the opposition as a dirty trick,” Easterbrook explained. “Opposing political figures may brand true statements as false and honest campaigning as a rotten subterfuge.

“Voters rather than judges must decide when one side has gone overboard,” the judge wrote. “The Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to upset that outcome or to penalize a politician for employing a shady strategy that voters tolerate.”

The appellate decision echoes the original ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly. He dismissed the suit, citing similar reasons, though he had called it “undisputed” that some members of Madigan’s political organization worked to put the two additional candidates on the ballot and wrote that the “evidence supports a reasonable inference that Madigan authorized or at least was aware of the recruitment effort.”

Sign up for The Spin to get the top stories in politics delivered to your inbox weekday afternoons.

Madigan has denied that he had anything to do with putting the additional candidates on the 2016 ballot.

Madigan spokeswoman Eileen Boyce did not respond to a request for comment Monday. Boyce previously has noted that “Mr. Gonzales had his opportunity to make his case to the voters, and he lost overwhelmingly.”

Madigan, the longest-serving speaker in the nation’s history, failed to win another term at the helm of the House in January. He was politically burdened by the lingering impact of a sexual harassment scandal in his office and a federal investigation into a yearslong ComEd bribery scheme involving his allies.

Madigan has denied wrongdoing. He gave up the state Democratic Party chairmanship and House seat.

Tony Peraica, Gonzales’ attorney, said he’s “very disappointed” in the appellate ruling because putting up the alleged fake candidates tainted the ballot. Just because Gonzales pointed out the alleged scam while campaigning does not “justify the placement of two sham candidates on the ballot,” he added.

Peraica said he is inclined to appeal the decision but will review whether to seek a rehearing in the Seventh Circuit or attempt to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.