Let the Filing Begin: 2nd District Candidates Look to Lead the Ballot

Five Democrats threw their name in the hat to replace former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. this morning.

The ballot battle began this morning, with five candidates having filed candidacy petitions before 8 a.m. to join the 2nd Congressional District special election race. 

Chicago's 9th Ward Ald. Anthony Beale, filed first, but was followed by state Sen. Toi Hutchinson, whose office is in Chicago Heights, according to the Chicago Tribune. Also filing before 8 a.m. was former state Rep. Robin Kelly, state senate-elect Napoleon Harris and Clifford Eagleton of Harvey.

Meeting the early deadline means the candidates will have a shot at appearing at the top of the ballot. A lottery will be held next Tuesday to determine which of the five early-filing candidates will take the top spot. Filing for the highly-coveted seat ends Monday.

No Republicans filed before the early deadline, according to the Tribune.

Sign up for daily news alerts:

Join the discussion on Facebook:

Dinkum January 04, 2013 at 09:44 PM
Given 100,000 D2 voters believed MIA Jackson was the "best candidate" this last go around I offer the following for the upcoming primaries and election: 1. Become an intelligent voter. Do your homework on all candidates. If they have held public office, visit sites like votesmart.org (not just their websites) or opensecrets.org. What bills did they sponsor and vote for or against? 2. After FACTS (not opinions, promises, etc.) have been gathered and considered, grade them out. Remember, it's not what they or anyone else tells you that counts. It's what you KNOW they have done or accomplished and IF it has real weight or value. 3. When in doubt, repeat step 1. Finally, disregard any lightweight endorsements, postings, or comments (positive or negative). It's just noise from the uninformed or those with personal agendas.
Juvenal January 04, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Dinkum, good advice, but your post presupposes that those 100,000 enlightened souls 1) Have access to, and can operate, a computer and internet browser and 2) can read.
Dinkum January 05, 2013 at 01:50 PM
Oh, they have access (libraries). And support for using the Internet is available. If they can't read, how do they get to a polling place and read a ballot? Or register? We know what the deal is here. Most vote by party line and race in D2.
babyboomer January 06, 2013 at 02:25 PM
I met this candidate Cliff Eagleton. He seems like a very intelligent person, has the education and the knowledge to represent this district. My vote is going to him. I think if you put race and color aside, you will see him as a truly viable person.
WA Mama January 06, 2013 at 03:40 PM
I'm a little hacked off that Harris is running for this position, when he hasn't even started the position that he was already elected for. When politicians win an election, I think they owe it to the people and the process to serve in the capacity they ran for, not just flit off to another job that looks cooler. Robin Kelly is another job-hopper. I think on the most basic level, that kind of blatantly opportunistic behavior is disrespectful to me as a constituent. It sounds old-fashioned, I know, but I really do want to believe that politicians want to serve ME in office not themselves. And before you berate me for that naive view, please consider holding our pols to a higher standard, not just going along with the status quo.
Dinkum January 06, 2013 at 03:43 PM
So after one meeting you give your vote away without research or did you visit his website, listen to his radio show, etc?
Dinkum January 06, 2013 at 03:49 PM
I see your point WM. It seems most are really out for themselves given their bill sponsor and voting records. The other side is IF they have done a "wonderful job" in their current position I'd be willing to consider them for D2. From my view, doing research on D2 candidates who hold or at one point held an office, I remain unimpressed.
Stuart Kurtz January 08, 2013 at 01:21 AM
Dinkum: That would be 150,666 voters, rather more than 100,000 you claimed. And as one of those 150,666, my thinking at the time was that Jesse probably would resign after the election, as he did. I also thought the 2nd district would be better served by having an open seat and a special election rather than by being "represented" by any of the other candidates in the race. So far, this line of thinking is playing out about as well as could be hoped. So, thanks for your concern trolling and all, but I already consider myself to be an intelligent voter, if perhaps one that thinks differently than you do. babyboomer: I met Cliff Eagleton too. He seems very earnest. He has a website up at eagletonforcongress.com. His agenda strikes me as classic new-society liberal: a big public works program (emphasizing the hiring of youth and veterans), infrastructure investments, block grants to local governmental agencies, a bit of protectionism, and stronger regulation of monopolies. I'm ok with the agenda, but it seems to me that he's tilting at windmills in terms of running in this race without money or a supporting organization. But there is some weirdness. The website is a bit amateurish, he states no party affiliation, and in person, he described himself in more ambiguous, and even somewhat teabaggerish ways, e.g., "we need to take our country back." The web site is subtitled, "U.S.CONGRESSMAN ILLINOIS 2nd DISTRICT," which strikes me as premature without the prefix "for."
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 02:54 PM
Stuart, thanks for the update. You're thinking about Jackson was flawed then and still is. Voting for him meant another election at taxpayer expense. Why don't you just send in a check to help cover the expenses? And since you claim to be an intelligent voter (already in doubt given your support of MIA Jackson), explain to the readers why, based on his bill sponsor and voting record, he deserved your support. In particular summarize for us his last year in office while he was remodeling his place in DC and paid his wife to be his campaign manager. How did this factor into your "thinking"? I have a few more questions for you once I see your intelligent voter response.
Stuart Kurtz January 08, 2013 at 03:14 PM
Dinkum, I've explained my logic. A vote for Jesse last November was not a vote for him, it was a vote against the alternatives, none of whom were acceptable representatives in my estimation. As for his voting record, according to the page at GovTrack.org, he missed remarkably few votes before his hospitalization, and had a strong liberal voting record. I support this. As for Jesse and his malfeasances, as I said, I viewed him only as a placeholder. Now, having addressed the material comments here, I'd like to address your insulting tone. If ad hominem is the best you have, then you have nothing.
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 06:05 PM
Well, if this is your best I remained unimpressed. But then again, you are/were a MIA Jackson supporter. Now, let’s examine your "placeholder logic”. You voted for him and what he represents. In the last election you had 3 options. Vote for MIA Jackson, another candidate, or decide not to cast a D2 vote. Let’s look at each option given your assertion Jackson would not take office and a special election would be held. Let’s also assume that if you chose an option other than Jackson the vote count would be 150,665. The criteria used to evaluate each choice will be based on cost, integrity, and representation value to D2 voters. Option 1: Jackson Vote A vote for him automatically costs the taxpayers $5M. Additionally, this selection means you were fine with his voting record, bill sponsors, well publicized investigations, and claims of mental health issues. He of course continued to collect this pay and all benefits. Finally, D2 would continue to be without representation until the special election is held.
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 06:15 PM
Option 2: Another candidate Although this vote would have little consequence given the history of D2 voting, the candidate might have had a stronger office record, history of professional accomplishments, or personal integrity. It could also be viewed as a vote against Jackson and the status quo. Option 3: No vote If a voter took the time to review all options, and performed the necessary due diligence, this might be the only reasonable, informed choice. Jackson was going to be re-elected (history of D2 elections) in spite of his failings. This option means you have no viable candidate. As for my tone, get used to it. Your Jackson vote and expensive "placeholder logic" earned it.
Stuart Kurtz January 08, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Dinkum: Under Solon's Constitution of Athens, a citizen who did not exercise their civil responsibilities lost their civil rights. He was wise. Your option 3 is the coward's path, unworthy of a citizen. As for option 2, as I said, I considered any other candidate to represent a worse choice for the district than a re-election, even accounting for the costs. I'm assuming you didn't vote.
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 08:59 PM
Option 1 was clearly the coward's path. No courage was required to vote for MIA Jackson (whatever the pretzel logic). Yet the biggest coward was Jackson himself. He knew he would resign and yet chose to run. He has no honor. He is no citizen. And that, sir, is the "man" you voted for (probably not the first time). Perhaps you will cast a better vote this next time around.
Stuart Kurtz January 08, 2013 at 09:14 PM
Dinkum: you're the man hiding behind an alias, with an empty profile, calling a man with a name a coward. I guess your mother's skirts weren't available. I agree that Jackson was no bargain at this point in his career, and that he should have resigned long before the primary. But he didn't. He probably could have resigned before the election, and had the party nominate someone (remember the Stroger affair). But he didn't. But I believe that even an absent, ill, indicted Jackson was a better choice for the 2nd and for this country than Brian Woodworth, and voted accordingly. If you disagree, that's fine, and I don't disrespect you for that. I disrespect you for your rudeness and cowardice.
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 10:03 PM
I do not hide SK. I have my own reasons for using this name. I do not know if your name is real or not (or anyone else who posts here). It does not matter to me. Jackson no bargain? That's almost laughable. And the way you casually accept $5M in unnecessary expense must mean you can afford it or D2 doesn't need it. I think no on both counts. "Even an absent, ill, indicted Jackson was a better choice...". He proved he was not the better choice. He's not here. But he (and his supporters like you) left us on the hook for $5M. That's better for D2 and the country? Spin your logic on that one.
Stuart Kurtz January 08, 2013 at 10:31 PM
No spinning required. Woodworth would have been a reliable Republican vote, and Republican policies have cost our country dearly in recent years in lives and treasure lost. No vote at all is better than a vote for obstruction. The issue here isn't Jackson per se, it's whether 2nd is better served by a Democrat or a Republican. Obviously, I believe it would be better served by a Democrat. Anyway, the $5M estimate you give is based on the notion that the primaries and the general cannot be piggy-backed onto already scheduled elections. But the can, thanks in the case of the general election to new legislation. The primary has already been schedule to coincide with pre-existing municipal primaries, and the general election with pre-existing municipal general elections. There will undoubtedly be some incremental cost, but it will be much, much less than you suggest. As for your own reasons for not using your name or identifying yourself: it can only be that you don't want your opinions associated with your true name.
Dinkum January 08, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Ah, but no vote is the "coward's path". But still an option. The "Jackson issue" only reflects the mindset of voters like you and other party line Democrats. Could have been avoided if Jackson or D2 voters had shown a ounce of political courage. Since you believe it will be less I'm fine with you footing the bill (rally the other Jackson voters to help out). As for my reasons, they are mine. You may make any assumptions or unfounded claims. You're rather good at it.
Judity F. January 09, 2013 at 07:06 AM
I agree. Check out www.voteAnthonyWWilliams.com Compare, then decide. I support Anthony W. Williams who does work tirelessly unlike those currently in office, the newly elected and others running. When have they personally advocated for us on any issue? Did they advocate for Rocky when his school insurance capped and the state was about to yank benefits from him: the state stealing from retirees' pensions, closing mental health clinics, hospitals? Yet silence among those who say they will see that we receive justice. I guess not one issue was important enough to anyone except Anthony W. Williams resulting in Clark keeping insurance status, 40k coming forward and retirees receiving refunds. Williams was blocking projects in Englewood, etc. before Gardner. Think how much more he would do once elected! Don't vote for people just because "they have been there, they are there or they say what they will do when they get there. Go by what they have and are doing. Give votes to those who have EARNED them.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »