Illinois man loses state representative primary, sues winner

Jason Gonzales, who unsuccessfully ran for Illinois State representative, is suing the winner of the primary, Michael Madigan, for labelling Gonzales as a 'convicted felon' in campaign ads and for allegedly running fake candidates against him.

Tae-Gyun Kim/AP
Jason Gonzales, right, former candidate for Illinois State Representative, speaks during a news conference at the federal courthouse in Chicago on Monday. Gonzales, who unsuccessfully challenged Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan in the Democratic primary, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the longtime political powerbroker of fraud and seeking to 'win at all costs.'

A man who unsuccessfully challenged Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan in the March Democratic primary has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the longtime political powerbroker of fraud and seeking to "win an election at all costs."

Jason Gonzales of Chicago said Monday that Madigan — who also leads Illinois' Democratic Party — falsely called him a "convicted felon" in campaign ads. He also said Madigan ran two "phony" candidates with Hispanic last names to dilute the votes of Hispanic residents in their 22nd House district race.

Gonzales was convicted of theft and other crimes as a teenager. The Harvard-educated management consultant received a pardon from then-Gov. Pat Quinn in 2015 and had his criminal record expunged; a fact he said Madigan was aware of and should have precluded him from telling voters he was a felon.

"This isn't about me being a sore loser. It isn't about me crying because I lost. It's about justice," Gonzales said. "This stuff has got to stop."

Madigan said in a statement that Gonzales himself acknowledged during the campaign and again in the lawsuit filed late Friday that he had been convicted of felonies.

"Jason Gonzales cannot be trusted and his lawsuit is without merit," Madigan said in a statement. "Voters of my district soundly re-nominated me based on my strong record of service, giving me more than 65 percent of the vote, and they emphatically rejected Jason Gonzales because they knew he couldn't be trusted."

Madigan has easily won re-election every two years for about four decades, and is now the nation's longest-serving House speaker.

He won the March primary with 65 percent, while Gonzales got 27 percent of the vote. The other two candidates, who didn't have campaign websites or hold any campaign events, combined for less than 8 percent.

Madigan and his allies also have alleged that Gonzales was encouraged to run by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, noting that some of the people who donated to Gonzales' campaign also have given money to support the governor's agenda.

Gonzales denied Monday that he has any ties to the governor other than having asked some of his supporters for money. He described himself as an "independent progressive Democrat" who ran for office for the first time this year because he wants to change Illinois.

Gonzales' attorney, Anthony Peraica, alleged that Madigan had operatives waiting at the Illinois State Board of Elections office on the final day for candidates to file paperwork to run in the primary. He said Gonzales turned in his paperwork to challenge Madigan just minutes before the deadline, and moments later Madigan's "minions" filed petitions for the other two candidates.

Peraica claimed it's a "longstanding practice" for so-called "ghost" candidates to be put up to split the vote, and that he hopes the lawsuit will put an end to it.

Gonzales is also seeking an unspecified amount in financial damages, saying his reputation was harmed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.