Chicago City Wire

In a ruling on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals decided that former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan could not be punished by the court for "shady" actions that he took while in office. The lawsuit was brought by Jason Gonzales, who asserts that Madigan planted candidates on the ballot in his last election to ensure that he would defeat Gonzales, who was also a candidate, in the 2016 Democratic primary. 

The results of the vote were that Madigan received 65% of the popular vote with Gonzales receiving 27%. Two other candidates on the ballot, who at least had some involvement with Madigan allies, received 6% and 2% in the election. 

In the written opinion, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that they could not rule against Madigan since Gonzales clearly went through the effort to make it known what he suspected Madigan had done, and voters were aware of the theory. Regardless, the population voted for Madigan. 

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

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

Gonzales and his attorney are considering appealing the decision. Madigan has denied the allegations, but resigned earlier this year over unrelated issues.