In the politically tumultuous Thornton Township, Supervisor Tiffany Henyard is making waves by filing a lawsuit last Thursday. In her complaint, Henyard is calling for a reexamination and possible nullification of what she deems was an ill-conducted Democratic caucus that barred her from candidacy. The underpinning of her claims, however, lies in her own inability to abide by the Democratic Party’s rules for nomination. This is the same Henyard who’s been scrutinized for opaqueness and excessive usage of funds in her roles as both the township supervisor and the mayor of Dolton.
Her dispute is with the overseers of the Democratic caucus in the Thornton Township as well as Sen. Napoleon Harris, also a committeeman. According to her, both parties have undermined voters’ rights by hindering their freedom to choose their preferred candidates. This comes across as incredibly ironic for an individual who’s been consistently criticized for her failure to adhere to established regulations.
Adding to the drama, Fitzgerald Roberts, the Mayor of Dixmoor, found himself named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He promptly declared his misidentification in this situation, qualifying his inclusion as a mistake. Roberts’ dismissal of the situation serves as a clear indicator of the confusion and disorder marking this political spectacle.
At the center of Henyard’s grievances was the unorthodox execution of a caucus after members met at the Homewood-Flossmoor Park District auditorium for an unrelated private event. She contends that the members who attended this event were allowed to remain in the auditorium for the subsequent caucus, while others who had arrived to vote for candidates were denied entry.
According to Henyard, the auditorium was essentially monopolized by attendees of the private event, leading to the exclusion of an untold number of others. “The auditorium was never cleared, hence blocking the entry of eligible caucus attendees,” she argued in her claim. The imagery of hundreds, queued up under unforgiving weather conditions, being turned away after several hours, is certainly one to elicit concern.
More accusations followed as she asserted that Harris and the Democratic party failed in their responsibility to provide caucus rules to participants with adequate notice. Interestingly, her culpability in this scenario isn’t addressed; she too was part of the caucus and hence, should feasibly be aware of its rules.
The caucus rules, perhaps unsurprisingly, necessitated that those nominating candidates should be party members practicing good political behavior. Additionally, it required the nominator to nominate candidates for all available positions in the forthcoming elections. The latter is yet another rule Henyard failed to comply with.
Undeniably, it was a different story on the floor of the auditorium. When Henyard attempted to nominate herself for the supervisor role, she found herself grappling with her own disregard for procedures. Obviously, her lack of awareness regarding the party’s rules came back to haunt her when she did not meet the standards for the party’s nomination process.
Harris and the Thornton Township Democrats are legally represented by Attorney Burt Odelson. According to him, Henyard’s accusations are baseless, devoid of merit, and should be promptly struck down by the court. ‘This lawsuit is nothing more than an exercise in futility,’ Odelson proclaimed, ‘It lacks legal grounding and shouldn’t have been filed in the first place.’
Odelson further justified the party’s actions by stating that the Democratic Party behaves much like a private club, and hence, has the authority to lay down its own participation guidelines. This, according to him, makes Henyard’s case more of a spiteful outcry than a substantial lawsuit.
However, there was more insinuation and denial to come. Roberts’ name found its way into the lawsuit because of a conversation with Henyard post the caucus. He asserted that these are ‘vastly different’ interpretations of a conversation that led to his unjust naming in the lawsuit.
Roberts stated unequivocally, ‘I neither consented to nor initiated any legal proceedings, and I certainly wasn’t consulted about the filing of such a lawsuit.’ His stern disfavor about the unfolding events suggests that he perceives Henyard’s actions as reckless and uncalled for.
In respect to the work Henyard and Harris have done for Dixmoor, Roberts expressed appreciation; however, his following statement underlined his apolitical stance. ‘My attention is entirely on the Village of Dixmoor and the betterment of its people,’ Roberts stated, implying disinterest in the wider political drama unraveling around him.
Roberts’ clear stance of focusing on his duties as the Mayor of Dixmoor rather than node of a political squabble underlines the contrast between his civic-minded dedication and Henyard’s political games. His rejection to be part of the lawsuit, therefore, comes as no surprise and further reinforces the view of the lawsuit as a fruitless endeavor prompted by self-interest.
Despite the spectacle, it’s clear that the Democrat infighting only serves as a backdrop to a larger political scene. The party’s inability to maintain order within its own ranks showcases its dysfunctional system of functioning, raising doubts about its leaders’ decision-making capabilities.
In the end, what started as a skirmish over caucus regulations and nominations could potentially turn into a lengthy legal battle. Yet, with participants like Henyard and Harris at the helm, one can only expect more theatrics and less substance. As such, the whole event comes across more as a disappointing theatrical performance, rather than a serious discourse about voters’ rights and party duties.