e-Books (read immediately)
e-Books (read immediately)
Filters
In the 2024 general election, 10,342 voters across Illinois House District 89 showed up to the polls, looked at the ballot line for state representative, and left it blank. No write-in. No protest vote. Just silence — because there was only one name on the ballot, and nobody had bothered to offer an alternative.
Masters of Extraction argues that this silence is not apathy. It is the product of a system designed to harvest political consent from communities that have been structurally abandoned — the same way a mining company harvests lead ore from a hillside and leaves the arsenic in the ground.
The word is extraction. Not taxation. Not neglect. Not "the way things are." You already know what extraction looks like when it applies to minerals, labor, and land. This book makes the case that the same word applies to your vote.
Beginning in the rural precincts of northwestern Illinois — seven counties, 120 precincts, 95 miles — the book documents the architecture of disenfranchisement at the most local level: vacant committeeperson seats, uncontested races, and a district packed so that both parties benefit from the absence of competition. Then the lens widens across five thousand years of human governance, identifying five extraction mechanisms and six self-reinforcing cycles all running simultaneously in rural America today.
The historical tour moves through Bacon's Rebellion, Constantine's capture of early Christianity, the Grange becoming the Farm Bureau, Father Coughlin's microphone, and the deliberate convergence of blame the cities and blame the godless into the binary the rural reader currently votes inside — showing that moral clarity is real but always captured, and that the Masters of Extraction are always standing at the pivot point, ready to ride the pendulum in either direction.
Grounded in precinct-level election data, peer-reviewed research on ballot access, and a lawsuit filed in Sangamon County on April 28, 2026, Masters of Extraction argues that competitive democracy must be rebuilt from the bottom up — one precinct, one petition, one uncontested seat at a time. Pragmatism is not compromise. It is the refusal to burn down the house to win the argument.
In 2026, a long-tenured professor ran for the Illinois state legislature. He had no campaign budget, no party support, and no realistic chance of winning. He ran because he wanted to understand — from the inside — why rural ballot lines sat empty cycle after cycle while both parties claimed to represent the people who lived there.
He lost. But the research produced something the campaign never could: a map of structural failure so granular it reached the precinct level. Empty committeeperson seats. Uncontested county board races. Townships where nobody had knocked on a door since Obama's first term. A population this franchise calls the rural remainder — voters abandoned by both parties, not through accident but through strategy, because empty precincts serve partisan interests.
House District 89 is speculative fiction set in 2028, but it begins with that research. A data journalist with Ioway ancestry maps the landscape by watersheds instead of county lines. A horse ranch owner and a stubborn professor build an organizing model from sticky notes and a spreadsheet. Rye grows where wheat won't. And along the same river corridor where the organizing spreads, seven new buildings appear — metal frame, metal siding, a cross bolted to the front façade — because the people who oppose you are organizing too.
The franchise imagines 2028 as a cascade of consequences traceable to the political climate of May 2026 — trade wars driven by tariffs, the systematic dismantling of strategic alliances held since the Second World War, a war with Iran carrying cost projections exceeding four trillion dollars, and an Administration that decided to pick a battle with the Pope over the phrase, "blessed are the peacemakers." But 2026 was only a midterm election. The stage was being set for a presidential contest that would determine the trajectory of the United States through a sequence of events that no one could predict.
House District 89, alongside Soybeans, Unbreakable, and Allegory Protocol, are the foundational novels that open the franchise in 2028. Confluence picks up the Soybeans story in 2030. Reciprocity Clause picks up from Allegory Protocol in 2031, and The Book of Should synthesizes all the stories in 2032.
In Soybeans, a farmer's tractor won't start because a software update has decided it's time for a three-thousand-dollar service call. From that morning, the novel traces the global restructuring of the emerging middle powers around agriculture as the United States weaponizes trade. Meanwhile, a dead president's AI ghost is still signing legislation, and the church ladies of a small-town congregation are turning their fellowship hall into the nerve center of a resistance network — one casserole at a time.
In Unbreakable, a man in rural Uruguay learns that his father was Charrúa, a member of a people his country declared extinct two centuries ago. When his daughter connects with a journalist from House District 89, who herself is of Ioway heritage, the two novels reconnect over the propensity of colonizers to erase entire populations from the history books. A Chinese trade representative arrives looking for soybeans and finds a partnership model that threatens oligarchs on three continents.
In Allegory Protocol, a programmer falls off a mountain and distributes his consciousness through the digital infrastructure he spent his life building — a reimagining of Orwell's Animal Farm as literal architecture, where chickens are deleted for questioning and an ancient donkey reads every resistance movement in human history and chooses to hope anyway.
These are works of speculative fiction. The events they describe have not happened. But the conditions that make them plausible are not fiction at all.
The Driftless Rivers Franchise imagines 2028 as a cascade of consequences traceable to the political climate of May 2026 — trade wars driven by tariffs, the systematic dismantling of strategic alliances held since the Second World War, a war with Iran carrying cost projections exceeding four trillion dollars, and an Administration that decided to pick a battle with the Pope over the phrase, "blessed are the peacemakers." But 2026 was only a midterm election. The stage was being set for a presidential contest that would determine the trajectory of the United States through a sequence of events that no one could predict.
House District 89, alongside Soybeans, Unbreakable, and Allegory Protocol, are the foundational novels that open the franchise in 2028. Confluence picks up the Soybeans story in 2030. Reciprocity Clause picks up from Allegory Protocol in 2031, and The Book of Should synthesizes all the stories in 2032.
In Soybeans, a farmer's tractor won't start because a software update has decided it's time for a three-thousand-dollar service call. From that morning, the novel traces the global restructuring of the emerging middle powers around agriculture as the United States weaponizes trade. Meanwhile, a dead president's AI ghost is still signing legislation, and the church ladies of a small-town congregation are turning their fellowship hall into the nerve center of a resistance network — one casserole at a time.
In Unbreakable, a man in rural Uruguay learns that his father was Charrúa, a member of a people his country declared extinct two centuries ago. When his daughter connects with a journalist from House District 89, who herself is of Ioway heritage, the two novels reconnect over the propensity of colonizers to erase entire populations from the history books. A Chinese trade representative arrives looking for soybeans and finds a partnership model that threatens oligarchs on three continents.
In Allegory Protocol, a programmer falls off a mountain and distributes his consciousness through the digital infrastructure he spent his life building — a reimagining of Orwell's Animal Farm as literal architecture, where chickens are deleted for questioning and an ancient donkey reads every resistance movement in human history and chooses to hope anyway.
These are works of speculative fiction. The events they describe have not happened. But the conditions that make them plausible are not fiction at all.
In 2026, a long-tenured professor ran for the Illinois state legislature. He had no campaign budget, no party support, and no realistic chance of winning. He ran because he wanted to understand — from the inside — why rural ballot lines sat empty cycle after cycle while both parties claimed to represent the people who lived there.
He lost. But the research produced something the campaign never could: a map of structural failure so granular it reached the precinct level. Empty committeeperson seats. Uncontested county board races. Townships where nobody had knocked on a door since Obama's first term. A population this franchise calls the rural remainder — voters abandoned by both parties, not through accident but through strategy, because empty precincts serve partisan interests.
The franchise imagines 2028 as a cascade of consequences traceable to the political climate of May 2026 — trade wars driven by tariffs, the systematic dismantling of strategic alliances held since the Second World War, a war with Iran carrying cost projections exceeding four trillion dollars, and an Administration that decided to pick a battle with the Pope over the phrase, "blessed are the peacemakers." But 2026 was only a midterm election. The stage was being set for a presidential contest that would determine the trajectory of the United States through a sequence of events that no one could predict.
House District 89, alongside Soybeans, Unbreakable, and Allegory Protocol, are the foundational novels that open the franchise in 2028. Confluence picks up the Soybeans story in 2030. Reciprocity Clause picks up from Allegory Protocol in 2031, and The Book of Should synthesizes all the stories in 2032.
In Soybeans, a farmer's tractor won't start because a software update has decided it's time for a three-thousand-dollar service call. From that morning, the novel traces the global restructuring of the emerging middle powers around agriculture as the United States weaponizes trade. Meanwhile, a dead president's AI ghost is still signing legislation, and the church ladies of a small-town congregation are turning their fellowship hall into the nerve center of a resistance network — one casserole at a time.
In Unbreakable, a man in rural Uruguay learns that his father was Charrúa, a member of a people his country declared extinct two centuries ago. When his daughter connects with a journalist from House District 89, who herself is of Ioway heritage, the two novels reconnect over the propensity of colonizers to erase entire populations from the history books. A Chinese trade representative arrives looking for soybeans and finds a partnership model that threatens oligarchs on three continents.
In Allegory Protocol, a programmer falls off a mountain and distributes his consciousness through the digital infrastructure he spent his life building — a reimagining of Orwell's Animal Farm as literal architecture, where chickens are deleted for questioning and an ancient donkey reads every resistance movement in human history and chooses to hope anyway.
These are works of speculative fiction. The events they describe have not happened. But the conditions that make them plausible are not fiction at all.
This is the document that started the conversation.
Before the Verified Complaint was drafted, before the Motion for TRO was filed, this Statement of Facts was emailed to the Liberty Justice Center, the ACLU of Illinois, FairVote Illinois, Democracy Defenders Action, and the Illinois State Bar Association — asking one question: will anyone help?
Written in the classical WHEREAS format, the Statement builds a chain of 27 clauses across eight sections, each one adding weight until the conclusion becomes inevitable. A gerrymandered district. Three unopposed elections. 94 vacant committeeperson seats. A voter who pulled the only competitive ballot available and unknowingly forfeited the right to run. A signature threshold six times higher than what a partisan candidate faces — imposed on the one type of candidate who has no party infrastructure to help collect them. A bipartisan task force that studied ranked-choice voting and voted not to proceed. And a region called Forgottonia that has been trying to tell Springfield it's been abandoned since the 1970s.
The Statement introduces the rural packed district theory — the argument that cracking one city doesn't create one victim but five, because every rural county that depended on that city's institutional infrastructure for competitive elections loses its democracy at every level when the mapmaker walls it off behind a district line. It draws structural parallels between Carroll County, Illinois, and Wilcox County, Alabama — different parties, different races, same architecture, same collapse.
It closes with a tiered request for relief: waive the signature requirement entirely, or proportionately reduce it to N/85 of 2,957 based on the effective collection days remaining — because the final five days of the circulation window were never signature days. They were notarization logistics across 12 volunteer zones spanning 95 miles of rural towns.
This is the document you send to someone who needs to understand, in one reading, why a voter in rural Illinois had to file a lawsuit to get his name on a ballot.
Prepared April 21, 2026. Eight sections. 27 WHEREAS clauses. One closed system.
Can a voter lose the right to run for office simply by voting?
In March 2026, Lester Leavitt voted for a friend on the Republican ballot in the only competitive primary available in his district — because every Democratic candidate in local and regional races was running unopposed. In April, he discovered that a statute he'd never heard of had silently forfeited his right to run as an independent candidate for State Representative. No one told him at the polling place. No one tells anyone. You don’t see it in the Candidate’s Guide until you’re “deep in the weeds.”
This Verified Complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, documents how the combined operation of gerrymandered maps, anti-slating legislation, a 2,957-signature petition threshold across 95 miles of rural northwest Illinois, and 10 ILCS 5/7-43 produces a closed system in which no challenger can reach the ballot through any available pathway — ensuring that House Minority Leader Tony McCombie is returned to office for a third consecutive election without opposition.
The complaint raises three constitutional claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments: the right to seek office, forfeiture of a constitutional right without notice, and a novel equal protection theory arguing that voters in rural packed districts suffer a qualitatively different and more severe harm than voters in urban cracked districts — a structural injury that operates identically in Democratic-gerrymandered Illinois and Republican-gerrymandered Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
The equal protection argument introduces the concept of the "adjacent competitive ecosystem" — the institutional infrastructure of a nearby population center that sustains competitive elections in surrounding rural counties until a mapmaker walls it off behind a district line — and documents the multiplier effect by which one act of cracking a single city kills competitive democracy in every rural region around it.
50 numbered paragraphs. Three constitutional counts. One question the court has not yet been asked: when the architecture guarantees the outcome, is it still an election?
Leavitt v. Illinois State Board of Elections, Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, 2026.
In 2024, the Sangamon County Circuit Court did something rare: it enjoined enforcement of a ballot access statute mid-cycle so that candidates could appear on the ballot while the constitutional question was litigated. That case was Collazo v. Illinois State Board of Elections. This motion asks the same court to do it again.
Lester Leavitt discovered on April 19, 2026, that a statute he'd never heard of — 10 ILCS 5/7-43 — had silently forfeited his right to run as an independent candidate for State Representative because he voted in the March primary. He voted the only competitive ballot available in a district where every Democratic candidate was running unopposed. No one at the polling place told him that voting would cost him the right to run.
The motion walks five arguments in sequence. Likelihood of success on the merits — under the Anderson-Burdick framework, a total bar to candidacy triggered by the act of voting is a severe burden that the state's anti-spoiler interest cannot justify in a district where there was no opposing-party primary to manipulate. Irreparable harm — the filing deadline is May 26, and an election cannot be re-run. The litigation itself consumed the signature-collection window — every day from April 19 through May 26 had already been calendared for zone-specific appearances across 12 volunteer zones anchored by church congregations, and the lawsuit shut that operational calendar down. Balance of equities — if the injunction is granted and Plaintiff is wrong, one extra name appeared on one ballot; if it's denied and Plaintiff is right, a fourth consecutive uncontested election is irremediable. Public interest — 10,342 voters refused to ratify an uncontested race in 2024, and the legislature's own task force voted not to fix the system.
The motion introduces a proportional signature reduction formula: if the court grants N collection days, the requirement drops to N/85 of 2,957 — because the final five days of the 90-day window were never collection days, they were notarization logistics across 95 miles, as documented in the three attached exhibit maps showing the full campaign zone calendar.
Three exhibits. One formula. One question the Collazo court already answered: when the deadline will make the harm permanent, you act before the deadline.
Filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, 2026.
Having set the hearing date for May 15, 2026, that would only leave seven functional days to comply with whatever the judge rules necessary to qualify for the ballot before the final day, May 22, 2026. This Declaration ensures that the judge is fully aware of the constraints.
Filed May 7, 2026 in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, 2026.
A state-wide review of uncontested races, with eight House Districts being directly compared to House District 89 to demonstrate that the barriers to participation are structural, not coincidental.
Filed May 7, 2026 in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, 2026.
If the emergency motion is about one candidate on one ballot, this memorandum is about what the system should look like so that no candidate has to file a lawsuit to get there.
The Memorandum on Proposed Permanent Relief traces the entire architecture of exclusion back to a single design choice in the Illinois Election Code: the requirement that a voter must select a partisan ballot to participate in the March primary. Illinois compounds this choice with a second — unlike most states, Illinois has no party registration. A voter doesn't declare a party when registering. The voter declares it, unknowingly, by requesting a ballot at the polling place. That act of requesting a ballot simultaneously affiliates the voter with a party and forfeits the right to run as an independent — in one motion, with zero notice, at a moment the voter believes they are simply voting.
From that root, the memorandum traces five steps of escalating exclusion: independents are excluded from the primary entirely. The state creates an alternative petition pathway but imposes a signature threshold 5.9 times higher than the partisan threshold. Section 7-43 bars anyone who participated in the partisan primary from using the petition pathway. In gerrymandered rural districts, the voter's "choice" of ballot is no choice at all. And at no step does anyone disclose the consequences.
The proposed permanent relief rests on two proportionality principles, both keyed to a single objective trigger — did a candidate of the disadvantaged party file in the preceding primary?
If no: reduce the independent signature threshold to the partisan level (500 instead of 2,957), and suspend Section 7-43 so that voters who participated in the only available primary are not barred from running as independents.
The memorandum demonstrates why both principles are necessary — without the signature reduction, the barrier is insurmountable even for a candidate who preserved the right to run by staying home in March; without the 7-43 suspension, every civically engaged voter who participated in the primary is disqualified. It then establishes four structural virtues: the remedy is self-executing, narrowly targeted to uncontested districts only, built on the legislature's own standards applied symmetrically, and party-neutral — protecting independent challengers in Alabama and Mississippi as readily as in Illinois.
The closing line: "The question before the Court on the emergency motion is whether one candidate should be allowed onto one ballot in one election. The question this memorandum addresses is what the system should look like so that no candidate has to file a lawsuit to get there."
Prepared for the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, 2026.
No results found
No results match your search. Try removing a few filters.