Ahmad v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago
2016 IL App (1st) 162811
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Maryam Ahmad lost a Democratic primary for one Cook County judicial vacancy (the Brim vacancy) and, on Sept. 6, 2016, filed write-in declarations for a different Cook County judicial vacancy (the Hopkins vacancy) for the November general election.
- Cook County Clerk Orr accepted Ahmad’s write-in declaration; the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners rejected it, invoking section 18‑9.1 (a “sore loser” provision) to bar a primary loser from filing a write-in declaration.
- Ahmad sued the Chicago Board and Clerk Orr seeking mandamus to force acceptance of her write‑in declaration and counting of votes; Rhonda Crawford (the Democratic nominee for the Hopkins vacancy) moved to intervene to defend the Board’s interpretation and to block Ahmad.
- The trial court denied Crawford’s initial untimely intervention motion, held on the merits, and ruled that section 18‑9.1 did not bar Ahmad from being a write‑in candidate for the Hopkins vacancy; it ordered the Board to accept Ahmad’s write‑in declaration and count votes.
- Crawford later was permitted to file a counterclaim; the court denied relief on that counterclaim. Crawford appealed the denial of reconsideration (and earlier intervention denial). The appellate court dismissed the intervention-appeal as moot but reached the statutory-interpretation issue under the public‑interest exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 10 ILCS 5/18‑9.1 bars a primary loser from running as a write‑in for a different vacancy in the same office | Ahmad: section 18‑9.1 applies only to the specific office/vacancy lost (Brim), so she may be a write‑in for Hopkins | Chicago Board/Crawford: the statute disqualifies any primary loser from filing a write‑in declaration for the succeeding general election | Held: statute ambiguous but must be construed to favor ballot access; it does not bar Ahmad from running as a write‑in for a different vacancy (Hopkins) |
| Whether the public‑interest exception permits review despite post‑election results | Ahmad: issue affects public officers and will recur; merits review should proceed | Implicit defense: mootness because election results rendered controversy academic | Held: public‑interest exception applies to the statutory‑interpretation issue; appellate court reached merits |
| Whether Crawford’s denied intervention (Sept. 21) remains reviewable | Crawford: denial of intervention was erroneous and should be reversed | Ahmad/Board: subsequent allowance to file counterclaim and final judgment render the intervention issue moot | Held: appeal as to the Sept. 21 intervention denial is moot and dismissed |
| Whether court should disqualify Crawford or suppress her votes based on separate supreme court actions | Ahmad: requested disqualification/suppression relying on supreme court suspension order | Crawford: argued to preserve election result and prevent Ahmad’s write‑in relief | Held: appellate court declined to act; defers to Illinois Supreme Court and limits review to circuit court orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucas v. Lakin, 175 Ill. 2d 166 (Illinois 1997) (restrictive ballot‑access statutes are construed narrowly in favor of candidates)
- Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill. 2d 297 (Illinois 1996) (legislation restricting ballot access implicates the right to vote)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Illinois 2008) (public‑interest exception allows post‑election candidacy eligibility review)
- Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 Ill. 2d 164 (Illinois 1992) (legislature can be specific; absence of specific prohibition weighs against disqualification)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (framework for evaluating burdens on the right to vote)
- Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 2012 IL 111928 (Illinois 2012) (courts may take judicial notice of election results and discuss mootness/public‑interest exception)