Akin v. Smith
989 N.E.2d 715
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- This expedited appeal concerns statements of candidacy for the February 26, 2013 Democratic primary for Calumet City offices by Imani Akin, Victor Green, and Hope Allen.
- Objectors challenged the statements because the notarial jurat on the statements of candidacy lacked the language that the signer was ‘personally known’ to the certifying officer.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board for Calumet City found the statements deficient under 10 ILCS 5/7-10 and ordered the candidates’ names removed from the ballot.
- The circuit court reversed the Board, and the issue on appeal was whether the omissions in the notarial jurat invalidated the statements.
- The court addressed whether section 7-10 is mandatory or directory and whether substantial compliance could validate a technically defective declaration of candidacy.
- The court ultimately held that the statements substantially complied with section 7-10, despite the minor jurat language omission, and affirmed reversal of the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notarial jurat omission renders the statements invalid | Akin/Green/Allen urged strict compliance. | Objectors urged strict, mandatory compliance. | Substantial compliance suffices; notarial omission did not invalidate. |
| Whether section 7-10 is mandatory or directory and allows substantial compliance | 7-10 is mandatory; strict compliance required. | Partly directory; substantial compliance is allowed. | Substantial compliance applies; not all provisions are strictly mandatory. |
| Whether Cortez controls the remedy for notarization defects | Remedy should avoid invalidating ballot. | Legislature may intend sanction for language discrepancy. | Cortez supports avoiding automatic ballot strikes for minor notarization errors; ballot access preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (mandatory oath/statutory requirements; substantial compliance possible)
- Madden v. Schumann, 105 Ill. App. 3d 900 (1982) (substantial compliance under Election Code)
- Cortez v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App (1st) 130442 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2013) (notarial form discrepancy not grounds to strike ballot absent clear legislature intent)
- Bowe v. Chicago Electoral Board, 79 Ill. 2d 469 (1980) (discussion of mandatory versus directory and substantial compliance limits)
- Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (1st) 120581 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2012) (applies substantial compliance to Election Code provisions)
- Brennan v. Kolman, 335 Ill. App. 3d 716 (2002) (clerical errors in notarial jurats excused under substantial compliance)