Atkinson v. Roddy
991 N.E.2d 467
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Roselle is a split-county village with principal office in Du Page County and electors in Du Page and Cook counties.
- Candidates Roddy and Dahlstrom filed Roselle nomination papers with the Roselle clerk, attaching statements of economic interests (SOIs) and receipts showing they filed with the Cook County clerk.
- Roddy and Dahlstrom relied on guidance telling them to file in Cook County due to Roselle being a split-county municipality.
- Petitioner Atkinson objected, arguing the SOIs must be filed with the Du Page County clerk under the Election Code and Ethics Act.
- The Electoral Board found substantial compliance, the court affirmed, and the appeal was partially dismissed and partially affirmed; the Roddy portion was moot and Dahlstrom’s was affirmed.
- The court held Dahlstrom substantially complied and her name could appear on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dahlstrom’s filing with Cook County clerk satisfies statutory requirements | Atkinson argues must file with Du Page clerk | Dahlstrom argues substantial compliance suffices | Dahlstrom substantially complied; ballot access sustained |
| Whether Roddy’s appeal is moot | Atkinson seeks relief for Roddy | Election already occurred; no meaningful relief possible | Appeal as to Roddy is moot; dismissed regarding Roddy |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellogg v. Cook County Illinois Officers Electoral Board, 347 Ill. App. 3d 666 (2004) (strict compliance not always required; substantial compliance may suffice)
- Siegel v. Lake County Officers Electoral Board, 385 Ill. App. 3d 452 (2008) (substantial compliance when deviations do not impair integrity)
- Cunningham v. Schaeflein, 2012 IL App (1st) 120529 (2012) (address errors may be substantially compliant when core purpose preserved)
- DeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 192 Ill. 2d 63 (2000) (substantial compliance not adopted to defeat ballot rights; ballot access proper concern)
- Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 334 (2003) (courts rejected absolute substantial-compliance in some contexts; see distinctions)
- O’Donaghue v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 493 (1998) (distinguishes proper filing version from improper filing)
- Reynolds v. Champaign County Officers Electoral Board, 379 Ill. App. 3d 423 (2008) (limited pages or identifiers may support substantial compliance)
- Miceli v. Lavelle, 114 Ill. App. 3d 311 (1983) (avoidance of dual disclosures to prevent confusion)
- Havens v. Miller, 102 Ill. App. 3d 558 (1981) (public access concerns affect validity)
- Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (1st) 120581 (2012) (framework for substantial compliance analysis)
- Chand v. Patla, 342 Ill. App. 3d 655 (2003) (mootness jurisdiction considerations)