2021 IL App (2d) 210090
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Chodri Ma Khokhar filed nominating petitions to run for Glendale Heights Village President; Matthew Corbin objected, alleging insufficient valid signatures and other defects.
- Du Page County clerk performed a records check, striking some signatures and validating others; Corbin challenged additional signatures at an electoral board hearing.
- The Glendale Heights Municipal Officers Electoral Board adopted procedures (including Rule 4(l) on excess signatures and Rule 22 treating clerk rulings as presumptively valid) and overruled Corbin’s objections, finding Khokhar had more than the statutory minimum (using the April 2017 election to calculate a 118-signature minimum).
- Corbin sought judicial review; the circuit court agreed the 2017 election governed but reversed the Board, struck 10 signatures that the clerk had validated, and ordered Khokhar removed from the ballot.
- On appeal, the appellate court reviewed the Board’s decision (not the circuit court’s), concluded the Board reasonably applied its rules and that the clerk’s records-check rulings were presumptively valid absent additional probative evidence, reversed the circuit court, and ordered Khokhar’s name placed on the ballot.
- The court also invoked the interests of justice (given that other candidates with fewer signatures remained on the ballot) to support allowing Khokhar to appear on the ballot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Corbin) | Defendant's Argument (Khokhar/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which prior election controls the % threshold (2017 v. 2018)? | Use 2018 election to raise required minimum signatures. | 2017 consolidated election is the relevant "next preceding" election under 10-3. | 2017 controls; 118 signatures required. |
| Should signatures submitted in excess of the statutory 8% cap be struck/ignored? | Signatures beyond the statutory maximum must be struck so they cannot be counted. | Board did not need to strike excess sheets where it did not rely on them to meet the minimum. | Board’s failure to formally strike excess signatures not outcome-determinative here; appellate court declined to overturn on that basis. |
| May the Board treat the county clerk’s records-check rulings as presumptively valid and require additional evidence to overturn them? | Corbin: Board should independently compare petition and record signatures; some mismatches are facial and need no extra evidence. | Board: Rule 22 deems clerk rulings presumptively valid; objector must present preponderant evidence beyond mere disagreement to overturn. | Held for Board: it reasonably required additional probative evidence before overturning clerk rulings; Board’s findings not contrary to manifest weight. |
| May the court allow candidate on ballot in the interests of justice given inconsistent treatment of other candidates? | N/A (Corbin sought removal). | Khokhar: allowing ballot placement avoids penalizing voters and preserves minimal-appeal function of signature requirement. | Court affirmed placement; applied interests-of-justice reasoning given related candidates left on ballot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (appellate review addresses electoral board decision, not circuit court de novo review)
- AFM Messenger Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Employment Sec., 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (standard for "clearly erroneous" decisions—definite and firm conviction of mistake)
- Richards v. Lavelle, 620 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1980) (electoral boards may adopt rules to address excess signatures)
- Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (1981) (courts may, in the interests of justice, allow candidates on the ballot despite technical signature shortfalls to avoid penalizing voters)