Cortez v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board
986 N.E.2d 689
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board for Calumet City voided nine Democratic candidates' nominating papers due to objections to notarization wording and other form issues.
- The candidates are Cortez, Twymon, Smith, Whitley, Tilman, Gardner, Williams, Hill, and Caballero.
- Objections centered on the notarization language of the Statement of Candidacy, which omitted 'who is to me personally known' from the form used.
- Caballero also filed the statewide Statement of Economic Interests form instead of the local Calumet City form, and answered N/A to all questions.
- The circuit court reversed the Board as to eight candidates but affirmed as to Caballero; on appeal, the court reversed for eight and affirmed Caballero's removal, with additional discussion of Williams, Hill, and Smith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notarization form sufficiency | Cortez et al. argue substantial compliance governs notarization form. | Board argues strict form required; removal warranted. | Substantial compliance governs; notarial defect not fatal for eight candidates. |
| Substantial compliance standard | Appellants contend the long form must be exact only in notarization. | Board asserts deviation invalidates candidacy. | Substantial compliance applies to all requirements; not required to be exact in all parts. |
| Wrong Economic Interests form (Caballero) | Eight other issues aside, Caballero's form error is minor if substantial compliance achieved. | Wrong form prevents fulfillment of ethical disclosure requirements. | Wrong form does not satisfy substantial compliance; removal upheld for Caballero. |
| Effect of form error on ballot access | Candidates should remain on ballot unless clearly violating statute purpose. | Any statutory noncompliance warrants removal. | Ballot access preserved for eight candidates; Caballero removed. |
| Sanctions for misfiled statements of economic interests | Removal not appropriate where misfiling was inadvertent and not willful. | Noncompliance with ethics act terms justifies removal. | Removal not permissible for inadvertent, nonwillful misstatements; Caballero's case is distinguished. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40 (1992) (perjury penalties not always required; Ballot access protections)
- Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 2012 IL App (1st) 120581 (2012) (substantial compliance limits to technical violations)
- O’Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 281 Ill. App. 3d 1108 (1996) (form may be substantial rather than exact)
- Bowe v. Chicago Electoral Bd., 79 Ill. 2d 469 (1980) (distinguishes between proper notarization and lack of witness certification)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Bd., 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (statutory interpretation and standard of review for electoral boards)
- Pascente v. County Officers Electoral Bd., 373 Ill. App. 3d 871 (2007) (review scope of electoral board decisions)
- Madden v. Schumann, 105 Ill. App. 3d 900 (1982) (substantial compliance principle in ballot eligibility)
- Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill. 2d 48 (1976) (substantial compliance doctrine in election code context)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (broader application of substantial compliance in elections)