2015 IL App (1st) 150544
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- John A. Daly filed nominating petitions for South Suburban Community College trustee containing 24 sheets and 262 signatures; Erik L. Daniel filed a verified objection claiming 240 signatures were invalid, leaving fewer than the required 50.
- The Education Officers Electoral Board adopted hearing rules (pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/10-10) allowing motions to dismiss and permitting the board to require an objector to make a preliminary showing of good-faith basis for allegations.
- Daniel’s counsel agreed to produce Daniel for questioning at a January 17, 2015 hearing; Daniel did not appear. The county clerk’s certified access log showed Daniel had not personally inspected voter records before filing his objections.
- Daly moved to dismiss as a bad-faith, shotgun objection; the Board questioned how Daniel could verify widespread forgery/nonresidence without having examined registration records and drew an adverse inference from his absence.
- The Board unanimously granted Daly’s motion, dismissed Daniel’s objections, validated Daly’s nominating papers, and ordered Daly’s name placed on the ballot; the circuit court affirmed and the appellate court likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board was properly constituted (who served as "secretary of the board") | Daniel: Martin Lareau was the Board secretary and his absence means the Board was improperly constituted. | Respondents: Terry Wells was the elected board secretary (trustee role); Lareau served as an administrative/clerical secretary. | Held: Board was properly constituted; record shows Wells acted as Board secretary/member and Lareau as administrative VP. |
| Whether the Board attorney (Stanley Kusper) improperly "sat" on the Board or prejudiced the proceedings | Daniel: Kusper’s participation and examination of witnesses improperly influenced the Board. | Respondents: The Code permits adoption of procedural rules and appointment of a board attorney who may examine witnesses and advise the Board. | Held: Kusper acted as board attorney under adopted rules, did not vote, and no timely objection was made; participation was permissible. |
| Whether dismissal was arbitrary because the Code does not require an objector to inspect voter records before filing | Daniel: Verified objections suffice; petitioner need not personally inspect registration records before filing; Board erred in dismissing on that basis. | Daly/Board: The objection was a shotgun, lacked a good-faith factual foundation, and petitioner’s failure to appear justified adverse inference and dismissal. | Held: Board permissibly required a credible showing of good-faith basis, drew adverse inference from Daniel’s absence and failure to inspect records, and reasonably dismissed the objection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 2012 IL 111928 (discusses scope of review of electoral board decisions)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (governs judicial review of electoral board actions)
- Hamm v. Township Officers of the Township of Bremen Electoral Board, 389 Ill. App. 3d 827 (standard for review of mixed questions)
- Siegel v. Lake County Officers Electoral Board, 385 Ill. App. 3d 452 (access to ballot is substantial right; procedural requirements for objections)
- Nader v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 354 Ill. App. 3d 335 (electoral board authority to consider validity of objections)
- Hagen v. Stone, 277 Ill. App. 3d 388 (burden of proof on objector)
- Druck v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 387 Ill. App. 3d 144 (nomination papers presumed valid absent proper objection)
- Pochie v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 289 Ill. App. 3d 585 (strict compliance with form requirements for objections)
- Beery v. Breed, 311 Ill. App. (failure to testify can support adverse inference)
- Canter v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 170 Ill. App. 3d 364 (negative inference from refusal to testify permissible)
- Edelman, Combs & Latturner v. Hinshaw & Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156 (de novo review for certain dismissal motions)
- Sakellariadis v. Campbell, 391 Ill. App. 3d 795 (failure to develop appellate argument may justify dismissal)