Elsamny v. Peoria County Board of Election Commissioners
2018 IL App (3d) 170295
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Primary election for two at-large Peoria City Council seats held Feb 28, 2017; canvass completed Mar 9, 2017. Hanauer finished one vote ahead of Elsamny and was nominated for the general election.
- Elsamny filed an untitled contest (Mar 15) and a verified complaint (Mar 17) challenging the primary and seeking a preliminary injunction to stay the general election; initially named only the Board and its executive director (Bride).
- Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failing to join Hanauer; Elsamny filed amended complaints Mar 20 and Mar 30 adding the other candidates and Board members, but only Bride was served.
- On Mar 31 the circuit court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding injunctive relief to stay the election unavailable under the limited exception and that the complaint was untimely under Election Code section 7-63.
- General election occurred Apr 4, 2017; Elsamny filed this appeal May 1, 2017. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the election cycle had concluded and no exception to mootness was argued or established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because the general election already occurred | Elsamny sought reversal and a redo of the general election for the at-large seat | Defendants argued the election rendered any relief impracticable; appeal moot | Appeal dismissed as moot; concluded reversing would have no practical effect |
| Whether exceptions to mootness (e.g., public interest or capable of repetition yet evading review) apply | Elsamny contended court could order a new election | Defendants: no legal basis or argument for an exception presented | No exceptions shown; court declined to exercise review or order new election |
| Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing for failure to meet Election Code timing and verification requirements (10 ILCS 5/7-63) | Elsamny did not contest timeliness on appeal; sought relief on merits | Defendants: complaint untimely and procedurally defective (missing verification, party joinder) | Majority did not reach merits because mootness bars review; noted if reached, plaintiff likely failed section 7-63 jurisdictional requirements |
| Whether injunctive relief (staying/redoing election) was available | Elsamny requested injunction to stay general election | Defendants: injunction unavailable absent statutory exception; remedy extreme and rare | Court reiterated ordering new elections is an extreme, rarely granted remedy and plaintiff gave no valid legal reason to depart from rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514 (ill. 2001) (appellate jurisdiction requires an actual controversy)
- People v. Blaylock, 202 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 2002) (existence of a real controversy is prerequisite to appellate review)
- La Salle National Bank v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill. 2d 375 (Ill. 1954) (courts will dismiss appeals presenting moot questions)
- Harris v. Education Officers Electoral Board of Community Consolidated School District 110, 203 Ill. App. 3d 917 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (concluding post-election relief would have no practical effect)
- Nelson v. Qualkinbush, 389 Ill. App. 3d 79 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (trial court lacking jurisdiction precludes appellate consideration)