2019 IL App (1st) 190117
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Sebastian Ghiles filed nominating petitions for nonpartisan mayor of Chicago Heights containing 736 signatures across 81 pages; statutory rules limited board review to 221 signatures and required at least 139 valid signatures to qualify.
- Objectors Stebel and Reynoso challenged many signatures as forged, duplicative, from nonregistered voters, or inaccurate; they also alleged a pattern of fraud and asked that sheets in excess of the statutory maximum be invalidated.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board adopted procedural rules (including Rule 8) before hearing; Rule 8 provided that when a candidate files more than the statutory maximum, the Board will disregard the excess starting from the first signature on the first page and examine the last (maximum) signatures (i.e., count from the bottom of the stack).
- Cook County Clerk examined the records and found 434 valid signatures overall; after applying Rule 8 and reviewing the last 221 signatures, only 112 valid signatures remained within the review set.
- The Board struck Ghiles from the ballot for failing to meet the 139-signature minimum; the circuit court affirmed, and Ghiles appealed, arguing the Board’s methodology was arbitrary, ultra vires, and irrational.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s Rule 8 method of disregarding excess signatures (removing the first/excess signatures and reviewing the last statutory-maximum set) was arbitrary, unreasonable, or beyond the Board’s authority | Ghiles: Rule 8 (as applied) was ultra vires and arbitrary; the Board should not remove signatures from the top; excess should be disregarded after counting the first signatures up to the maximum (i.e., review the first 221) | Board/Objectors: Rule 8 is a rational, prepromulgated procedure authorized by statute; the Board may reasonably choose a method for selecting which signatures to review when more than the maximum are submitted | Affirmed: Rule 8 was not arbitrary or capricious; removing excess signatures from the front and reviewing the last allowable signatures was a rational method and within the Board’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Richards v. Lavelle, 620 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1980) (holding removing a candidate from ballot solely because he submitted more than the maximum was irrational; boards may enforce maximum but must use rational means)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Ill. 2008) (appellate review in electoral-board cases examines the board’s decision)
- Hossfeld v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 238 Ill. 2d 418 (Ill. 2010) (standards of review for administrative determinations; electoral boards are administrative agencies)
- Begg v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 99 Ill. 2d 324 (Ill. 1984) (administrative regulations presumed valid and overturned only if arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious)
- Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1979) (recognizing ballot access and association as fundamental rights)
- Bettis v. Marsaglia, 2014 IL 117050 (Ill. 2014) (access to the ballot is a substantial right not lightly denied)