Guerrero v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Franklin Park
81 N.E.3d 19
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Five Citizens for Change candidates filed nominating petitions for Franklin Park municipal offices and submitted Cook County statements of economic interests that answered "DNA" to substantive questions, listed only the office title (e.g., "Village President") but did not name the municipality, omitted addresses, and had undated verifications; forms were file-stamped Dec. 8, 2016.
- Objector Robert Godlewski challenged the nominating papers, arguing the statements of economic interests were deficient because they did not identify the unit of government, did not list addresses, and had undated verifications, and thus the candidates’ nomination papers were invalid under the Election Code.
- The Franklin Park Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained the objections (one member dissenting) and struck the candidates from the ballot, reasoning that omissions could allow circumvention of Ethics Act disclosure and that verifications lacked dates required by the Ethics Act.
- The candidates sought judicial review; the Cook County circuit court reversed the Board and ordered the candidates’ names restored to the ballot.
- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court, holding the omissions were minor, did not defeat the filing requirement, and removal from the ballot was not warranted under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nominating papers are invalid because statements of economic interests failed to identify the unit of local government | Godlewski: omission means no proper filing under Election Code; enables candidates to avoid Ethics Act scrutiny | Petitioners: nominating petitions and filing location make candidacy and municipality clear; substantial compliance suffices | Held: omission was a minor defect; petitioners substantially complied and removal was not justified |
| Whether undated verifications on statements of economic interests invalidate nominating papers | Godlewski: verification must be dated per Ethics Act; absence prevents identifying the year of disclosure | Petitioners: county date-stamp and filing context establish timing; omission is technical, not fatal | Held: absence of a handwritten date was not fatal given file stamp and cross‑referencable filings |
| Whether an electoral board may invalidate nominating papers for content/accuracy of filed disclosures | Godlewski: Board can decide validity of related filings and enforce compliance with Ethics Act via Election Code | Petitioners: Election Code allows invalidation only for failure to file; substance/accuracy issues are governed by Ethics Act sanctions, not ballot removal | Held: Board cannot remove candidate for mere incompleteness/accuracy issues; removal reserved for failure to file or narrow circumstances (Welch) |
| Whether use of a correct but incomplete form can be treated like filing the wrong form (allowing circumvention) | Godlewski: omission functionally mirrors using wrong form (Cortez) and could permit circumvention | Petitioners: unlike Cortez, correct local form was used, petitioners are residents running only in Franklin Park, and filings are readily connected; no circumvention shown | Held: Cortez is distinguishable; here omissions did not produce the evils Cortez addressed and do not warrant removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40 (Sup. Ct. Ill.) (removal from ballot is not a permissible sanction for inadvertent or post-filing inaccuracies in statements of economic interests)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Sup. Ct. Ill.) (standards for judicial review of electoral board decisions; boards are administrative agencies)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (Sup. Ct. Ill.) (substantial compliance doctrine and when strict compliance is required)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (Sup. Ct. Ill.) (definition and standard for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982) (characterization of mixed questions and standards of review)
- Cardona v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 346 Ill. App. 3d 342 (Ill. App.) (minor or imprecise office descriptions in disclosure/receipt do not automatically invalidate nomination papers)