Guerrero v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Franklin Park
2017 IL App (1st) 170486
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Five Franklin Park candidates (Citizens for Change slate) filed nominating petitions and statement of economic interests listing "DNA" for all substantive questions; they wrote only the office title (e.g., "Village President") on the form and did not list "Franklin Park," addresses, or dates by the verifications. County Clerk date-stamped the forms.
- Objector Robert Godlewski challenged the nominating papers, asserting the statements of economic interests were deficient for failing to identify the municipality, list addresses, and date verifications, and urged removal from the ballot.
- The Franklin Park Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained the objections (one-member dissent) and ordered the candidates off the ballot, reasoning the omissions could permit circumvention of the Ethics Act and that verifications were undated as required by statute.
- The candidates sought judicial review; the Cook County circuit court reversed and ordered their names placed on the ballot.
- The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, treated the dispute as a mixed question of fact and law, and affirmed the circuit court, finding the omissions were minor and did not justify ballot exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to identify the unit of local government on the statement of economic interests invalidates nominating papers | Petitioners: omission is minor; nominators and petitions show Franklin Park; substantial compliance suffices | Respondents/Board: omission prevents disclosure specific to Franklin Park and could enable circumvention of Ethics Act; warrants invalidation | Held: omission was minor; because nominating papers show municipality and filings were accessible, ballots should not be invalidated |
| Whether undated verifications on statements of economic interests invalidate nominating papers | Petitioners: County Clerk date-stamps and petitions tie filings to candidacy year; absence of date is not fatal | Respondents/Board: Ethics Act requires verification be dated; undated verification leaves ambiguity about the year of disclosure and is defect | Held: date-stamps and filing context cure omission; undated verifications do not justify removal from ballot |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40 (Illinois Supreme Court) (removal from ballot is not permissible sanction for inadvertent or substantive defects in filed economic statements)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standards for judicial review of electoral board decisions)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (Illinois Supreme Court) (definition and treatment of mixed questions of law and fact)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (Illinois Supreme Court) (substantial compliance and review standards)
- Cardona v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 346 Ill. App. 3d 342 (Ill. App. Ct.) (minor or imprecise office descriptions in receipts do not mandate ballot removal)
- Requena v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728 (Ill. App. Ct.) (incomplete office descriptions on disclosures insufficient to invalidate nominating papers)
- Bryant v. Cook County Electoral Board, 195 Ill. App. 3d 556 (Ill. App. Ct.) (description used in disclosure sufficiently informed public of office sought)
- Crudup v. Sims, 292 Ill. App. 3d 1075 (Ill. App. Ct.) (refusal to remove candidate where Ethics Act violations did not contemplate ballot removal)