Hacker v. Halley, 2021 IL App (2d) 210050

Dec. 1, 2020: Winfield Township Democratic caucus nominated Goodman (supervisor), Lukas and Hacker (trustees); township central committee chair Lynn Maher filed nomination papers Dec. 14.
Filed papers included: preprinted "certificate of nomination by caucus" (not notarized/sworn) and each candidate's sworn statement of candidacy (notarized).
Halley objected (Dec. 28), arguing the certificate was invalid because the chair and secretary did not sign under oath as required by Election Code §10-1; he asked that the candidates be stricken from the ballot.
The Winfield Township Officers Electoral Board sustained Halley’s objections and struck the candidates; the circuit court reversed, concluding §10-1 applied but its oath requirement was directory.
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court but on different grounds: §10-1 does not apply to established-party township caucus nominations under Township Code art. 45, and §45-20’s required "certification" need not be sworn; therefore the candidates’ nominations were valid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Election Code §10-1 apply to nominations made by established parties under Township Code art. 45?	Art. 45 controls township nominations; §10-1 does not apply.	§10-1 requires caucus certificates be sworn and therefore applies to all caucus nominations, including township.	§10-1 does not apply to established-party township caucus nominations; art. 45 is the exclusive procedure (except narrow exceptions).
Does the absence of sworn signatures on the chair’s "certification" under §45-20 invalidate the nominations?	§45-20 does not require the chair’s certification to be sworn; candidate statements of candidacy are the sworn proof the statute requires.	The certification must be sworn (per §10-1) and its absence is fatal to ballot access.	The §45-20 "certification" need not be sworn; absence of a notarized chair signature did not invalidate the nominations.
Are Moon and Lenehan binding precedent requiring §10-1’s oath to apply to township caucuses?	Moon/Lenehan were wrongly decided on that point and are not controlling here.	Moon supports applying §10-1 to township caucus certificates and the board relied on it.	Appellate court departs from Moon/Lenehan to the extent they conflict with the plain statutory text; Moon is distinguishable and not followed here.

Moon v. Rolson, 189 Ill. App. 3d 262 (1989) (applied §10-1 to caucus certificates in that case; court here distinguishes and declines to follow that aspect)
United Citizens v. Coalition to Let the People Decide, 125 Ill.2d 332 (1988) (statutes in pari materia must be construed harmoniously)
Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill.2d 40 (1992) (ballot access is a substantial right not lightly denied)
Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Mun. Officers Electoral Bd., 228 Ill.2d 200 (2008) (standard of appellate review of electoral board decisions)
In re Marriage of Peterson, 2011 IL 110984 (2011) (statutory construction is reviewed de novo)