Jackson-Hicks v. The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners
28 N.E.3d 170
Ill.2015Background
- Alvin L. Parks, Jr., incumbent mayor of East St. Louis, filed nonpartisan nominating petitions for re-election; the Election Board calculated the statutory minimum valid signatures required as 136.
- Parks submitted petitions containing 171 signatures; opponent Emeka Jackson-Hicks objected, alleging many signatures were invalid, leaving Parks with at most 123 valid signatures.
- The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners denied Jackson-Hicks’ objection, concluding that despite falling short of 136, Parks had "substantial compliance" and should remain on the ballot.
- Jackson-Hicks sought judicial review; the circuit court and the appellate court both affirmed the Board’s substantial-compliance ruling; the Illinois Supreme Court granted expedited review.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the numerical signature requirement in section 10-3 of the Election Code is mandatory or directory and whether substantial compliance may cure falling below the statutory minimum.
- The Court concluded the minimum signature requirement is mandatory, reversed the Election Board, and remanded with instructions to remove Parks from the ballot and disregard any votes cast for him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory minimum signature requirement for nominating petitions is mandatory or directory | Jackson-Hicks: the numerical threshold is mandatory and failure to meet it invalidates the petition | Parks/Election Board: requirement is directory; substantial compliance suffices to keep candidate on ballot | Mandatory: the Court held the minimum signature requirement is mandatory and must be met exactly |
| Whether "substantial compliance" can cure a petition that falls below the statutory minimum number of valid signatures | Jackson-Hicks: substantial compliance cannot substitute for meeting a fixed numerical threshold | Parks: substantial compliance shows initiative/voter support and should suffice | Rejected: substantial compliance cannot override an explicit numerical statutory minimum |
| Whether estoppel or prior cases permitting relief when authorities miscalculated the minimum apply here | Jackson-Hicks: no estoppel—Board correctly computed and announced 136; prior cases are distinguishable | Parks: analogized to cases allowing candidates to remain when officials miscalculated thresholds | Not applicable: estoppel inapplicable because the Board correctly computed and publicized the minimum here; prior cases limited to their facts |
| Whether the Court should dismiss as moot because ballots/absentee voting occurred | Parks: judicial relief impracticable because ballots printed/absentee votes cast | Jackson-Hicks: relief still meaningful (ballots can be reprinted or votes disregarded); public-interest exception | Not moot: Court retained jurisdiction and ordered relief (removal and disregard of votes if necessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (mootness and effectual relief discussion)
- O'Brien v. White, 219 Ill. 2d 86 (mandatory-directory analysis)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (standards for appellate review of election-board decisions)
- People ex rel. Schnackenberg v. Czarnecki, 256 Ill. 320 (legislative authority to regulate ballot access)
- Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 481 (remedy of disregarding votes for ineligible candidate)
- Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (appellate case allowing relief in narrow facts; Court distinguished)
- Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 334 (failure to comply with mandatory provisions invalidates nomination)
- Knobeloch v. Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 1137 (mandatory requirements can require removal from ballot)
- Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (states may enact reasonable election regulations)