Jackson-Hicks v. The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners
2015 IL App (5th) 150028
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Emeka Jackson-Hicks objected to incumbent Alvin Parks Jr.’s mayoral nomination papers, arguing Parks lacked the minimum signatures required under 10 ILCS 5/10-3.
- Section 10-3 required Parks to submit 136 valid signatures; Parks submitted 171 total, but 48 were invalidated, leaving 123 valid (13 short).
- The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners denied the objection, finding Parks had substantially complied and ordering his name remain on the ballot.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; Jackson-Hicks appealed to the Fifth District Appellate Court, which expedited review.
- The appellate court analyzed whether section 10-3 is mandatory or directory and whether substantial compliance (the "minimal-appeal" standard) suffices to keep a candidate on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 10-3's signature requirement is mandatory or directory | Section 10-3 should be treated as mandatory; failure to meet numeric minimum invalidates nomination | Section 10-3 is directory (uses permissive language and lacks a prescribed penalty); substantial compliance suffices | Court held section 10-3 is directory, not mandatory |
| Whether substantial compliance suffices to keep a candidate on the ballot | Substantial compliance is insufficient; Fifth District precedent requires strict compliance for mandatory Election Code provisions | Substantial compliance is sufficient here; boards may apply a "minimal-appeal" standard to protect ballot access | Court held substantial compliance (minimal-appeal standard) is acceptable for section 10-3 |
| Whether Powell/Knobeloch control this case | Jackson-Hicks urged following Powell/Knobeloch (strict enforcement) | Defendants distinguished those cases as involving different provisions and predating Goodman | Court rejected Powell/Knobeloch as inapposite here |
| Whether the Board's factual finding that Parks substantially complied was clearly erroneous | Jackson-Hicks argued the 13-signature shortfall required removal | Defendants argued Parks showed initiative and minimal voter appeal; removal would unduly burden voters and candidate | Court found Board's mixed factual/legal determination not clearly erroneous and affirmed decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 334 (appellate court) (strict enforcement of mandatory Election Code provisions)
- Knobeloch v. Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 1137 (appellate court) (followed Powell on mandatory compliance)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (Ill. 2011) (recognized circumstances where substantial compliance can satisfy mandatory Election Code provisions)
- Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (appellate court) (endorsed estoppel and "minimal appeal" rationale to preserve ballot access when signature shortfall existed)
- O'Brien v. White, 219 Ill. 2d 86 (Ill. 2006) (statutory mandatory vs. directory analysis)
- McNamara v. Oak Lawn Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 356 Ill. App. 3d 961 (appellate court) (section 10-3 interpreted as permissive/directory)
- Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1979) (balancing state election regulation against access to the ballot)