Jackson-Hicks v. The East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929

Background

Alvin L. Parks, Jr., incumbent mayor of East St. Louis, filed nonpartisan nominating petitions for re-election; local law required a minimum of 136 valid signatures.
Parks submitted 171 signatures; Jackson-Hicks objected under the Election Code claiming many signatures were invalid.
At hearing, the Election Board found at least 48 signatures invalid (leaving 123 valid) but nonetheless denied the objection, holding Parks had "substantial compliance" and ordered his name placed on the ballot.
Jackson-Hicks sought judicial review; the circuit court and the appellate court affirmed the Election Board’s decision.
The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, heard the case on expedited briefing, and reversed: it held the statutory minimum signature requirement is mandatory and Parks did not meet it.
The Court remanded with directions to declare Parks ineligible, remove his name from the ballot, and order any pre-removal votes for Parks to be disregarded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson-Hicks)	Defendant's Argument (Parks/Election Board)	Held
Whether the numerical signature requirement for nominating petitions is mandatory or merely directory (i.e., whether "substantial compliance" suffices).	The statute sets a fixed minimum; failure to meet it invalidates the petition—statute is mandatory and must be enforced.	The signature requirement is directory; substantial compliance is sufficient so Parks should remain on the ballot despite falling short.	Mandatory: the Court held the minimum-signature threshold in section 10-3 is mandatory and not satisfied by substantial compliance.
Whether the Election Board could keep Parks on the ballot after determining he had fewer than the required valid signatures.	Election officials must enforce the statutory minimum and remove Parks from the ballot.	The Board may exercise discretion and allow a candidate who substantially complied to stay on the ballot.	The Board lacked authority to override the fixed minimum; Parks must be removed.
Whether mootness or practical election logistics (printed ballots, absentee votes) barred relief.	Mootness does not apply because courts can still provide effective relief (e.g., reprint ballots or disregard votes).	Practical difficulties (ballots printed, absentee voting) make appellate relief moot or inappropriate.	Not moot: Court may provide relief and order votes for an ineligible candidate disregarded if necessary.
Whether estoppel or prior cases allowing exceptions justified keeping candidate on ballot.	No estoppel applies here because the Election Board correctly computed and published the minimum; precedents allowing exceptions are inapposite.	Relied on appellate precedents (Merz, Atkinson) and equitable considerations to justify keeping candidates on ballot.	Prior exceptions do not apply; substantial-compliance/estoppel doctrines cannot override an unambiguous statutory numeric threshold.

Key Cases Cited

Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (mootness and effective relief in election contests)
Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 2012 IL 111928 (standards for judicial review of election-board decisions)
Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (administrative-review principles)
O'Brien v. White, 219 Ill. 2d 86 (mandatory vs. directory statutory interpretation framework)
People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (interpretation of permissive language in statutes)
Bettis v. Marsaglia, 2014 IL 117050 (ballot access is a substantial right)
Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (States may regulate elections and ballots)
Schnackenberg v. Czarnecki, 256 Ill. 320 (legislative power to regulate access to ballots)
Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (limited appellate precedent allowing exceptions; Court noted its limited scope and not controlling here)