Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago
2012 IL 111928
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Earls and husband owned three Chicago properties with homestead exemptions; exemptions were challenged in 2010.
- County assessor notified Earls that exemptions on two Lawler properties should be refunded unless residency or rental evidence was shown.
- Earls submitted nomination papers in 2010; Jackson objected on multiple grounds, including 3.1-10-5(b) arrears to a municipality due to alleged tax issues.
- Election Board found no municipal debt; Jackson challenged in circuit court, which upheld the Board; appellate court reversed and sought removal or disenfranchisement of Earls.
- Earls sought relief in this Court, arguing her eligibility remained and a special election remedy might be appropriate.
- Court ultimately held that property taxes payable to the County are not debts due to a municipality and that Earls’ name should be on the ballot; the majority reversed the appellate court; one justice (Freeman, with Burke) dissented on mootness/forfeiture and urged a special election remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does property tax owed to the county count as a debt to a municipality under 3.1-10-5(b)? | Earls contends property tax shortfalls due to exemptions should render her ineligible. | Jackson argues any arrearage to city qualifies under the statute. | Property taxes are county debts, not municipal debts; 3.1-10-5(b) does not apply. |
| Can the court reach merits despite mootness due to election completion? | Public interest exception and 2A-1(e) permit relief; case not moot. | Election completion makes the case moot; no remedy available. | Public interest exception applies; case not moot for merits. |
| Was Earls’ request for a special election forfeited, precluding relief? | Earls consistently sought a special election; PLA and briefing supported relief. | Remedy forfeited due to pleadings and lack of authority cited. | Majority held forfeiture; dissenting view would permit remand for a special election. |
| What remedy is appropriate if Earls’ ballot access was improperly removed? | Special election to restore Earls’ ballot access and voter choice. | Remedy inappropriate; election already occurred and ballots completed. | Remand and special election allowed under 2A-1(e) (dissenting view); majority reversed to allow ballot placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (establishes standard for mootness and review of 3.1-10-5(b) challenges)
- Reyes v. Bloomingdale Township Electoral Board, 265 Ill. App. 3d 69 (1994) (order of special election following ballot access error)
- McDunn v. Williams, 156 Ill. 2d 288 (1993) (mootness analysis in preelection challenges; public remedy considerations)
- Gilbert v. Municipal Officers’ Electoral Board, 97 Ill. App. 3d 847 (1981) (jurisdiction and mootness in preelection challenges; early appellate role)
- McCarty, 223 Ill. 2d 109 (2006) (forfeiture principles; Rule 366 discussion context)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (independent, de novo review in election-board decisions)