McCaskill v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board
126 N.E.3d 425
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Tyrone Rogers first filed nominating petitions as a Democratic candidate for Sixth Ward alderman in Harvey, but Harvey holds nonpartisan consolidated elections (no partisan primaries).
- Realizing the error, Rogers filed a second set of nominating papers as a nonpartisan candidate and filed a short written “withdrawal” of his Democratic candidacy.
- Objector Kisha McCaskill challenged Rogers’ petitions on two grounds: (1) Section 10-4 forbids withdrawing/adding to petitions so filing multiple sets violated the Election Code (relying on Stephens), and (2) Rogers engaged in prohibited “dual circulation” by circulating petitions both as a partisan and as a nonpartisan candidate.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board overruled the objections; the Cook County circuit court reversed and removed Rogers from the ballot. Rogers appealed and the appellate court stayed the trial court’s order.
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court, ordering Rogers’ name restored to the ballot for the 2019 consolidated election.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing multiple sets of nominating papers for the same office violates §10-4 (Stephens) | McCaskill: Rogers’ second filing "added to" and effectively altered/withdrew the first set in violation of §10-4; second set should be void | Rogers/Board: §10-6.2 permits multiple filings and prescribes which set controls; §10-4 should not bar multiple full sets | Court: §10-4 (as interpreted in Stephens) has been superseded by §10-6.2; multiple sets are permitted and the Board correctly overruled objection |
| Whether circulating petitions both as a partisan candidate and as a nonpartisan candidate violates §10-4’s dual-circulation prohibition | McCaskill: Rogers circulated for both a Democratic (partisan) and a nonpartisan candidacy, triggering the dual-circulation ban | Rogers/Board: Dual-circulation language applies only to partisan/independent contexts and does not govern nonpartisan elections like Harvey’s | Court: Dual-circulation prohibition’s plain language and purpose apply to partisan/independent contexts only; it does not apply to nonpartisan consolidated elections; Board correctly overruled objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Education Officers Electoral Board, 236 Ill. App. 3d 159 (interpretation that §10-4 barred multiple nominating sets; court holds this view superseded)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (standard: de novo review of questions of law)
- Siegel v. Lake County Officers Electoral Board, 385 Ill. App. 3d 452 (appellate review applies to board decisions)
- Jackson-Hicks v. East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929 (ballot access is a substantial right; courts construe election statutes to favor access)
- Bettis v. Marsaglia, 2014 IL 117050 (principle favoring ballot access in close statutory constructions)
- Wisnasky-Bettorf v. Pierce, 2012 IL 111253 (same: interpret election statutes to promote ballot access)
- Citizens for John W. Moore Party v. Board of Election Commissioners, 794 F.2d 1254 (explains dual-circulator prohibition rationales: prevent gamesmanship and voter confusion)