2019 IL App (1st) 190345
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Kenneth “Mojo” Muldrow, Jr. filed nominating papers to run for alderman (Markham, 1st ward) for the April 2, 2019 election, including a sworn statement that he was legally qualified.
- Muldrow was a 30-year Markham police officer at the time and testified he would retire if elected.
- Objector Brenna Hampton-Houser challenged Muldrow’s papers on three grounds: (1) he was not qualified because a municipal police officer is incompatible with alderman; (2) three petition circulators also circulated party petitions, invalidating their sheets; and (3) certain individual signatures were invalid.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained the incompatibility objection (relying on Rogers) and the circulator objection, and struck Muldrow from the ballot.
- The circuit court reversed the Board on the incompatibility ground, remanded for records examination of signatures, and the Board’s subsequent records review confirmed Muldrow had enough valid signatures. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Muldrow) | Defendant's Argument (Board / Hampton-Houser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipal police officer is "not qualified" to be a candidate for alderman under the Election Code because of the common-law doctrine of incompatibility | Rogers (incompatibility) does not disqualify someone from being a candidate; incompatibility only causes resignation upon acceptance of a second office | Doctrine of incompatibility (as applied in Rogers) made Muldrow unqualified at time of filing, so his sworn statement was false | Court held incompatibility is not a basis to disqualify a candidate pre-election; Board erred to remove Muldrow on that ground |
| Whether the Board’s reliance on incompatibility violated the statutory requirement that a candidate be qualified at filing (10 ILCS 5/10-5) | Section 10-5 requires present qualification but incompatibility is not an express statutory disqualification | Cited Cinkus and argued present disqualification can exist at filing | Court distinguished Cinkus (which relied on an explicit statutory disqualification) and held no statute disqualifies municipal employees pre-election on incompatibility grounds |
| Whether the Board’s January decision, and subsequent February proceedings, left a final, appealable order | Muldrow argued Board’s later action superseded January decision and appellants appealed an interlocutory order | Board maintained circuit court retained jurisdiction after remand and Rule 304(a) was applied to permit appeal | Court found appellate jurisdiction proper; circuit court retained jurisdiction after remand and certified no just reason to delay appeal |
| Whether petition circulator conduct invalidated sheets and left insufficient signatures | Muldrow argued objector failed to meet burden and restriction did not apply | Board found three circulators had also circulated party petitions, voiding those sheets | Circuit court affirmed Board’s circulator ruling on appeal; records exam later showed Muldrow still had sufficient valid signatures |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Village of Tinley Park, 116 Ill. App. 3d 437 (discusses incompatibility of police officer and municipal trustee)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (statutory candidate-statement requirements are mandatory)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (candidate must be qualified at time of filing; statutory disqualifications can bar candidacy)
- Velazquez v. Soliz, 141 Ill. App. 3d 1024 (incompatibility doctrine does not disqualify one from being a candidate)