Quinn v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago Electoral Board, 116 N.E.3d 428

Proponents (Pat Quinn and committee) submitted petitions on Aug 6, 2018 to place two binding referenda on the Nov 6, 2018 Chicago ballot (mayoral term limits; elected Consumer Advocate).
Objectors Czaja and Larson filed objections Aug 13; Electoral Board held hearings, a hearing officer recommended sustaining objections, and the Electoral Board issued a final decision on Sept 12, 2018 removing both referenda from the ballot.
Proponents filed a one-count petition in circuit court (Sept 14) seeking: (1) judicial review under Election Code §10-10.1 of the Electoral Board’s administrative decision, and (2) a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Election to print the referenda on the Nov 2018 or Feb 2019 ballot.
Service: proponents served the petitions by certified mail to the Electoral Board and Board of Election on Sept 17, 2018; objectors were not personally served until Sept 19, 2018 (service to objectors’ attorney occurred earlier).
Objectors moved to dismiss the petition for judicial review, arguing proponents failed to strictly comply with §10-10.1’s five-day personal-service requirement; the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the petition in its entirety under section 2-619(a)(1).
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the judicial-review claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reversed dismissal of the mandamus claim, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the mandamus claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service by delivering to opponents’ attorney satisfied Election Code §10-10.1 for judicial review	Service to objectors’ counsel (and certified mail generally) was timely and sufficient	§10-10.1 requires personal service on the electoral board and other parties; service on counsel is insufficient	Held: service on counsel is insufficient; judicial-review petition dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether the circuit court properly dismissed the separate mandamus claim along with the judicial-review claim	Mandamus was a separate claim and circuit court had inherent jurisdiction to hear it; dismissal was improper if based solely on §10-10.1 service defect	Objectors treated the petition as a single election-review action subject to §10-10.1 and did not separately attack mandamus below	Held: Mandamus is a separate common-law remedy within circuit court original jurisdiction; dismissal of the mandamus claim solely for §10-10.1 defects was improper — reversed and remanded for proceedings on mandamus

Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (1993) (legal-sufficiency standard for section 2-619 motions)
J&J Ventures Gaming, LLC v. Wild, Inc., 2016 IL 119870 (2016) (definition and scope of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21 (1990) (courts lack inherent authority to hear election contests except as provided by statute)
Hough v. Will County Bd. of Elections, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1092 (2003) (failure to strictly comply with §10-10.1 deprives circuit court of jurisdiction)
Nelson v. Qualkinbush, 389 Ill. App. 3d 79 (2009) (service upon attorney insufficient under §10-10.1)
Bettis v. Marsaglia, 2014 IL 117050 (2014) (service on each member of an electoral board satisfies §10-10.1’s personal-service requirement)
Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois Dep’t of Transp., 233 Ill. 2d 324 (2009) (Administrative Review Law precludes other remedies only if expressly adopted)
In re Claudia K., 91 Ill. 2d 469 (1982) (mandamus is within circuit court’s inherent jurisdiction)