Quinn v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago Electoral Board
132 N.E.3d 815
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- In August 2018 Pat Quinn and Take Charge Chicago submitted petitions proposing two binding referenda for the November 6, 2018 Chicago ballot (mayoral term limits; elected Consumer Advocate).
- Objectors (Czaja and Larson) challenged the petitions before the Chicago Electoral Board, arguing (inter alia) a statutory "rule of three" limited referenda on a single ballot and that two referenda on one petition violated the Election Code and Illinois Constitution.
- The Electoral Board (via a hearing officer) sustained the objections, struck the petitions, and declined to address the petitioners’ constitutional challenges; the Board’s written order precluded the referenda from appearing on any election ballot.
- Petitioners sought administrative review and, separately, a writ of mandamus directing the Board of Election to (a) canvass and certify November 6, 2018 results (the ballots nevertheless contained the referenda) or (b) place the referenda on the February 26, 2019 ballot. Procedural defects led to partial dismissal, and on remand petitioners filed an amended two-count mandamus complaint.
- The circuit court dismissed the amended mandamus complaint under section 2-615 for failure to state a cause of action; petitioners appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the complaint failed to allege clear statutory authority for the Board to retroactively canvass and certify November 2018 referendum results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was an available remedy to compel the Board to canvass and certify November 2018 referendum results | Mandamus is appropriate because Board is responsible for placing referenda on ballots and canvassing/certifying results; petitioners sought mandamus to compel that ministerial duty | Defendants argued mandamus is not a substitute for administrative review and the petitioners failed to state mandamus elements | Court: Mandamus can be appropriate in some election contexts, but here petitioners failed to plead clear statutory authority for the Board to take the retroactive action sought, so dismissal was proper |
| Whether the complaint alleged petitioners’ clear right to relief, defendant’s clear duty, and defendant’s clear authority (mandamus elements) | Petitioners alleged clear right and board duty; requested relief was ministerial (canvass/certify) | Defendants disputed sufficiency of pleadings and argued administrative review was the proper course | Court: Even assuming right and duty, complaint lacked specific allegations or statutory citations showing Board had authority to comply with the requested retroactive canvass/certification; conclusions insufficient |
| Mootness of the appeal as to alternative relief (placing referenda on later ballots) | Petitioners suggested alternative relief (e.g., future ballot placement) could vindicate rights | Defendants argued later elections passed so appeal is moot for ballot placement remedy | Court: Appeal not moot as to the non-moot request (canvass/certify November 2018 results); alternative relief requesting placement on subsequent ballots is moot and was not preserved on appeal |
| Whether the Administrative Review Law precludes mandamus against an electoral board | Petitioners relied on availability of mandamus under certain circumstances | Defendants argued Administrative Review procedure forecloses other remedies here | Court: Section 10-10.1 does not adopt the Administrative Review Law’s bar on other remedies; mandamus remains available in appropriate circumstances, but availability is fact-specific |
Key Cases Cited
- Hossfeld v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 238 Ill. 2d 418 (Illinois 2010) (mootness doctrine and effectual relief inquiry)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (Illinois 2008) (section 10-10.1 does not adopt the Administrative Review Law but standards are substantially similar)
- Outcom, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Transportation, 233 Ill. 2d 324 (Illinois 2009) (when Administrative Review Law is adopted it displaces other remedies)
- Dooley v. McGillicudy, 63 Ill. 2d 54 (Illinois 1976) (mandamus to compel election authority action can be appropriate in certain circumstances)
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 83 Ill. 2d 236 (Illinois 1980) (recognizing circumstances where mandamus against election authority is proper)
- O’Brien v. White, 219 Ill. 2d 86 (Illinois 2006) (electoral relief and availability of mandamus in election disputes)
- Rodriguez v. Illinois Prisoner Review Board, 376 Ill. App. 3d 429 (Ill. App. Ct.) (elements and pleading requirements for mandamus)