2020 IL App (1st) 200240
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Jay Ramirez filed nomination papers (Dec. 2, 2019) for First Ward Democratic committeeperson; Lauren Weber challenged sufficiency (Dec. 9, 2019).
- Board determined Ramirez submitted 896 valid signatures (undisputed).
- Dispute centered on the applicable minimum: Ramirez argued 5% of the ward’s primary vote from March 2016 (599 signatures); the board used 5% of the highest Democratic vote in Nov. 2018 (Jesse White — 20,634 votes → 1,032 signatures).
- The board refused to print Ramirez’s name on the March 17, 2020 primary ballot; the circuit court affirmed; Ramirez appealed.
- Appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, affirmed the board’s use of the November 2018 vote total, and granted the board’s request to remove Ramirez’s name from ballots and voting machines (vacating the prior stay/injunction).
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez's Argument | Board/Objector's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper election to use under 10 ILCS 5/7-10(k) to compute 5% signature threshold | Use "last regular election at which an officer was regularly scheduled to be elected from that ward" to mean the last election where an office was elected exclusively for the ward (March 2016 primary; 11,979 votes → 599 signatures) | Use the most recent "last regular election" with votes cast by ward electors for the party (Nov. 2018 highest-party vote in ward — Jesse White — 20,634 → 1,032 signatures) | Court adopted board’s plain‑language approach: use the last regular election’s relevant party vote (Nov. 2018), requiring 1,032 signatures. |
| Whether board must look only to officers elected exclusively "from" the ward | Statutory text should be read to require exclusivity (offices elected "for" the ward) | "From" includes any officer for whom ward voters were entitled to vote; legislature intended the most recent available election measure of ward primary electors | Court rejected exclusivity reading; refused to read extra words into the statute and favored interpretation that measures current eligible primary voters. |
| As-applied equal protection challenge (different signature calculations used by Cook County clerk) | Board’s differing calculation violates equal protection as-applied | Board: argument forfeited for not being properly raised and ruled on below; no AG notice; record limitation | Court held the constitutional claim forfeited for failure to properly present/obtain a ruling before the board and therefore declined to address it. |
| Interim relief — whether to keep Ramirez’s name on ballots (stay/injunction) | Maintain name on ballot to protect voters’ effective vote pending appeal | Remove name given multiple adverse rulings and low likelihood of successful rehearing/appeal; provide notice and remove votes if printed | Court granted board/objector relief: vacated stay/injunction, ordered removal from machines/ballots and voter notice that votes for Ramirez will be suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (appellate review focuses on the electoral board’s decision and record)
- Gjersten v. Board of Election Commissioners, 791 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1986) (reduced ward committeeperson signature requirement from 10% to 5%)
- Lockhart v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 328 Ill. App. 3d 838 (2002) (interpreting alternative statutory lines for countywide vs. district-elected offices; distinguished)
- Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (2004) (principles of statutory interpretation; give effect to legislature’s intent and plain language)
- Pascente v. County Officers Electoral Board, 373 Ill. App. 3d 871 (2007) (standards for appellate review of electoral board decisions)
- Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111 (1981) (purpose of signature requirements is to limit ballot to candidates with minimal demonstrated support)