Rivera v. City of Chicago Electoral Board
2011 IL App (1st) 110283
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Rivera filed nomination papers to be alderman and the Board sustained objections declaring his candidacy invalid.
- The Board issued a written decision and mailed it to Rivera’s counsel; Rivera received it around January 10–11, 2011.
- Rivera filed a petition for judicial review within five days after service, and attached the Board’s decision; he also filed proof of service.
- The Board and objectors moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on improper service under section 10-10.1 of the Election Code.
- The trial court granted the motions to dismiss for improper service, holding no jurisdiction.
- The appellate court held the four service prerequisites are jurisdictional, Rivera failed to serve all necessary parties personally and by certified mail within five days, and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether strict compliance with 10-10.1 is required | Rivera argues 10-10.1 is unconstitutional for time limits and he complied. | Board argues strict compliance is required and his service was defective. | Strict compliance required |
| Whether service on attorneys suffices | Rivera served attorneys, not individuals, within five days. | Service on attorneys suffices under prior practice or is acceptable. | Service on attorneys is insufficient; must serve individuals |
| When does the 5-day period start for service | Time ran from receipt of the decision by Rivera (Jan 10–11). | Time runs from mailing/deposit into the mail (Jan 7). | Time begins when mailed/deposited, not when received |
| Whether Administrative Review Law applies to 10-10.1 | Argues A.R.L. should govern time for service. | A.R.L. does not apply to 10-10.1 except in limited contexts. | A.R.L. does not control 10-10.1 in this context |
| Mootness and public-interest exception | Public-interest mootness should allow review despite mootness. | Case mootness applies; public-interest exception supports review where appropriate but not here. | Public-interest exception applied to avoid dismissal, but lack of jurisdiction due to defective service bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Qualkinbush, 389 Ill. App. 3d 79 (2009) (strict compliance required; service on board and members essential)
- Hough v. Will County Bd. of Elections, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1092 (2003) (service on board members improper if not served personally)
- Bill v. Education Officers Electoral Board, 299 Ill. App. 3d 548 (1998) (four jurisdictional requirements; strict compliance)
- Rita v. Mayden, 364 Ill. App. 3d 913 (2006) (strict compliance required for election-appeal review)
- Allord v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 288 Ill. App. 3d 897 (1997) (necessary parties must be served; attorney service insufficient)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (public-interest exception in moot election cases)
- Chin v. Dept. of Public Aid, 78 Ill. App. 3d 1137 (1979) (service timing under Administrative Review Law context)
- In re Andrea F., 208 Ill. 2d 148 (2003) (mootness and public-interest considerations in appellate review)
- Richardson v. Rock Island County Off. Electoral Bd., 179 Ill. 2d 252 (1997) (mootness and appellate review framework for election matters)
- Land v. Bd. of Education, 202 Ill. 2d 414 (2002) (statutory interpretation in context of service and notice)