Rose v. Board of Election Commissioners
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4468
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- In January 2015 Rose submitted nomination petitions for Chicago 7th Ward alderman; Illinois law then required 473 valid signatures (four-percent formula) to appear on the ballot.
- The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners concluded Rose had only 414 valid signatures and excluded him from the February 24, 2015 ballot.
- Rose sued in Cook County Circuit Court seeking judicial review, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process, Illinois constitutional, and Voting Rights Act claims; the state court denied relief in a written February 3, 2015 decision.
- Rose did not appeal the state-court judgment; he then filed a substantively identical federal suit asserting the same constitutional and statutory theories and adding a § 1983 claim.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the federal amended complaint as claim-precluded by the state-court judgment; the district court dismissed with prejudice and Rose appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rose's federal suit is barred by claim preclusion | Rose contends his federal action should proceed despite the state-court judgment | State argues the state-court final merits judgment bars the federal action under Illinois claim preclusion | Affirmed: claim preclusion applies; state judgment was final on the merits and bars the federal suit |
| Whether Illinois courts could adjudicate Rose’s federal constitutional claims | Rose claims state judicial-review statute limited the state court's power to decide constitutional claims | Defendants point to Illinois precedent recognizing state courts may decide constitutional challenges to election-board decisions | Held: Illinois courts were competent to decide federal constitutional claims; preclusion satisfied |
| Effect of adding a § 1983 claim in federal court | Rose argues § 1983 claim warrants separate federal adjudication | Defendants assert § 1983 arises from the same operative facts and could have been raised in state court | Held: § 1983 claim is precluded as it arises from the same transaction and could have been litigated earlier |
| Whether Rose had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court | Rose says he lacked a fair chance to appeal because the case became moot before appeal time expired | Defendants say Rose had normal procedural rights and chose not to appeal | Held: Rose had a full and fair opportunity; mootness of appeal opportunity does not negate adequacy; preclusion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Gordon, 712 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for claim-preclusion dismissals)
- Walczak v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 739 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2014) (Illinois claim-preclusion elements explained)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990) (state courts presumptively competent to adjudicate federal claims)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (§ 1983 claims precluded when they could have been brought in state court)
- Jackson-Hicks v. E. St. Louis Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 28 N.E.3d 170 (Ill. 2015) (state courts may consider constitutional challenges in election-board judicial review)
- Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Co., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (full and fair opportunity to litigate requirement for preclusion)