Rudd v. The Lake County Electoral Board
2016 IL App (2d) 160649
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Thomas Rudd, incumbent Lake County Coroner, filed nominating papers for the March 2016 Democratic primary but withdrew and did not appear on the primary ballot or vote.
- On June 27, 2016, Rudd filed nominating papers to run as an independent for the November 2016 general election.
- Michael Donnenwirth (the Democratic nominee) objected to Rudd’s independent petitions on two grounds: (1) nonconsecutive pagination of signature pages and (2) statutory ineligibility under 10 ILCS 5/7-43 (the no-party-switching/disaffiliation rule).
- The Lake County Electoral Board overruled the pagination objection (finding substantial compliance) but sustained the disqualification objection under section 7-43, denying Rudd a place on the ballot.
- Rudd sought judicial review; the circuit court affirmed the Board, and Rudd appealed. The appellate court reviewed the Board’s decision de novo because facts were undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rudd’s withdrawal from the primary and public statements constitute "disaffiliation" such that 10 ILCS 5/7-43 does not bar his independent candidacy | Rudd: withdrawing and not voting in the primary, plus publicly announcing independent intent, effectively disaffiliated him and erased the prior party filing | Board/Donnenwirth: once Rudd filed as an established-party candidate that sworn filing is a public record and section 7-43 bars subsequent independent filing in same election cycle regardless of withdrawal or voting | Held: Withdrawal and nonvoting do not negate the prior sworn party filing; section 7-43 applies and disqualifies Rudd from running as an independent in this cycle |
| Whether section 7-43 violates equal protection by treating independent candidates differently than new-party candidates | Rudd: statute allows formation of new political parties post-primary yet bars independents, creating an unequal classification | Board: new-party candidates and independents are not similarly situated because new parties are ongoing, affiliated organizations while independents are unaffiliated individuals | Held: No equal protection violation; independents and new-party candidates are not similarly situated, so statutory distinction is permissible |
| Whether section 7-43 infringes free speech/associational rights or imposes an unconstitutional burden on ballot access | Rudd: statute restricts access to ballot and burdens speech/association | Board: restriction is modest, similar to disaffiliation rules upheld by courts, and serves compelling state interests in electoral stability and preventing splintering | Held: Statute is constitutional as applied; burden is not severe and is justified by state's legitimate/compelling interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (upheld one-year disaffiliation rule as supporting electoral stability and preventing factionalism)
- Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51 (1973) (struck down a longer party-switching restriction as unconstitutional)
- Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752 (1973) (upheld an 11-month voter party-switch restriction)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (invalidated laws making ballot access virtually impossible)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (framework for assessing burdens on ballot access and associational rights)
- Jackson-Hicks v. East St. Louis Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 2015 IL 118929 (2015) (standard: de novo review of electoral board decisions when facts undisputed)
- Hossfeld v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 238 Ill. 2d 418 (2010) (recognizes party-switching restrictions as important protections within legislative discretion)