Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board
2012 IL App (1st) 120581
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Brewer filed nomination papers for Cook County Circuit Court (Starks Judicial Vacancy) for the March 20, 2012 primary with 4,242 signatures on 428 petition sheets.
- One page (176) contained 15 signatures for Nichole C. Patton for a different judicial office, inadvertently included.
- Samuelson objected to Brewer’s candidacy alleging page 176 violated numbering/section 7-10; the Board overruled the objection.
- Examiners sustained 3,003 signatures as invalid, leaving 1,239 valid signatures (above the 1,000 required); page 176 signatures were not counted toward Brewer’s total.
- Samuelson challenged the Board’s use of substantial compliance rather than strict compliance and whether the single nonconforming sheet could defeat Brewer’s candidacy; the circuit court upheld the Board, and Samuelson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs review of nominating petitions (strict vs substantial) | Samuelson argues strict compliance. | Brewer argues Board properly applied substantial compliance. | Substantial compliance is proper; page 176 is a minor technical deviation. |
| Did the inclusion of page 176 invalidate Brewer’s candidacy | The aberrant page violated numbering and should invalidate all following sheets. | Aberrant page 176 is de minimis and does not void the petition. | Brewer’s petition substantially complied; inclusion of page 176 did not invalidate candidacy. |
| Whether Brewer’s papers were in apparent conformity with the Election Code | If not, Brewer’s papers should be invalidated. | Apparent conformity test does not require strict perfection; minor deviations acceptable. | Brewer’s papers were in apparent conformity; issue waived or rejected on merits. |
| Whether enforcing page 176 prejudiced voters or violated rights | Inclusion of page 176 disenfranchises its signers and violates rights. | Right to ballot access outweighs minor technical deviations; no disenfranchisement shown. | No constitutional violation; ballot access protected; minor technical error permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delay v. Board of Election Commissioners, 312 Ill. App. 3d 206 (2000) (Board acts within jurisdiction; may consider new objections within scope of petition)
- Mitchell v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 399 Ill. App. 3d 18 (2010) (objector must raise issues in petition; Board cannot raise new grounds sua sponte)
- King v. Justice Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886 (1996) (substantial compliance governs section 7-10; not all defects require strict compliance)