Sandefur v. Cunningham Township Officers Electoral Board
987 N.E.2d 808
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Stebbins filed an objection to Sandefur's nominating petition for township assessor on Jan 3, 2013.
- The Board sustained the objection on Jan 18, disqualifying 195 signatures and barring Sandefur from the ballot.
- Sandefur had gathered 303 total signatures; 248 were required to place on the ballot.
- Sandefur previously circulated Democratic petitions and then pursued an Independent candidacy in the same election cycle.
- The trial court upheld the Board's decision; the appellate court reversed, instructing Sandefur's name be placed on the ballot.
- The dispute centers on whether Election Code §10-4 prohibits circulating petitions for more than one party in a single election cycle and, specifically, whether it applies to consolidated primary vs consolidated general elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §10-4 bars petitions for more than one party in the same election cycle. | Sandefur argues §10-4 prohibits a single circulator from petitioning for a party in a consolidated primary and an Independent in a consolidated general election. | The Board argues §10-4 prohibits circulating petitions for more than one party or for an Independent in addition to a party in the next election or in the same consolidated election. | The court held §10-4 does not prohibit this scenario; Sandefur could circulate for a party in a consolidated primary and Independent in a consolidated general election. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlasare v. Will County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (3d) 120699 (2012 IL App (3d) 120699) (standard of review for electoral boards; statutory interpretation)
- Jackson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 2012 IL 111928 (2012 IL 111928) (pure questions of law; de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 226 Ill. 2d 169 (226 Ill. 2d 169) (statutory interpretation; avoid superfluous language)
- General Motors Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Review Board, 361 Ill. App. 3d 271 (361 Ill. App. 3d 271) (interpretation of statutory language; policy considerations in agency decisions)