Sbarra-Hagee v. Lake County Electoral Board
2022 IL App (2d) 220193
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- On March 7, 2022, Catherine Sbarra filed nominating papers (including a sworn statement of candidacy) to run as the Republican candidate for Lake County board member from district 18, declaring residency in Lake Zurich.
- On March 21, 2022, Catherine King objected, alleging Sbarra did not reside in district 18; Sbarra admitted she did not reside in the district when filing.
- The Lake County Electoral Board sustained the objection (Apr. 6, 2022) and ordered Sbarra’s name removed from the primary ballot, reasoning that district-based elections require district residency and that a candidate must be qualified when filing.
- Sbarra petitioned for review in the circuit court, which reversed the Board (May 27, 2022), concluding section 2-3015 only requires county residency and that district residency at filing was not required.
- The Appellate Court reviewed the Board’s statutory construction de novo and reversed the circuit court, holding Sbarra was required to reside in district 18 at the time she filed her statement of candidacy and affirming the Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Sbarra's Argument | King’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a candidate for county board must reside in the district they seek at the time of filing | Not required; section 2-3015 requires only county residency for one year prior to election | Required; district-based elections (55 ILCS 5/2-3003) and related Election Code provisions imply a district residency requirement | Yes. Candidate must reside in the district at time of filing; failure to do so disqualifies candidacy |
| Does the phrase "elected from each district" in 2-3003(1) impose a residency requirement | "From" concerns apportionment, not residency; 2-3003 is about districting plans | "From" reasonably implies residency for representation; legislature intended members be elected from (i.e., reside in) their districts | No; the word "from" alone does not create a residency requirement — legislature elsewhere uses the explicit phrase "from and residing in" when it intends that requirement |
| Do Election Code vacancy and appointment provisions (e.g., 25-11 and 25-2) support a district-residency qualification at filing | 25-11 governs appointments to vacancies and does not impose residency for elected members | 25-11 and vacancy language show the legislature treats district residency as essential and would be absurd to allow elected members who do not reside in their districts | Harmonizing statutes: 25-2(4) makes leaving the district a vacancy; under Goodman and Cinkus a candidate must meet qualifications when filing, so district residency is required at filing to avoid an immediate vacancy and inconsistent qualifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (statements of candidacy require that candidate be qualified at time of filing)
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (candidates must meet qualifications, including residency, when they submit statement of candidacy)
- Lombard Public Facilities Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 378 Ill. App. 3d 921 (2008) (administrative-agency decisions are reviewed under standards depending on whether law or fact or mixed question is involved)