Solomon v. Wiseman
2025 IL App (1st) 250351-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Max Solomon filed nomination papers to run as an Independent candidate for mayor of the Village of Hazel Crest in the April 1, 2025 election.
- Isaac R. Wiseman, as the village clerk, initially acknowledged these papers and indicated that Solomon would appear on the ballot.
- On January 24, 2025, Wiseman informed Solomon that he would not be certified for the ballot because he had also filed for the South Suburban College Board, thus being a candidate for two incompatible offices.
- No objections were formally filed against Solomon's nomination papers.
- Solomon filed an emergency mandamus action seeking to compel Wiseman to certify him for the ballot, alleging Wiseman had a clear ministerial duty to do so.
- The circuit court granted Wiseman’s motion to dismiss, finding that Solomon’s complaint failed to allege facts showing eligibility for certification under Section 10-7 and 10-8 of the Illinois Election Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of mandamus complaint | Solomon argued he had a clear right to certification after timely, proper filing and no objections. | Wiseman argued Solomon failed to allege facts for mandamus: no clear right, duty, or authority. | Dismissal appropriate; complaint did not plead facts establishing clear right to relief. |
| Effect of filing for two offices | Solomon said Wiseman couldn’t look beyond the nomination papers’ face to find dual candidacy. | Wiseman said Section 10-7 barred dual candidacy for incompatible offices in one election. | Complaint did not allege facts dispelling dual candidacy; Wiseman not compelled to certify. |
| Clerk’s authority under Election Code | Certification was a ministerial act required by law absent objections or defects on nomination papers. | Duty only if papers are in apparent conformity and valid under the Election Code. | Clerk had no clear duty absent sufficient facts of apparent conformity or validity. |
| Right to immediate mandamus relief | Court should compel immediate certification. | Not all elements of mandamus met; further proceedings required if complaint survives. | Court’s role is not to grant relief but review sufficiency of complaint; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 2011 IL 110166 (standard for dismissal under section 2-615).
- Druck v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 387 Ill. App. 3d 144 (conditions precedent for nomination papers’ validity under § 10-8).
- Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (complaint may not rest on conclusory allegations for dismissal motions).
- Burris v. White, 232 Ill. 2d 1 (mandamus as an extraordinary remedy and its requirements).