Stone v. BOARD OF ELECTION COM'RS FOR CHICAGO
643 F.3d 543
7th Cir.2011Background
- Chicago requires 12,500 signatures over 90 days for mayoral ballot access, with no filing fee.
- Plaintiffs Jay Stone, Frederick White, Frank Coconate, Denise Denison, Bill Walls, and Howard Ray challenge the signature requirement as unconstitutional.
- Plaintiffs filed in federal court seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction against enforcing the signature requirement for the February 22, 2011 election.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction.
- The February 22, 2011 election occurred and the signature requirement was enforced.
- The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal as moot and lacks jurisdiction due to the relief sought being unreturnable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot and within jurisdiction? | Stone argues ongoing relief on a past election is still reviewable. | Board contends the appeal seeks moot relief after the election; no live controversy remains. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; mootness and lack of viable relief. |
| Does the capable-of-repetition, yet-evading-review exception apply? | Claim could recur before 2015 mayoral election and evade review. | The exception does not apply; actions are reviewable now and can be addressed before 2015. | Exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1971) (mootness when relief cannot affect litigants' rights)
- Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc. v. DiMartinis, 495 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2007) (mootness exception analysis for appellate jurisdiction)
- Stewart v. Taylor, 104 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1997) (possibility of new election could sustain jurisdiction)
- Gjertsen v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of the City of Chicago, 751 F.2d 199 (7th Cir. 1984) (capable-of-repetition exception not satisfied)
- Worldwide Street Preachers' Fellowship v. Peterson, 388 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2004) (capable-of-repetition analysis in Seventh Circuit)
- S. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 219 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1911) (exception for actions capable of repetition yet evading review)