Wiesner v. Brennan
53 N.E.3d 371
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Jennifer Shilakis Wiesner (Candidate) filed nominating papers for Democratic nomination to fill a Du Page County circuit-court vacancy for the March 15, 2016 primary. Joan C. Brennan (Objector) filed objections challenging many signatures and pages of the petition.
- Objector alleged various signature defects and specifically challenged petition sheets 59–80 (272 signatures) as invalid because their headings identified the office differently than other sheets.
- At the County Election Commission hearing, testimony revealed that notary Terra Howard did not administer oaths/affirmations to the circulators (and Candidate admitted Howard did not administer an oath to her on the statement of candidacy).
- The Commission struck 509 signatures on sheets notarized by Howard and Candidate’s statement of candidacy, finding Candidate fell below the 500-signature threshold and thus disqualified Candidate from the ballot; the Commission nevertheless upheld the challenge to sheets 59–80 on substantial-compliance grounds.
- The circuit court reversed the Commission and ordered Candidate on the ballot; this appeal affirms the trial court, holding the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by deciding on notarization grounds not pled and otherwise correctly applying substantial-compliance rules to the headings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Objector) | Defendant's Argument (Wiesner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission properly invalidated nomination papers because the notary failed to administer oaths/affirmations | Notary Howard did not administer required oaths; therefore sheets and statement of candidacy are invalid | Objector never pled notarization as a ground; Commission exceeded authority by deciding an unpled issue | Commission exceeded authority: board may decide only objections pled; reversal of Commission’s notary-based disqualification affirmed |
| Whether petition sheets with nonuniform headings (sheets 59–80) violated 7-10 and required disqualification | Sheets 59–80 named a different office and thus are void; signatures on them should be struck | Headings still identified circuit-court judge and the specific vacancy; no voter confusion — substantial compliance | Substantial compliance found; headings adequately identified the single vacancy and did not cause confusion; sheets valid |
| Whether Candidate should have been defaulted for violating Commission exclusion orders (witness contact) | Candidate and counsel communicated with excluded witnesses; default sanction was required | Commission’s lesser sanction (excluding witnesses) was within its discretion | No abuse of discretion: Commission permissibly excluded witnesses rather than entering default; sanction targeted Candidate and did not prejudice Objector |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (standards of review for electoral-board decisions and mixed questions of law and fact)
- Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill. 2d 48 (1976) (nominating papers must not create confusion as to office sought; statement of candidacy is part of nomination papers)
- Fortas v. Dixon, 122 Ill. App. 3d 697 (1984) (board may strike sheets where evidence shows a pattern of fraud or false swearing)
- Salgado v. Marquez, 356 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (2005) (analysis of whether offices differ in type and whether error frustrates petition’s purpose)
- Pascente v. County Officers Electoral Board of the County of Cook, 373 Ill. App. 3d 871 (2007) (if papers describe only one vacancy, no basis for voter confusion)
- Delay v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 312 Ill. App. 3d 206 (2000) (electoral board may not raise objections not pled by objector)
- Siegel v. Lake County Officers Electoral Board, 385 Ill. App. 3d 452 (2008) (Election Code does not permit amendments to objections)
- Portman v. Department of Human Services, 393 Ill. App. 3d 1084 (2009) (appellate deference to administrative body’s application of its own rules unless arbitrary or unreasonable)