2015 IL App (1st) 150508
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Ken Zurek and two other candidates filed nomination petitions for Franklin Park village trustee for the April 7, 2015 consolidated election. Randall Petersen filed an objector’s petition contesting the nomination papers.
- Objector alleged each petition sheet’s circulator affidavit failed to comply with 10 ILCS 5/10-4 because it did not state specific dates (or permitted alternatives) of circulation; sheets instead contained a conclusory statement that signatures were within the statutory period.
- The Franklin Park Municipal Officers Electoral Board held hearings, rejected candidates’ motions to dismiss, and sustained the objection, invalidating the nomination papers; the Cook County circuit court affirmed.
- Zurek appealed pro se to the appellate court; the court limited relief to Zurek alone because the other candidates had not joined or signed the appeal.
- The appellate court reviewed the electoral board’s statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed, holding the circulator statements did not satisfy the statutory requirements and thus signatures were invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zurek) | Defendant's Argument (Petersen / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zurek could represent/appeal for co-candidates | Zurek appealed on behalf of all three candidates | Other candidates did not sign notice of appeal; pro se Zurek cannot represent them | Appeal is only on Zurek’s behalf; co-candidates’ claims not before court (appeal dismissed as to them) |
| Whether objector’s filing complied with 10-8 (two copies) | Objector failed to file required two copies; petition should be dismissed | Filing and acceptance create reasonable inference statutory copies were tendered and distributed per 10-8; no proof otherwise | No requirement to produce a receipt showing number of copies; filing itself supports compliance; board properly proceeded with objection |
| Whether omission of the new political party as a named party in objection voided the objection | Omitted “Progress Through Lower Taxes Party”; party is an indispensable party | New party did not legally exist because petitions were invalid; it cannot be a party | Political party did not exist as legal entity; omission was not fatal to objection |
| Whether circulator affidavits complied with 10-4 (dates requirement) | Broad/conclusive affidavit (“signed within statutory time period”) and later blanket affidavit by Zurek suffice (substantial compliance) | Statute requires a factual date, date range, or 90-day certification on each sheet; conclusory language defeats the affidavit’s purpose | Affidavits were defective; statute is mandatory and requires strict literal compliance; signatures and sheets invalidated |
| Whether remedy should be a special election if Zurek excluded | Exclusion is harmful and disenfranchises voters; request special election | Ballot exclusion was statutory consequence of defective petitions; no basis for special election | No special election warranted; board and circuit court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Akpakpan, 402 Ill. App. 3d 822 (2010) (notice-of-appeal signature requirement—appeal only by signatory)
- Thomas v. Powell, 289 Ill. App. 3d 143 (1997) (objector must follow statutory filing and timeliness requirements; record controls)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (de novo review for statutory interpretation of electoral board decisions)
- Pascente v. County Officers Electoral Board, 373 Ill. App. 3d 871 (2007) (appellate review focuses on electoral board decision)
- Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21 (1990) (election statutes interpreted strictly to ensure fair elections)
- Sakonyi v. Lindsey, 261 Ill. App. 3d 821 (1994) (circulator affidavit is a meaningful tool to prevent fraudulent signatures)
- Shipley v. Stephenson County Electoral Board, 130 Ill. App. 3d 900 (1985) (purpose of circulator affidavits and enforcement)