Illinois Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Election Law
[UPDATED THROUGH JUNE 6, 2011]
Goodman v. Ward
Supreme Court Case Number: 109796
Appellate Court: Third District
Appellate Court Case Number: 3-09-1031
Issue Presented: Is a candidate for a judgeship in a particular judicial subcircuit required to be a resident of that subcircuit on the date the candidate petitions to have his or her name placed on the primary ballot?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Petitioner challenged the listing on the primary ballot of a candidate for Circuit Court Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Fourth Subcircuit. Petitioner argued that the candidate’s lack of residency within the subcircuit made him ineligible as a candidate pursuant to Article VI, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution, which requires that a candidate be a “resident of the unit which selects him.” Following Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill.2d 317 (1988) and Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill.2d 508 (2009), the court held that when a judgeship concerns a portion of a circuit, a candidate must be a resident in that portion at the time of filing his or her nomination papers. Justice Wright dissented.
Citation to Opinion: 2010 WL 184081
Jackson v. The Board of Election Commissions of the City of Chicago
Supreme Court Case Number: 111928
Appellate Court: First District, Division Four
Appellate Court Case Number: 1-11-0361
Issue Presented: Are property taxes a "tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality" within the meaning of 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(b), which provides that certain facts disqualify a candidate for an elective municipal office?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Appellee filed nominating papers to run as a candidate for Chicago City alderman. An objector's petition charged that appellee was not eligible to run because she was in arrears for back property taxes, and thus owed a "tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality" within the meaning of 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(b). Relying upon a letter from the city of Chicago indicating that the city did not find a record of certain outstanding debts, the hearing officer overruled the objection, and the Board of Elections agreed. The objector appealed to the Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board of Elections. The Appellate Court found that the Electoral Board's decision was clearly erroneous and reversed. On appeal, appellee argued that because the city of Chicago would have no standing to enforce a judgment for unpaid property taxes, there was no "indebtedness due" to the city of Chicago. The Appellate Court disagreed, finding that the plain language of the statute provided that although property taxes were collected by the Cook County collector, the money was due to the city. The Court held that the city would have standing to enforce payment of its property taxes. The letter received by appellee from the city was not dispositive, the Court held, because city property taxes were collected through the county collector.
Wisnasky-Bettorf v. Pierce
Supreme Court Case Number: 111253
Appellate Court: Fifth District
Appellate Court Case Number: 05-10-0265
Issue Presented: Under Section 7-61 of the Illinois Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/7-61, must an established political party timely file a resolution with the appropriate official in order to fill a vacancy in nomination when no candidate appeared on the primary ballot for that party or ran as a write-in candidate?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: In February 2010, the three established political parties in Illinois – Republican, Democratic, and Green – held primary elections to determine their candidates for the November general elections. No candidate appeared on the ballot for the Republican nomination for St. Clair County Board of Review, and no candidate was nominated as a write-in candidate. In late March, the Republican Central Committee for St. Clair County nominated the petitioner as the party’s candidate, and shortly thereafter, the party filed a “resolution/certificate of appointment” with the county clerk in an attempt to perfect the petitioner’s nomination. An objector filed a petition, seeking that the candidate’s name be stricken from the ballot on the grounds that no timely resolution had been filed. The board allowed the objection, and the Circuit Court affirmed its decision. The Appellate Court affirmed. Section 7-61 of the Code was amended, effective 2010, to require that a nominee designated by the appropriate committee of his or her party must file nominating petitions with the required number of signatures, similarly to candidates wishing to be placed on the ballot. Appellant argued that the 2010 amendments had created an alternative way of achieving nomination which did not include the requirement of a timely-filed party resolution. The Appellate Court disagreed. Justice Spomer dissented.
