Court Rules for Candidates in Another Notary Challenge
Candidates in several different jurisdictions around Illinois faced
similar objections this election cycle, all based on an allegation that notarial
jurats on their statement of candidacy forms were legally insufficient because
they failed to contain the language “who to me is personally known.” That
language was missing from the template forms provided by the State Board of
Elections, causing a number of candidates to have their nomination papers challenged as legally deficient. However, an Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled that the nomination papers of three
candidates from Calumet City were legally valid, despite the alleged
notarization flaw, because the statement of candidacy forms were in strict
compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Election Code, and they substantially
complied with other provisions that are merely directory in nature. Akin, et al., v. Calumet City Municipal Officers Electoral Bd., 2013 IL App (1st) 130441.
This decision is in accord with a slightly earlier opinion
from the Sixth Division of the same appellate court that held that the
nomination papers of nine other candidates from Calumet City Calumet City
The candidates in the Akin
case (represented by Ancel Glink) took their arguments one step further than in Cortez by asserting that not only did they substantially comply with the statute’s suggested
language, their nomination papers also strictly complied with the mandatory
provisions of section 7-10. The law, they argued, is split in two sections, one
of which contains mandatory requirements with which strict compliance is
necessary, and the other of which contains suggested language for statement of
candidacy forms that must be worded “in substantially the following form.”
The Akin court agreed with the candidates, holding that
the nomination papers were indeed in strict compliance with the mandatory
requirement that they “shall be subscribed and sworn to by such candidate
before some officer authorized to take acknowledgement of deeds in the State.”
10 ILCS 5/7-10. With respect to the directory provisions - that
statements of candidacy forms should include a notary jurat with the “personally
known” language - the court held the candidates’ failure to strictly comply with
the suggested form did not invalidate the nomination papers because they still
strictly complied with the mandatory notarization process and therefore caused
no threat to the integrity of the electoral process.
The Akin court
stated: “We agree with Candidates that their forms were in ‘strict’ compliance
with the mandatory elements and that the alleged deficiencies related to
directory provisions that provided that the statement of candidacy ‘shall be in
substantially the following form.’
However, even assuming arguendo that
section 7-10 taken as a whole is a mandatory statute, and applying the doctrine
of substantial compliance consistent with the case law noted above, we conclude
that Candidates substantially complied with section 7-10’s requirements even
though the notarial juriat [sic] did not contain the language that the
candidate was ‘personally known’ to the certifying officer.”
Post Authored by Adam Lasker, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment