Service Requirements of Election Code Must Be Strictly Followed
Doesn't it seems appropriate to report on an election case on Election Day? Quinn v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago Electoral Board, 2018 IL App (1st) 182087
A group of citizens filed petitions for two binding referendum questions that would have been placed on today's ballot in Chicago. The ballot questions would have asked voters whether the office of Chicago mayor should be subject to a term limit of two terms and whether Chicago should establish an elected position for a "Consumer Advocate for taxpayer and consumers." Objections were filed challenging the two referenda, and a hearing officer for the Board of Election Commissioners for the Chicago Electoral Board held a hearing on the objections. At the conclusion of the hearing, and based on the hearing officer's recommendations, the Electoral Board issued a ruling that the two referenda not be on the ballot.
Former Governor Pat Quinn and others filed a lawsuit to appeal the Electoral Board's ruling. The objectors filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the court did not have jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the appellants failed to comply with the service requirements that require service on all parties within 5 days. Although the lawsuit was served on the Electoral Board, the Board of Elections, and the attorney for the objectors on September 17th, the objectors were not personally served until September 19th. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the service requirements.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court, holding that the service requirements in section 10-10.1 of the Election Code must be strictly followed, and a court has no jurisdiction to review an electoral board's decision if service is faulty. In this case, the objectors were not personally served within the statutory time period, so the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the electoral board's ruling.
The appellate court did, however, reverse the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' mandamus claim in its lawsuit, and remanded that portion of the complaint back to the circuit court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment