Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter


Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Court Finds Substantial Complaince with Election Code

An Illinois Appellate Court recently found candidates substantially complied with the Election Code against a challenge to the language on the circulator's certification. Gallagher v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board.

Candidates for the office of Appellate Court Judge filed nomination papers to be included on the March 2024 primary election ballot. The nomination papers included affidavits certifying their petitions were signed during the required statutory period. Objectors claimed the candidates' affidavits did not comply with the Election Code (Code) because the date range deviated from the Code’s required language,and the candidates should not be on the ballot.

The affidavits contained statements that all signatures were provided during the period of “September 5, 2023 to December 4, 2023.” The Code requires that nomination petitions included a circulator's certification that the nomination papers were signed no more than 90 days before papers were due to be filed. The objectors argued that the affidavit language did not match the statutorily prescribed language.

The Electoral Board ruled in favor of the objectors and ordered the candidates’ names to be removed from the ballot, finding that strict compliance with the prescribed language of the Code was required. The candidates appealed, and the circuit court found the affidavits to be in substantial compliance and ordered the names to appear on the ballot. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with the circuit court and held that the affidavits complied with the Code as this provision of the statute only required a showing of substantial compliance. The Court reasoned that since the affidavits contained an affirmative statement that complied with the purpose of the Code, the candidates were found to be in substantial compliance and the Court ordered their names to appear on the ballot.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink


Post a Comment