Friday, December 12, 2025 Julie Tappendorf
In a recent election contest
lawsuit, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of a challenge to a 2022 constitutional amendment election. Weckbacher,
et al. v. Watson, et al.
After a constitutional amendment
was passed by Illinois voters at the 2022 general election (the Workers Rights Amendment that incorporated employee rights to collectively organize and bargain into Article I of the Illinois constitution), a group of
plaintiffs sued the State Board of Elections (Board) to invalidate the
election. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit argued the ballot used in the election, and
approved by the Board, was illegal because it did not print the text of the
constitutional amendment, was not labeled as a “Constitutional Ballot,” and was
not provided to voters as a separate ballot from the “Official Ballot”
containing the names of candidates for elected office. Based on these alleged
ballot issues, the plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration that the ballot
used for the constitutional amendment was illegal, and that the election be
declared invalid, null, and void.
The Board moved to dismiss the
lawsuit arguing that since plaintiffs failed to claim how any irregularities
would have changed the election results or allowed a court to declare the
election void, the lawsuit was deficient. The
Board also argued the circuit court lacked authority over the case because plaintiffs did
not follow the state law governing election contests for constitutional
amendments. The circuit court ruled for the Board and dismissed the lawsuit after
finding the plaintiffs’ claims were not timely and the court lacked authority over the lawsuit.
On appeal, the Appellate Court
upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit.
First, the Appellate Court agreed that the circuit court lacked
authority over the case by noting that circuit courts in Illinois can only hear
election contest cases as provided for by the Illinois Election Code. Under
Illinois law, there are limited avenues for a plaintiff to challenge the
results of an election. While the Election Code authorizes claims challenging the
results of a constitutional amendment election because of alleged
irregularities in the conduct of the election, the code does not allow claims
challenging the validity of an election. As the plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenged
the Board’s administrative actions in certifying the constitutional amendment
ballot and did not challenge the actual results of the constitutional amendment
election, the Appellate Court agreed that the circuit court lacked
authority over the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
Second, the Appellate Court
agreed that the plaintiffs failed to state a proper claim for declaratory relief on the validity of the
constitutional amendment ballot. In this case, over a year had passed since the Board certified the
constitutional amendment to the ballot and the election results were finalized.
As the constitutional amendment election was over by the time plaintiffs filed
their lawsuit, the Appellate Court determined there was no longer an ongoing
dispute between the plaintiffs and the Board and agreed that the lawsuit failed to state a claim for declaratory relief.
Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink
