Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 108: Election Special!

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 108: Election Special!

  Monday, August 10, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink released Quorum Forum Podcast Episode 108: Quorum Forum 108: Election Special!

Summer of 2026 is upon us, and election season is kicking off as spirited candidates, trusted election authorities, and municipalities across Illinois seek to address a host of complex issues. Local election officials and electoral boards have many responsibilities to make elections happen, from processing nomination papers to convening quasi-adjudicative hearings. Meanwhile, local governments must navigate the enforcement of political sign regulations, electioneering laws, and the strict rules governing the use of public funds in referenda.

To help listeners tackle these issues, Ancel Glink’s Erin Monforti and Katie Nagy revisit classic insights from equity partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer and provide vital updates for the 2027 Consolidated Election cycle.  

In This Episode 

• Independent vs. Nonpartisan Candidates: Understand the critical legal distinctions between these two types of candidates and how they appear on the ballot.
• The 2027 Election Timeline: Key dates for the February 23, 2027, Consolidated Primary and the April 6, 2027, Consolidated Election, including petition circulation and filing windows.
• Objection Procedures & "Business Days": How to calculate the five-business-day objection deadline, especially with the Thanksgiving 2026 holiday.
• Electoral Board Mechanics: A deep dive into the "24-hour call" rule, the composition of the board, and the requirement to deliberate in open session.
• Strategic Scheduling: Practical advice for clerks on the "strategic receipt" of objection petitions to ensure boards can meet within statutory deadlines.
• Setting Compensation: Why local governments must set compensation for newly elected officials at least 180 days before their terms begin.
• New Laws: Updates on Public Act 104-443 (redacting candidate addresses) and Public Act 104-438 (prohibiting meetings on election days).
• Public Funds & Referenda: Guidelines on what constitutes "factual information" versus prohibited advocacy when units of local government are involved in public questions.
• FOIA & Arrest Records: A review of PAC Opinion 26-006 regarding the public’s right to access arrest records involving public figures.

Read More

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

Illinois General Assembly Spring 2026 End of Session Tracking

  Friday, May 29, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

As the Illinois General Assembly draws closer to concluding its 2026 spring legislative session, there are a number of outstanding bills likely to be considered that would have a significant impact on local governments throughout Illinois. The General Assembly has been busy so far in the 2026 spring session passing a number of bills that will affect local government operations as well as a bill on regulating electric mobility devices. With three days left until the General Assembly recesses on May 31^st, the Governor’s BUILD Plan legislation, and other bills impacting local governments, may still be considered.

Below is a list of bills we’re tracking with updates on the bill’s status through May 28^th. 

Housing Legislation 

House Bill 5626: BUILD Plan Housing Omnibus Bill (First Reading; referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 4060: Middle Housing & Statewide Standards (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4061: Single-Stair Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4062: Statewide Impact Fee Calculation (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee)

 Senate Bill 4063: Third-Party Plan Review (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4064: Parking Reform (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 4071: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (First Reading; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Senate Bill 0331: Restock the Block Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 introduced on May 21^st and recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 0608: Federally Assisted Tenant Protection Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

Senate Bill 635: Faith-Based Housing and Mixed-Use By-Right Act (Second Reading; Senate Floor Amendment No.1 recommended for adoption by the Senate Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5765 / Senate Bill 4200: REAL Housing Act (Frist Reading; referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

Other Legislation Affecting Local Governments 

House Bill 1429: Amendments to IL Homeless Bill of Rights (Second Reading; House Floor Amendment No. 1; House Floor Amendment No. 2 recommended for adoption by House Housing Committee; House Floor Amendment No. 3 recommended for approval by House Housing Committee; Bill and all House floor amendments re-referred to House Rules Committee)

House Bill 5513 / Senate Bill 4016: Power Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee and Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 5326: Digital Library Protection Act (Passed House; House Floor Amendment No.1 and House Floor Amendment No. 2 adopted; First Reading in Senate; referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

House Bill 4712: Amendments to Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (First Reading; Bill re-referred to House Rules Committee) 

Senate Bill 1796: Body Worn Camera FOIA Requests (Senate Committee Amendment No. 2 adopted; Passed Senate; Second Reading in House) 

Senate Bill 2715: OMA and FOIA Amendments: (Passed Senate; Second Reading in House; House Committee Amendment No. 1 adopted by House Executive Committee; House Floor Amendments No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7 recommended for adoption by House Executive Committee) 

House Bill 5784 / Senate Bill 20: Joint Omnibus CBD and Cannabis Regulatory Reform (First Reading in House and referred to House Rules Committee; First Reading in Senate; Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 referred to Senate Assignments Committee) 

Legislation Passed By Both Chambers 

Senate Bill 3336: Electric Mobility Devices (Passed both houses as of May 27, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2836: Government Account Audits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2826: IMRF Pension Benefits (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2769: Transfer of Funds Among Municipal Business District Tax Allocation Funds (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2102: Taxing District Budget and Appropriations Ordinance Filing (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 638: Municipal Postemployment Benefit Trusts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2761: Service Animals and In-Service ADA Trainings (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2913: Teacher Evaluation Plans (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 2914: Procedure for Removing/Dismissing Teachers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Senate Bill 3361: Religious Hairstyles in Schools (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4375: School District Interfund Transfers (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5542: Park District Disconnection Petitions (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5166: Dissolution of Special Districts (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 5167: Township Weed Cutting (Passed both houses as of May 21, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4788: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Curriculum (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4862: School Staff Mental Health Policies (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature from Governor) 

House Bill 4491: Amendment to Public Employee Disability Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 2137: Amendment to Governmental Account Audit Act (Passed both houses as of May 20, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4397: School Psychologist Qualifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 3743: School District Handbook Railroad Safety Messaging (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4137: Amendment to Education for Homeless Children Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4361: Building Inspector Certifications (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 1353: Amendment to Volunteer Emergency Worker Job Protection Act (Passed both houses as of May 19, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

House Bill 4541: Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (Passed both houses as of May 14, 2026; awaiting signature by Governor) 

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Supreme Court Finds Candidate Has Standing to Challenge Illinois Vote Counting Law

Supreme Court Finds Candidate Has Standing to Challenge Illinois Vote Counting Law

  Thursday, January 15, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In another U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, the Court reversed the dismissal of a case filed by three candidates for political office that challenged the State of Illinois' procedure for counting mail-in ballots received after election day. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. The district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the case, finding that the candidates did not have standing to challenge the state law. 

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within 2 weeks of election day. Three candidates for various offices sued the Illinois State Board of Elections claiming that the statute violates federal law, specifically that it conflicts with statutes that set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Both the district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits based on lack of standing.

On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that at least one of the candidates who had filed a lawsuit challenging the statute had a "personal stake" in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election to satisfy the requirement for standing. The Court rejected the dissenting justices' argument that the candidates should have to show actual harm (not potential harm) to have standing to sue.

Note that this decision does not address the substance of the claims made by the candidates against the Illinois law, but simply holds that the candidates have standing to have those claims heard in court.

Read More

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Validity of Constitutional Amendment Election

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Validity of Constitutional Amendment Election

  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

Read More

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

Both Houses Pass the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act

  Tuesday, November 04, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois General Assembly passed a number of bills in the veto session that may be of interest to local governments, including HB 576 which creates the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act. While HB 576 was designed to protect certain state legislative and executive officials, and certain county officials (and not local government officials), the bill's ban on "government agencies" displaying or posting personal information about public officials who make a request that this information not be publicly disclosed expressly applies to units of local government and school districts. The bill has been sent to the Governor for signature.

If signed by the Governor, the Public Official Safety and Privacy Act would prohibit government agencies (including units of local government) from displaying, posting, or disclosing a public official's personal information if the government agency has received a written request from the public official to refrain from disclosing that personal information. It would also require government agencies to remove that content within five business days of a written request under the new Act. The Act also prohibits persons, businesses, and associations from publicly posting or displaying a public official's personal information online when the public official has made a written request that this information not be disclosed. 

"Personal information" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Personal information" means a home address, home telephone number, mobile telephone number, pager number, personal email address, social security number, federal tax identification number, checking and savings account numbers, credit card numbers, marital status, and identity of children under the age of 18.

"Public official" is defined in the bill as follows:

"Public official" includes 

(1) members or former members of the Illinois General Assembly;

(2) constitutional officers or former constitutional officers; 

(3) elected or appointed State's Attorneys

(4) appointed Public Defenders; and

(5) county clerks and members of the Board of Election Commissioners whose responsibilities include administering and overseeing elections.

The bill would also make it unlawful for anyone to knowingly publicly post on the Internet the personal information of a public official or his or her immediate family of the person knows or reasonably should know that publicly posting that information poses an imminent and serious threat to the health and safety of the public official or the public official's immediate family and if the violation is a proximate cause of bodily injury or death of the public official or family member. Violation of this provision would be a Class 3 felony. 

The bill would also amend FOIA to expressly exempt the personal information of public officials from disclosure. 

The would also make several other changes to various statutes, including the Election Code. First, the bill would amend a provision limiting expenditures by a political committee so that it does not apply to expenses relating to personal security services or cybersecurity measures for public officials. It also requires the State Board of Elections to redact the home addresses of public officials and current and past officers of political committees upon written request, and home addresses of candidates for public office upon expiration of the objection filing period, upon request. The bill would also amend the Vehicle Code and FOID card statute to allow public officials to use their work addresses rather than home addresses on their ID cards and vehicle registration applications.

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Redistricting Challenge to State Legislative Maps

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Redistricting Challenge to State Legislative Maps

  Friday, April 11, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a ruling addressing time requirements for bringing constitutional challenges to a legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Illinois General Assembly. McCombie v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections.

Following the 2020 decennial census, the Illinois General Assembly adopted a redistricting plan (2021 Map) drawing new legislative districts to elect state representatives and state senators beginning at the 2022 general election. Plaintiffs challenged the 2021 Map arguing it was unconstitutional as the new legislative districts were not compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population as required under the Illinois Constitution. Additionally, Plaintiffs argued the 2021 Map was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that denied voters and Republican candidates for the General Assembly a fair election.

The Illinois Speaker of the House and Illinois Senate President intervened in the case arguing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was not timely filed and was barred under a latches defense because they had filed their  lawsuit more than three years since the 2021 Map was first adopted and two elections for General Assembly members had occurred based on the 2021 Map. The intervenors argued the lawsuit should be dismissed under their laches defense because Plaintiffs lacked due diligence in bringing their lawsuit and the opposing party experienced prejudice due to the delay.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled against Plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit based on a laches defense. The Court noted Plaintiffs could have challenged the 2021 Map when it was first adopted and that waiting multiple election cycles to reveal the effects of the redistricting was unpersuasive. According to the Court, allowing Plaintiffs to challenge the 2021 Map now “would be prejudicial and create uncertainty for voters and officeholders alike, now and in the future, as to whether any redistricting plan in Illinois is ever final.”

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Candidate's Appeal of Electoral Board Decision for Late Filing and Failure to Serve

Court Dismisses Candidate's Appeal of Electoral Board Decision for Late Filing and Failure to Serve

  Thursday, April 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A candidate (Candidate) filed nomination papers to run for the office of Township Supervisor. An objection to the Candidate’s nomination was filed, based on a violation of section 10-4 of the Election Code (regarding form of petitions for nomination). The Electoral Board sustained the objection, finding that the Candidate’s nomination papers were invalid.

The Candidate, with legal representation, appealed the Electoral Board’s decision, but the appeal was not timely filed as it was filed more than five days after the decision and he included no proof of service in the filing. The Candidate then filed a series of motions pro se (without legal representation), including a motion to amend his appeal, claiming his lawyer was responsible for the delay in filing and seeking to delete all references to the lawyer. The Candidate also filed “proof of delivery” with the motions, but that proof did not indicate that the parties were actually served in compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Electoral Board filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to review its decision because the Candidate failed to file his petition in time and to properly serve the parties. In response, the Candidate did not dispute that he filed the petition late, but argued his attorney’s misconduct caused the delay, so he should not be penalized. The trial court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Electoral Board that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter.

The Candidate appealed that decision. The Candidate argued that the trial court failed to consider the impact of his attorney’s conduct, and asked that the dismissal of his appeal be overturned. He cited several cases to support his argument that the filing requirement should have been relaxed due to his attorney’s actions. However, the Appellate Court found that the cases he cited did not exist, except for a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with federal law rather than Illinois law. Because the Candidate filed his appeal of the Electoral Board’s decision late, and because he never properly served the parties by registered or certified mail, the Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the Candidate's appeal. Moore v. Thornton Township Electoral Board, 2025 IL App (1st) 250349-U

Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Electoral Board Appeal for Improper Service

Court Dismisses Electoral Board Appeal for Improper Service

  Monday, March 31, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In November 2024, a candidate for the position of School Board Member (Candidate) filed a statement of candidacy which affirmed that her residence was within the School District. A resident of the School District (Objector) objected to the Candidate’s nominating papers, alleging that her address was incorrect and that she resided outside of the District, making her ineligible for a School Board Member position.

The Objector requested that the Electoral Board find that the Candidate was ineligible to appear on the April 2025 ballot. At the Electoral Board hearing, the Candidate moved to dismiss the objection claiming the objection failed to state an “interest” as required by the relevant statute. In response, the Objector argued that being a resident of the School District was enough of an interest to satisfy the requirement. Because the statute required a statement of interest, and the objection failed to state an interest, the Electoral Board granted the Candidate’s motion, dismissing the objection.

The Objector appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that the objection included the Objector's status as a resident of the School District, so no further information was required. The trial court ruled in favor of the Candidate, finding it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the Objector failed to send certified copies of the petition to the parties as required by statute. The trial court also addressed the merits of the appeal, affirming the Electoral Board’s decision dismissing the objection as not “clearly erroneous.”

The Objector appealed that decision, and the Appellate Court also held that the court had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the Objector failed to comply with the service requirements of state law. Although the Objector stated in the petition for review that he served the parties by registered or certified mail, the evidence showed he only sent it by regular mail, which was not sufficient under the statute. As a result, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the portion of the opinion that addressed the merits of the appeal, and affirmed the Electoral Board’s decision dismissing the objection. Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250096-U

Note that the Petitioner also filed identical objections against two other School Board Member Candidates for living outside the School District. The trial court in all three cases reached the same result – dismissing the objections because the Petitioner failed to state an “interest” on his objection. It was also the same result on appeal in all three cases – dismissal for improper service after the Petitioner sent his petitions for review by regular mail rather than certified mail. Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250097-U; Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250098-U.

Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Clerk's Refusal to Certify Candidate's Nomination Papers

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Clerk's Refusal to Certify Candidate's Nomination Papers

  Thursday, March 13, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In November 2024, an independent candidate for Mayor (Candidate) filed his nomination papers for the Consolidated Election with the Village Clerk. After a lottery was held to determine the Candidate’s ballot position, the Clerk notified the Candidate that his name would not be certified to the ballot, because the Candidate’s papers were not in “apparent conformity” with the requirements of the Election Code. Specifically, the Clerk informed the Candidate that he would not be certified to the ballot because he was also running for the office of Trustee of the South Suburban College Board, and the two offices e were incompatible.

The Candidate filed a lawsuit asking the court to order the Clerk to certify his name to the ballot. The Candidate claimed the Clerk had a “duty” to certify his name to the ballot, because he properly filed his nomination papers. The Clerk asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Candidate failed to establish the 3 key elements of a claim for mandamus: (1) a clear right to relief, (2) a clear duty of the Clerk to act, and (3) clear authority for the Clerk to comply with the requested mandamus order.

At the court hearing, the Candidate claimed the Clerk exceeded his authority by evaluating issues beyond the “apparent conformity” of his candidate papers (i.e., looked outside the candidate's filing). Because the issue of office compatibility was not within the Clerk’s power to evaluate, the Candidate argued the Clerk erred by refusing to certify the Candidate’s name to the ballot. 

The trial court granted the Clerk's motion to dismiss the case and the Candidate appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court noted that in order state a viable claim for mandamus, the Candidate had to establish the 3 elements for mandamus, which the Appellate Court determined he failed to do. For example, the Court held that the Candidate failed to allege facts showing that he filed his nomination papers as required by the Election Code, or that his papers were in “apparent conformity” with the Election Code. Without these facts in his complaint to show he had a clear right to relief, the Appellate Court held that the Candidate could not show that the Clerk had a duty to certify his name to the ballot. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss his complaint. The Appellate Court did not assess the “apparent conformity” issue, or whether the offices sought by the Candidate were incompatible. Solomon v. Wiseman. 

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink

Read More

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

  Tuesday, February 25, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent judicial appeal to an Electoral Board decision that struck a candidate from the ballot, the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the candidate failed to serve a copy of the judicial petition on the individual members of the Electoral Board. Williams v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board.

The Appellate Court noted that the service requirement of Section 10-10.1(a) was amended in 2024. The new language requires the party seeking judicial review of an Electoral Board decision to serve a copy of the petition "upon each of the respondents named in the petition for judicial review..." The "respondents" are identified in that Section as "the electoral board, its members, and the prevailing candidates or objectors in the initial proceeding before the [Electoral Board]."

Although the candidate did serve the objector and the Electoral Board, she did not serve the petition on each of the individual members of the Electoral Board. The Court found that to be fatal to her judicial appeal, holding that the General Assembly's amendment to the service requirement expressly requires that service of the judicial petition be made on each individual member of the Electoral Board, and not just on the Board itself.

Read More

Candidate For Mayor Removed From Ballot

Candidate For Mayor Removed From Ballot

  Thursday, February 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent election challenge, an Illinois Appellate Court held that a city clerk did not have a conflict of interest to participate as a member of the Electoral Board and struck a candidate's name from the ballot for failing to fasten her nomination papers for candidacy. Benda v. Parkinson, et al.

A candidate for office of mayor filed nomination papers and other candidacy documents. An objector filed an objection to her candidacy on several bases, including that the nomination papers were not properly fastened and numbered consecutively, among other allegations. The City's Electoral Board scheduled a hearing on the objection, and the candidate's attorney objected to the city clerk sitting on the Electoral Board as the attorney argued she was going to be called as a witness. The Electoral Board Chairman rejected that argument, and the hearing proceeded. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Electoral Board ruled that the candidate's name must be removed from the ballot for failure to comply with the Election Code, including that the candidate's nomination papers were not properly fastened as required by section 10-4.

The candidate appealed the Electoral Board's ruling and the circuit court upheld the Electoral Board's decision and found no conflict of interest with regard to the city clerk serving on the Electoral Board.

On appeal, the Appellate Court also upheld the Electoral Board's decision that the candidate should not appear on the ballot. The Appellate Court rejected the candidate's argument that her due process rights were violated because the city clerk remained on the Electoral Board because the city clerk did not appear as a witness at the hearing. The Appellate Court also upheld the Electoral Board's finding that the nomination papers were not properly fastened, finding that there was testimony at the hearing that the paper clip was removed from the nomination papers before it was filed. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the Board's decision, finding support for the candidate's removal from the ballot.

One Justice dissented from the majority opinion, and would have found a due process violation based on the Electoral Board's refusal to allow the city clerk to testify.

Read More

Appellate Court Rules New Party Candidates for Village Office Should Be on the Ballot

Appellate Court Rules New Party Candidates for Village Office Should Be on the Ballot

  Tuesday, February 18, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently overturned an Electoral Board’s decision disqualifying a new party’s slate of candidates for including political images in the candidate’s nomination petitions, and ordered that the candidates' names be placed on the ballot in Maloney v. Janecyk. 

A political party (Party) filed new party nomination petitions last fall nominating a slate of candidates for village offices at the 2025 Consolidated Election. In addition to information required by the Illinois Election Code, the Party’s nomination petitions featured American flags at the top of the petition sheets. An objection was filed against the Party’s slate of candidates arguing the petition sheets violated the Election Code by containing political slogans and messages.

The Municipal Officers Electoral Board held a hearing on the objection. At the hearing, the objectors argued that including American flags on the petition sheets constituted prohibited political messaging under the Election Code. The Party candidates responded that no express provision of the Election Code prohibited displaying American flags on candidate petition sheets.

The Electoral Board ruled in favor of the objectors and issued a written order denying the Party’s candidates access to the ballot. Party candidates appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Electoral Board’s ruling. The circuit court ruled that the Election Code’s restrictions on political slogans in candidate petition sheets only applied to names of candidates, and that the Board’s ruling improperly created a new exclusionary rule denying the Party’s candidates access to the Consolidated Election ballot.

On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with the circuit court and ruled that as the Election Code provisions on candidate petition sheets were unambiguous, the Electoral Board improperly created a new exclusionary rule by denying the Party’s candidates access to the ballot. As no express provision of the Election Code prohibited displaying American flags in the heading of a candidate’s nomination petition sheets, the Appellate Court overturned the Electoral Board’s decision and ordered the names of Party candidates be printed on the 2025 consolidated election ballot for the village.  

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Disqualifies Village President Candidate From Ballot

Appellate Court Disqualifies Village President Candidate From Ballot

  Thursday, February 13, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Appellate Court recently upheld an Electoral Board's decision to disqualify a candidate for village president based on lack of residency in Poulos v. Smith.

A candidate filed nomination petitions and other candidacy paperwork last fall to run for office of village president. The filing attested that the candidate resides in the village in which she is running for office. An objection was filed against her candidacy arguing that she did not reside in the village for the statutorily required period and instead lived in a neighboring municipality.

The Municipal Officers Electoral Board conducted a hearing on the objection. At the hearing, the candidate argued that she had resided in the village since 1990 and that the other property she owned was an investment property. She also presented evidence that she received mail at the village address, her drivers license indicated the village address, on of her vehicles was registered to the village address, and her voter registration was the village address. The objectors presented counter evidence that the village property was a rental, and she was not listed as an occupant of that home. The objectors also presented evidence of a renter application that indicated the candidate's address in a different community, and that she was not receiving a "homeowners exemption" for the village property. She had also registered a second vehicle to this other address.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Electoral Board issued a written order ordering the candidate's name not be placed on the ballot, finding that she had abandoned her residency in the village in 2019 when she bought the home in the other community, and that she took up residency at that other home on or before February 25, 2024. She appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Electoral Board's ruling, finding that although there was evidence that she was residing in both homes, the fact that her voter registration remained in the village was persuasive as to her residency there.

The case was again appealed, this time to the Appellate Court which reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Electoral Board's ruling that the candidate was not qualified to be on the ballot for the office of village president because she failed to meet the residency requirements. The Appellate Court acknowledged that the issue of residency and abandonment of that residency was a close one in this case because certain evidence, including her voter records, supported village residency. However, the Court found that the tax records and rental license applications indicating residency in another municipality was compelling, and supported the Electoral Board's ruling that she was not qualified to run for the office of village president.

Read More

Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Candidate's Challenge to Removal From Ballot

Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Candidate's Challenge to Removal From Ballot

  Monday, February 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Williams v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the Village of Hazel Crest, an Illinois Appellate Court considered an appeal of a circuit court's dismissal of an appeal of an electoral board's removal of a candidate for the office of village trustee from the ballot. The circuit court had dismissed the case because the candidate failed to comply with the Election Code's requirement that each individual member of the electoral board be served when a lawsuit is filed to challenge an electoral board's decision. Here, the candidate had served the electoral board (as an entity) but did not individually serve each of the members of that board. The Appellate Court interpreted the Election Code's use of the term "each" to mean that each individual member of the board must be served, and that collective service on the board was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. As a result of the candidate's failure to meet the statutory service requirements, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and the dismissal was proper.

Read More

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Election Contest Challenge

Illinois Supreme Court Dismisses Election Contest Challenge

  Thursday, January 30, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued a new opinion addressing limits on the authority of circuit courts to hear election contest challenges. Ontiveroz v. Khokhar.

After the 2021 election, a candidate for the office of village president challenged the election results after losing the election by two votes. In his petition, the candidate claimed that a disqualified candidate had misled voters about write-in ballots and that several ballots should not have been counted because they did not comply with the Illinois Election Code. 

The circuit court dismissed the candidate's case after finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the challenge because the candidate did not timely file a verified petition as required by the Election Code for contesting election results. On appeal, an Illinois Appellate Court reversed the dismissal, finding that the Election Code allows subsequent verification of an election contest petition if the petition is initially timely filed, and sent the case back to the circuit court to consider additional jurisdictional issues.

The Appellate Court's ruling was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which upheld the circuit court’s dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court held that circuit courts can only hear election contest cases as permitted by state law, and if a party violates a statute’s filing timelines or substantive requirements, then a court has no authority to hear the case. Since the candidate did not comply with the Election Code provision authorizing judicial review of election contests, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed the case.

Post Authored by Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink

Read More

The Top 10 Municipal Minute Posts of 2024

The Top 10 Municipal Minute Posts of 2024

  Wednesday, December 04, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

It’s that time of year folks! Today, we highlight the top 10 Municipal Minute blog posts of 2024. Thank you for your continued readership of Municipal Minute.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Analysis: Use of Social Media by Government Officials

The Supreme Court held that when a government official or employee posts on social media, the official’s or employee's speech will only be attributable to the government in limited circumstances. The Court adopted a two-factor test that looks at whether the official or employee had actual authority from the government and exercises that authority in his or her social media activities..

First Amendment Auditor Case Decided in Massachusetts

In a First Amendment auditor case, a Massachusetts court held that individual school defendants did not have qualified immunity for First Amendment claims.

PAC Finds Village Board Meetings Were Not Open or Convenient Under OMA

Village Board Meetings with limited seating capacity and heightened security measures did not properly accommodate the public under the OMA.

Regulating Election and Campaign Signs

To stay ahead of possible election issues, public bodies should confirm their sign ordinances do not single out political signs and that they allow candidates to place temporary signs on public property used as a polling place.

It’s Time to Establish Elected Officials’ Compensation for Terms Starting in 2025

The Local Government Officer Compensation Act specifies the compensation of elected officers must be fixed 180 days before the beginning of their terms.

New Illinois Law Regulates Low-Speed Electric Scooters

P.A. 103-0899 amends the Illinois Vehicle Code to add provisions for low-speed electric scooters.

Changes to Building Code Statutes

P.A. 103-0510 amends the Capital Development Board and the Illinois Residential Building Code Act to establish certain filing requirements for local codes and to further the standardization of building codes, among other changes.

Newly Hired Independent Contractor Reporting Requirements under Unemployment Insurance Act

All employers, including units of local government, must report newly hired employees and independent contractors within 20 days after the date the employee or contractor begins employment.

Court Upholds Contiguity Determination in Annexation Challenge

An Appellate Court ruled in favor of a city, finding a 19.5 shared boundary met the contiguity requirements for the annexation to be valid.

Seventh Circuit Upholds Denial of Outdoor Athletic Lights

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a City in a lawsuit filed by a private religious school that claimed the City violated RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, and vested rights law when the City denied a permit for outdoor athletic lighting.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 88 - Election Special

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 88 - Election Special

  Friday, November 08, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink just released Episode 88 of its Quorum Forum Podcast:  Quorum Forum 88: Election Special

The 2025 consolidated election season is kicking off with its usual verve and a host of complex issues to address. Local election officials and electoral boards have many responsibilities to make elections happen. Meanwhile, local governments are asked to enforce political sign regulations and electioneering laws. Local governments may get involved in elections themselves with their own referenda and public questions. To help listeners tackle these issues, Ancel Glink attorneys Erin Monforti and Katie Nagy update a classic Quorum Forum election special, featuring insight from Ancel Glink's own Keri-Lyn Krafthefer! 

Read More

Referendum Could Not Change "Manner of Selection" of Municipal Board of Ethics

Referendum Could Not Change "Manner of Selection" of Municipal Board of Ethics

  Monday, September 16, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Schittino v. Village of Niles, an Illinois Appellate Court invalidated a referendum that had attempted to change the manner of selection of a municipal board of ethics from an appointed board to an elected one.

A home-rule municipality adopted an ordinance to establish an appointed board of ethics. In 2019, voters initiated a referendum to replace the appointed ethics board with an elected one. The referendum was delayed in litigation as the village clerk refused to certify the referendum, believing it was unauthorized by the Illinois Constitution. In 2021, an Illinois Appellate Court held that the clerk’s role under state law was limited to determining whether the petition was in “apparent conformity” with filing requirements—e.g., having the minimum number of signatures—and not matters of substantive constitutionality. As a result, the referendum was allowed to proceed and was subsequently approved by voters at the April 2021 election.

The village then placed a referendum on the June 2022 ballot to repeal the 2021 referendum and restore the ethics board to appointed positions. However, because voters failed to approve the 2022 referendum, the 2021 referendum remained in effect and the village scheduled elections for the ethics board at the next municipal election in 2023.

In 2023, a lawsuit was filed to challenge the 2021 referendum and asked the court to declare that the 2021 referendum was not authorized by the Illinois Constitution and to issue an injunction prohibiting  the village from certifying any 2023 election results for the elected ethics board members. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and declared the 2021 referendum invalid and prevented its enforcement.

Intervenors in the lawsuit (including a candidate for the ethics board at the 2023 election) appealed the circuit court’s decision. The Appellate Court agreed with the circuit court and denied the appeal, as follows.

First, the Appellate Court held that the ethics board members did not qualify as “officers” as required under Section 6(f) of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. Section 6(f) provides as follows:

  (f)  A home rule unit shall have the power subject to approval by referendum to adopt, alter or repeal a form of government provided by law, except that the form of government of Cook County shall be subject to the provisions of Section 3 of this Article. A home rule municipality shall have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of selection and terms of office only as approved by referendum or as otherwise authorized by law. A home rule county shall have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of selection and terms of office in the manner set forth in Section 4 of this Article.

The Appellate Court pointed to an Illinois Supreme Court case that held that “officers” referenced by section 6(f) are only those included in the form of government provided for in the Illinois Municipal Code. Here, the Appellate Court found no language in the Illinois Municipal Code providing for an ethics board as part of the form of municipal government. As a result, the ethics board members were not "officers" under Section 6(f) of the Illinois Constitution, and the "manner of selection" of their members could not be changed by the 2021 referendum.

Second, the Appellate Court rejected the intervenors argument that the suit was barred by the laches doctrine because the plaintiff waited two months before the 2023 election to file suit against the 2021 referendum, resulting in prejudice to the ethics board member candidate intervenor. The Appellate Court held that the intervenors failed to demonstrate any evidence to show prejudice and that the plaintiff did not unreasonably wait to file suit as the 2022 referendum could have repealed the 2021 referendum.

Post Authored by Katie Nagy & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Seventh Circuit Dismisses Challenge to State's Mail-In Ballot Procedure

Seventh Circuit Dismisses Challenge to State's Mail-In Ballot Procedure

  Wednesday, September 11, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to Illinois election laws that allow election officials to receive and count mail-in ballots for up to two weeks after the date of the election so long as the ballots are either (1) postmarked on or before the day of the election or, (2) if there is no postmark, the voter signs a certification that accompanies the ballot. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.

A group of Illinois voters and political candidates filed a lawsuit against the State Board of Elections to challenge Illinois' mail-in vote procedure, arguing that it unlawfully expanded the time in which residents can vote. The district court dismissed the claims, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and, even if they did, the challenge had no merits. 

Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal on standing grounds. The Seventh Circuit first rejected the voters-plaintiffs' argument that the plaintiffs votes will be "diluted" if mail-in ballots are counted after election day, finding that claim to be too generalized and not the type of particularized injury to support standing. Second, the Seventh Circuit rejected the candidate-plaintiffs' argument that they had to expend additional resources after election day to contest any objectionable ballots, finding that this future claim of harm was neither actual or imminent to support standing. The Court also rejected the candidates-plaintiffs' argument that they have an interest in ensuring that only legally valid votes are counted, finding that argument to be purely speculative. In sum, the Seventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit based on lack of standing.

Read More

Municipal Caucus Overview for the 2025 Consolidated Election

Municipal Caucus Overview for the 2025 Consolidated Election

  Wednesday, September 04, 2024    Julie Tappendorf

---

With municipalities across Illinois set to elect new local officers at the 2025 Consolidated Elections, an overview of the lesser-known nomination method of municipal caucuses may be helpful for smaller municipalities. Note that the overview discussed below applies to official caucus nomination methods established by statute, and not the informal "caucus" political party nomination process that is used in some municipalities. If you are not sure which system your municipality must follow, please consult with your legal counsel.

Illinois municipalities administer either partisan elections (where candidates are nominated and elected from political parties) or nonpartisan elections (where candidates are nominated and elected on a nonpartisan basis). For cities, villages, and incorporated towns with partisan election systems and populations below 5,000 persons, candidates are nominated by established political parties at municipal caucuses unless, on or before November 15, 2024, the municipality passes an ordinance requiring established political parties to hold a primary. These municipalities will hold their caucuses on December 2, 2024, and caucus candidates must file their certificates of nomination with the municipal clerk during the filing period of December 9 – 16, 2024.  10 ILCS 5/10-1(a). Clerks must certify the names of caucus candidates by no later than January 23, 2025.

At a municipal caucus, registered voters select candidates from their political party to nominate for offices up for election in the April consolidated election. Voters can only participate and cast votes at the caucus of one political party (for example a person who participates in the caucus of political party A cannot then participate in the caucus of political party B). An established political party may only nominate one candidate for an office to be elected by the caucus method. The candidate receiving the most votes at the caucus becomes the party’s nominee, and any candidate defeated at the caucus may not run for the same office as a different political party, independent, or write-in candidate.

After being nominated at a caucus, the candidates must then individually file nomination paperwork with the local election official to appear on the consolidated election ballot. If there are two or more political parties that have nominated candidates for an office, the local election official must hold a ballot placement lottery to determine the ballot order. Candidates nominated by caucus appear on the ballot in the same order as their names appeared on the caucus sheet. 

If a caucus will occur, November 22, 2024, is the last day for the municipal clerk to publish or post the notice of caucus. In municipalities with populations over 500 persons, the local election official must publish notice of caucuses in a newspaper published within their municipality. If no such newspaper exists, a local election official is required to publish notice of a caucus in a newspaper of general circulation within the county their municipality is located in. For municipalities with a population of 500 or less, the local election official must post notice of the caucus in three of the most public places within the municipality.

Post Authored by Keri-Lyn Krafthefer & Tyler Smith, Ancel Glink 

Read More