Thomas A.

Jaconetty
Election Law Seminar
October, 2017 –CBA
© Thomas A. Jaconetty 2017

REMOVING YOUR OPPONENT FROM THE

BALLOT: OBJECTIONS TO NOMINATION PAPERS

I. PRELIMINARY STEPS

A. Purchase opponent’s petitions and make multiple photocopies

B. Review petitions with counsel, political consultants and strategists,

and the petition/challenge “team”

C. Know the minimum signature requirements (See 10 ILCS 5/7-10(a) –

(j), 7-4(11), 8-3(l), 8-8, 10-3; 65 ILCS 20/21-20). Consult the current
State Board of Elections, Cook County Clerk, and Chicago Board of
Election Commissioners Calendars. The minimums are mandatory
and not subject to “substantial compliance”. Jackson-Hicks v. East St.
Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929.

Note: Consult State, Cook County, and Chicago Election Guides. e.g.
State Senators and Representatives in the General Assembly—1,000
with 3,000 maximum; 500 with 1,500 maximum; and for Countywide
circuit court judges and sub-circuit judges—1,000 of .25%, whichever
is higher. Chicago Ward Committeemen and various suburban
municipal officials also have maximum limitations.

An Electoral Board may strike from consideration for any purpose all
signatures on the petition which exceed any maximum signature limit.
Wilson v. Calumet City Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL
App (1st) 130957.

D. Assemble a team of signature checkers

E. Consider subpoenas, private investigators, and politically savvy

persons to collect data and/or affidavits.

MYTH No. 1: No one will notice.

WARNING No. 1: There are expert political organizations that delight

in dissecting your petitions and turning your life into abject misery.

1
II. POTENTIAL GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO A CANDIDACY

A. Residency (See generally Maksym v. Board of Election Commis-

sioners, 242 Ill.2d 303, 950 N.E.2d 1051 (2010); Goodman v. Ward,
241 Ill.2d 398, 948 N.E.2d 580 (2011); Stein v. County Board of School
Trustees, 40 Ill.2d 477, 480 N.E.2d 668 (1968)).

(1) A “two year/18 month” rule applies to state legislators (ILL.

CONST. (1970) art. IV, sec. 2(c)), Cook County Commissioners
(JOUR. OF PROC., Cook County Board, 3-1-94 to- 4-19-94, at
pp. 980-982), and Cook County Board of Review Commissioners
(35 ILCS 200/5-5(c)).

(2) State Constitutional officers, three years

(3) Generally, municipal officers, alderman, and trustees fall under a

one year/ six month rule (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a), 5/3.1-25-75(b),
5/6-3-9(1) and (2)). Chicago aldermen have a one year rule (65
ILCS 20/21-14(a)).

(4) County officials must be “qualified voters“ and “legal voters” of the
county (10 ILCS 5/7-4(6), 5/7-10, 5/10-5, and 55 ILCS 5/200-
4010).

(5) A judicial officer must be a “resident of the unit which selects him”
(ILL. CONST. (1970) art. VI, sec. 11; 705 ILCS 35/2(e). See
Goodman v. Ward 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011); In re Golinewicz, No. 03-
CC-1(Illinois Court’s Commission, Nov. 15, 2004); Maddux v.
Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514-515 (2009); Thies v. State Board
of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 325 (1988).

(6) Ward township committeeman and committeewoman must reside

within the specific political subdivision from which election is
sought (10 ILCS 5/7-8(b)).

(7) State central committeeman and committeewoman must reside in,

and run to represent, their home congressional districts (10 ILCS
5/7-8(a) and (b).

(8) Voting at an election certifies that a person has resided at that

address for 30 days preceding, thereby prohibiting that same
person from later renouncing the public record in order to
establish residence for public office at another address. Neely v.
Board of Election Commissioners, 371 Ill.App.3d 694, 863 N.E.2d
795 (1st Dist. 2007), pet. leave to app. den. 224 Ill.2d 577, 871
N.E.2d 56 (2007).
2
B. Age (Constitutional officers – 25, state legislators – 21; all others – 18)

C. Special licenses or certifications (e.g. judges and the county state’s

attorney— “licensed attorney at law of this state”, ILL. CONST. (1970)
art. VI, sec.11. For the Cook County Board of Review – see 35 ILCS
200/6-10)).

D. Registration and citizenship (always verify candidate registration)

E. Party affiliation (Hossfeld v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 238 Ill.2d

418 (2010); Rosenzweig v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 409 Ill.
App.3d 176 (1st Dist. 2011); Lyons MVP Party v. Lyons, Illinois
Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 407Ill.Appl.3d 1004 (1st Dist.
2011); Cullerton v. DuPage County Electoral Board, 384 Ill.App.3d
989, 894 N.E.2d 774 (2nd Dist. 2008); In re Objection of McSparin, 352
Ill.App.3d 352, 815 N.E.2d 1193 (5th Dist. 2004)).

Note 1: 10 ILCS 5/7-43 prohibits “a person (i) who filed a statement of

candidacy for a partisan office as a qualified primary voter or an
established political party or (ii) who voted the ballot of an established
political party at a general primary election may not file a statement of
candidacy as a candidate of a different established political party or as
an independent candidate for a partisan office to be filled at the
general election immediately following the general primary for which
the person filed the statement or voted the ballot.” See Rudd v. Lake
County Electoral Board, 2016 IL App (2nd) 160649.

Note 2: This prohibition does not apply to non-partisan elections such

as for Chicago Municipal Officers and aldermen and various suburban
officials.

Note 3: See Deutsche v. Will County Clerk’s Office, General Minute

Order 3-12-0577 (3rd District, September 6, 2012) affirming Will
County Circuit Court order upholding County Clerk’s refusal to even
accept petitions for filing which were in violation of the statute.

F. Conviction of felony or infamous crime (See Supervisory Orders in

Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill.2d 473, 865 N.E.2d
189 (2007) and Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224
Ill.2d 481, 865 N.E.2d 183 (2007); Cinkus v. Village of Stickney
Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200, 886 N.E.2d 1011
(as modified (2008); Alvarez v. Williams, 2014 IL App (1st) 133443).

G. Incompatibility of offices (see Office of the Illinois Attorney General,

“Index of Opinions on Compatibility of Offices” and IICLE Election Law
3
 Handbook). See also, People ex rel Anita Alvarez v. Price, 408
Ill.App.3d 457 (1st Dist. 2011).

H. Restrictions on other employment—see local ordinances

I. Arrearages or non-payment of municipal fees. Cinkus v. Village of

Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200, 886
N.E.2d 1011 (as modified) (2008); Burke v. Municipal Officers
Electoral Board of the Village of Bradley, 2013 IL App (3d) 130141
and 130142. This is not applicable for non-municipal offices.

Note 1: Consult the IICLE ELECTION LAW HANDBOOK, Chapter 1

and the Chicago Board “Index of Electoral Board Decisions” for
dozens of cases from the previous Chicago aldermanic cycles.

Note 2: Now new statute appears to remove the disability if cured

before the taking of the oath of office. 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10.5 (b).
Decisions favorable to candidates in the 2015 Chicago municipal
election cycle were not appealed. No reviewing court authority bars
advancing the various legal theories, often based upon statutory
construction of the Municipal and Election Codes. However, the
General Assembly has probably removed jurisdiction from electoral
boards altogether by virtue of the more recently enacted 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-50 (c) (4) and 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-51 (a) (3).

J. Non-compliance with local ethics laws

Note 1: From 1991 through 2007, the Chicago Electoral Board

decided some twenty cases holding that local ethics laws did not
constitute a ballot access requirement.

Note 2: After Cinkus, the Board again revisited the issue and re-
affirmed its view in at least a dozen 2011 cases.

K. Non-compliance with campaign finance laws (see 5 ILCS 430/1-1;

10 ILCS 5/9-30, 5/9-10, as amended eff. 11/17/03; Temple v. State
Board of Elections, No. 04 CH13939 (Cir. Ct. Cook County Sept. 10,
2004)). But, beware of ballot forfeiture for unpaid political committee
fines under 10 ILCS 5/9-10, 9-30.

MYTH No. 2: Surviving the ballot challenge is all that really matters
and most candidates do survive.

WARNING No. 2: You can survive and still be voted off the island.

4
III. STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (5 ILCS 420/4A-101 et seq.)

A. Timely filing of Statement itself for the correct office and correct
year (5 ILCS 420/4A-106; 10 ILCS 5/10-5; Purnell v. Municipal
Officers Electoral Board, 275 Ill.App.3d 1038, 657 N.E.2d 55 ( 1st
Dist. 1995); Kellogg v. Cook County Officer’s Electoral Board, 347
Ill.App.3d 666, 807 N.E.2d 1161 (1st Dist. 2004)).

B. Timely filing of Receipt is mandatory (10 ILCS 5/10-5; 5 ILCS

420/4A-107; Bolger v. Electoral Board of City of McHenry, 210 Ill. App.
3d 958, 569 N.E. 2d 628 (2nd Dist. 1998), Requena v. Cook County
Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728, 692 N.E. 2d 1217 (1st
Dist. 1998); Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill.App.3d
334, 785 N.E.2d 1014 (5th Dist. 2003)).

C. Filing in proper government office (Havens v. Miller, 102 Ill.App.3d

558, 429 N.E.2d 1292 (1st Dist. 1981); Brewer v. Cook County Officers
Electoral Board, 295 Ill.App.3d 1102, 726 N.E.2d 223 (1st Dist. 1998);
Ferrand v. City of Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, 2014 IL
App 140225 (2014)).

D. Filing for the correct office (see Jones v. Municipal Officers

Electoral Board, 112 Ill.App.3d 926, 446 N.E.2d 256 (1st Dist. 1983);
Miceli v. Lavelle, 114 Ill.App.23 311, 448 N.E.2d 989 (1st Dist. 1983)).

E. Description of office (Cardona v. Board of Election Commissioners of

the City of Chicago, 346 Ill.App.3d 342, 805 N.E.2d 360 (1st Dist.
2004)).

F. Using the proper form (Ferrand v. City of Chicago Board of Election

Commissioners, 2014 IL App 140225 (2014); Cortez v. Calumet City
Municipal Officers Electoral Baord, 2013 IL App (1st) 130442;
O’Donaghue v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill.App.3d
493, 692 N.E.2d 770 (1st Dist. 1998)).

G. Possible quo warranto court challenge to substantive answers to the

questions (Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill.2d 40, 588 N.E.2d 1119 (1992);
Crudup v. Simms, 292 Ill.App.3d 1075, 586 N.E.2d 714 (1st Dist. 1997);
Requena v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728,
692 N.E. 2d 1217 (1st Dist. 1998)).

H. Filing of the actual Statement in the county in which candidate

actually lives when a municipality is bisected by county lines
substantially complies with the Election Code and the Ethics Act.
Atkinson v. Roselle Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App
(2nd) 130139.
5
 I. Missing information: Failure to identify actual village where office is
sought, use of “DNA” for “does not apply” for substantive answers, and
failure to date not fatal per se. Guerrero v. Municipal Officers Electoral
Board of the Village of Franklin Park, 2017 IL App (1st) 170486.

J. Not required for congressional and political party offices.

MYTH No. 3: This is much ado about nothing.

WARNING No. 3: This can become one big headache.

IV. STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY (10 ILCS 5/7-10, 5/7-17(b) 5/10-3.1, 10-4,

10-5, 10-5.1)

A. Proper description of - -

(1) name, address, and city, town, village or unincorporated area

(rural route or municipality providing postal service, when
applicable) of candidate

(2) office sought

(3) political subdivision

(4) political party

(5) type of election

(6) type of candidacy

(7) date of election

(8) term or duration of office

(9) request for name to be printed on the ballot

(10) precise form of ballot name, if modified from legal name

See generally Zurek v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2014

IL App (1st) 140446 (2014); Stevenson v. County Officers Electoral
Board, 58 Ill.App.3d 24 373 N.E.2d 1043 (3rd Dist. 1978); Sullivan v.
County Officers Electoral Board of DuPage County, 225 Ill.App.3d
691, 588 N.E.2d 475 (2nd Dist. 1992).

6
B. Content (Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill. 2d 48, 344 N.E. 2d 443 (1976))

(1) residency

(2) registration and qualification as a legal voter

(3) qualification to hold office

(4) holding of necessary licenses/certificates (See Weber v. Winne-

bego County Officers Electoral Board, 2012 IL App (2d) 120051)

(5) timely filing of Statement of Economic Interests

C. Continuity and Consistency (no “confusion”) (Wiesner v. Brennan,

2016 IL App (2d) 160115; Pascente v. County Officers Electoral
Board, 373 Ill.App.3d 871, 869 N.E.2d 802 (1st Dist. 2007); Panarese
v. Hosty, 104 Ill.App.3d 627, 432 N.E.2d 133 (1st Dist. 1982);
Stevenson v. County Officers Electoral Board, 58 Ill.App.3d 24 373
N.E.2d 1043 (3rd Dist. 1978)).

(1) with other nomination papers and

(2) within the Statement itself.

D. Critical mandatory requirement

E. Must be signed by the candidate and properly notarized (Serwinski

v. Board of Election Commissioners, 156 Ill. App. 3d 257, 509 NE 2d
509 (1st Dist. 1987); Adamcik v. Hacker, 04-EB-WC-069 (Chicago
Electoral Board 2004)). Failure to use the words “who is to me
personally known” will not invalidate the Statement (Cortez v. Calumet
City Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App (1st) 130442; Akin
v. Calumet City Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App (1st) 130441).

F. Variations of names and nicknames are permitted

G. No title, rank, honor, privilege, professional status, degree,

campaign slogan or voter directed message is used (e.g. "Col.", "Esq.",
"Rev.", "Doc", "Ph.d.", “Tort Reform”, “Law and Order”, “The
Libertarian”, “No Tax Increases”) [10 ILCS 5/7-10.2, 7-17, 8-8.1, 10.1,
10-5.1 16-3(e)].

H. Minor or de minimis errors excused (Crossman v. Board of Election

Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st ) 120291).

7
 NOTE 1: 10 ILCS 5/7-17 (b) prohibits the use of a “political slogan” as
part of a ballot name, defining such to be

“any word or words expressing or connoting a position,

opinion, or belief that the candidate may espouse, including
but not limited to, any word or words conveying any meaning
other than that of the personal identity of the candidate. A
candidate may not use a ‘political slogan’ as part of his or
her name on the ballot, notwithstanding that the political
slogan may be part of the candidate’s name.”

NOTE 2: 10 ILCS 5/7-10.2, 5/10-5.1, 5/8-8.1, 5/16-3, and 10-5.1 require

that when

“a candidate has changed his or her name, whether by statute or

common law in Illinois or any other jurisdiction within three years”
before the last day for filing ”the nomination papers must contain a
listing of all “formerly known as” names and be accompanied by an
explanatory affidavit. There is an exception for changes caused by
adoption or marriage and divorce.

See generally Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 117
S. Ct. 1364 (1997); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 121 S. Ct. 1029 (2001);
Golden v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, No. 96 C 1283, 1996 WL
684096 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

Warning No. 4: Save yourself a great deal of pain (financial or

otherwise) and obtain legal counsel at the beginning of the process.

V. OTHER DOCUMENTS

A. Optional:

(1) “Loyalty Oath” (10 ILCS 5/7-10.1; 10 ILCS 5/10-5, 10-3.1, 10-4)
Communist Party of Illinois v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 103 (ND Ill.
1972); Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441, S.
Ct. 656 (1974)).

(2) “Code of Fair Campaign Practices” (10 ILCS 555/1 et seq.).

(3) If filed, signatures/notarizations are substantive evidence.

MYTH No. 4: There is nothing to fear in optional filings.

8
 B. Mandatory –not ballot related but fraught with political implications

(1) Campaign financial disclosures (with Cook County Clerk) (10

ILCS 5/9-1. et seq.).

(2) Ethics reports with the Chicago Board of Ethics (Chicago

Municipal Code, Chapter 2-164)

VI. SHEETS CONTAINING SIGNATURES OF VOTERS (10 ILCS 5/7-10,

5/7-17(b), 5/10-3.1, 10-4): IN GENERAL

A. Proper Heading—the Petitioning Language

(1) Uniformity and consistency

(2) Qualification of voters – residence/registration

(3) Proper designation of office sought

(4) Name, address, and city, town, village or unincorporated area

(rural route or municipality providing postal service, when
applicable) of candidate. Kennedy v. Village of Lansing Municipal
Officers Electoral Board, ___ Ill.App.3d ___ (Docket 1-09-0576 (lst
Dist., March 17, 2009); Galloway v. Village of Sauk Village
Municipal Officers Electoral Board, ___Ill.App.3d ___ (Docket
Nos.1-09-0620 and 21 (lst Dist. March 24, 2009)(Orders).

(5) Party affiliation of voters and candidate (not applicable in non-

partisan elections for Chicago municipal officers and aldermen)

(6) Political subdivision of candidacy

(7) Election type (e.g. primary, general, consolidated, non-partisan)

(8) Type of candidacy (See Ryan v. Landek, 159 Ill.App.3d 512 N.E.2d
1 (1st Dist. 1987); Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill.App.3d 557 546
N.E.2d 92 (2nd Dist 1989)).

(9) Term or duration of office (Compare Zapolsky v. Cook County

Officers Electoral Board, 296 Ill.App.3d 731, 695 N.E.2nd 1329
(1st Dist. 1998); Heabler v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board of
the Village of Lakemoor, 338 Ill.App. 3d 1059, 789 N.E.2d 854 (2nd
Dist. 2003); Salgado v. Marquez, 356 Ill.App.3d 1072 (2nd Dist.
2005)).

9
 (10) Date of election

(11) Designation of voters in political subdivision

(12) "Petition that . . . shall be a candidate"

B. The Individual Voter Signatures – Potential challenges

(1) "Not in own proper person and not genuine"

(2) Not registered at address shown

(3) Address of registration not in political subdivision

(4) Signer resides outside district

(5) Voter signed petition more than once

(6) Voter previously signed another petition for another candidate for
the same office to be voted for at the same election

(7) Address missing or incomplete; or no city, town, village provided

(8) Name printed and not handwritten; so-called "non-cursive

signatures"

(9) “Ma and Pa” signatures

(10) “Round-tabling” – obvious and systematic forgeries

(11) "Mr." or "Mrs." used without any first name

(12) No or partial last name

(13) Registration inactive/suspended and never re-instated

(14) Homeless person not registered under special procedures

(15) Collateral attack on registration based on false residency

(16) “Danger Will Robinson” – the potential disaster of using paid

circulators especially from half-way houses, transitional living
centers, and internet-based sources. What experienced politicians
know despite what others may choose to believe.

10
WARNING No. 5: Do not believe the printers, the political advisors,
campaign managers, and your friend who ran for office four years
ago. No one has the always changing secret approved paperwork.

C. The Circulator’s Affidavit

(1) Proper Content

a) name and address and status as U.S. citizen

b) political sub-division

c) no party affiliation for non-partisan elections

d) time period of circulation (either actual dates or the “90 day

preceding” language or a given range of dates)

e) statutory language of "stating" and "certifying"*

f) name and signature must identify the actual circulator (See

Schwartz v. Kinney, 2016 IL App (3d) 160021)

g) proper notarization (The process really matters!)

h) must use one of three statutory forms; legal conclusions are

not sufficient ( Zurek v. Petersen et al, 2015 IL App (1st)
150508

(i) actually reside at address given (Vazquez v. Board of Election

Commissioners, 2016 IL App (1st) 160349U)

(2) Voter signing in circulator’s “presence” (Compare People of the

State of Illinois v. McCulloch, 404 Ill.App.3d 125 (2nd Dist. 2010)
with Ramirez v. Andrade, 372 Ill.App.3d 68 (1st Dist. 2007)).

(3) Circulator signing in notary’s “presence” (Mitchell v. Cook County

Officers Electoral Board, 399 Ill.App.3d 18 (1st Dist. 2010) (2-1),
pet. for leave to appeal denied, 236 Ill. 2d 508 (2010)).

(4) Pattern of fraud and false swearing and disregard for mandatory
requirements of Election Code

(5) Potential perjury and/or forgery indictment for attesting to the

oaths when, in fact, the signer was not the actual circulator: 2017
three cases in Lake County, one in DuPage, and one in LaSalle.

11
 (6) Prohibition on circulation for multiple candidates running under
different party labels seeking the same office to be voted for at the
same election. (No prohibition on the signers.)

May a person circulate petitions for a partisan political party

candidate for the consolidated primary election and then circulate
for an independent candidate in the ensuing consolidated general
election? No: Wilson v. Calumet City Municipal Officers Electoral
Board, 2013 IL App (1st) 130957; Yes: Sandefur v. Cuningham
Township Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App (4th) 130127.

D. Other Potentially Fatal Defects

(1) Pagination (10 ILCS 5/10-4). See Samuelson v. Brewer, 2012 IL

App (1st) 120581; Reynolds v. Champaign County Officers
Electoral Board, 379 Ill.App.3d 423, 884 N.E.2d 1175, app.
denied 228 Ill.2d 553, 889 N.E.2d 1122 (2008); El-Aboudi v.
Thompson, 293 Ill.App.3d 191, 687 N.E.2d 1166 (2nd Dist. 1997);
Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill. App. 3d 557, 546 NE 2d 92 (2nd Dist
1989); Wollan v. Jacoby, 274 Ill. App. 3d 388, 653 NE 2d 1303
(1st Dist 1995); King v. Justice Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 672
N.E. 2d 900, 903 (1st Dist. 1996), and cases cited therein, for
discussion of this pitfall.

WARNING: No. 6: Do not be sucked into that black hole.

(2) Non-uniformity of content or size of signature sheets

(3) Inconsistency in designation of office and its term or duration

(4) Filing photocopies of signature sheets

(5) Fraud in notarization process (Bowe v. Chicago Electoral Board,

79 Ill.2d 469, 404 N.E.2d 180 (1980).

(6) Notarization of circulator affidavits by a non-Illinois notary

(Knobelach v. Electoral Board for the City of Granite City, 337
Ill.App.3d 1137, 288 N.E.2d 130 (5th Dist. 2003)).

(7) Failure to sign Statement of Candidacy

(8) Improper ballot name or title (e.g. "Cut-the-Taxes", "For the

People", "Save-a-Baby", “Build the Wall”, ”Term Limits “The
Libertarian”, "Professor", "Honorable", "Senator", "Doctor", “Tort
Reform”, “Law and Order”. “America First”, “No Sugar Tax”)

12
 (9) Insufficient total number of signatures filed

(10) Failure to file all signature sheets simultaneously

(11) Failure to "neatly fasten" and securely bind nominating papers

"in book form" – paper and binder clips, and shoelaces (Compare
Bendell v. Educational Officers Electoral Board, 338 Ill.App.3d
458, 788 N.E.2d 173 (1st Dist. 2003) with Girot v. Keith, 341
Ill.App.3d 902, 793 N.E.2d 935 (3rd Dist. 2003), rev’d. other
grounds. 212, Ill.2d 372, 818 N.E.2d 1232 (2004)).

(12) Non-timely filing of any/all nominating papers

(13) Failure to timely withdraw candidacy for incompatible offices

(14) The candidate “Superman Circulator"

(15) Invalid candidate registration

(16) Commingling petition sheets for different offices and/or

candidacies

MYTH No. 5: Just get the forms and the rule book off of the website.
No problem - - they’re official. You can rely on them. Or, as variation
on the theme: It was OK last time

(17) A successful estoppel defense is very difficult and tenuous at best.

Often, it is impossible (Schumann v. Kumarich, 102 Ill.App.3d 454
430 N.E.2d (1st Dist. 1981); Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill.App.3d 111,
419 N.E.2d 628 (1st Dist. 1981); Havens v. Miller, 102 Ill.App.3d
558 429 N.E.2d 1292 (1st Dist. 1981); Lockhart v. Cook County
Officers Electoral Board, 328 Ill.App. 3d 838, 767 N.E.2d 428 (1st
Dist. 2002); Preuter v. State Officer’s Electoral Board, 334 Il.App.3d
979, 779 N.E.2d 322 (1st Dist. 2002); Vestrup v. DuPage County
Election Commission, 335 Ill.App.3d 156, 779 N.E.2d 376 (2nd Dist.
2002); Brennan v. Coleman, 335 Ill.App.3d 716, 781 N.E.2d 644
(1st Dist. 2002); Atkinson v. Schelling, 2013 IL App. (2d) 130140;
Jackson-Hicks v. East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners,
2015 IL 118949. See also 10 ILCS 5/28-2.

(18) A circulator, who is also a Deputy Registrar, may simultaneously

register voters and obtain their signatures on petitions. Sullivan v.
County Officers Electoral Board of DuPage County, 225 Ill.App.3d
691, 588 N.E.2d 475 (2nd Dist. 1992).

13
VII. DISSECTING THE OPPONENT'S PETITION SIGNATURE SHEETS

A. What Experience Teaches: Some "Rules" or Observations

Concerning Human Nature

(1) In general:

a) "A precise, neat and fastidious person remains so, as does a

slob."

b) "If it looks fake, it probably is."

c) "If it doesn't seem correct, it isn't."

d) "Bad" sheets tend to be "hidden" in the back.

e) “El” stops, shopping centers, METRA and CTA stations, and

paid circulators should net you about 40% “bad” signatures.

(2) Organization

a) Check circulator affidavits first, and then organize all sheets of

circulators side by side.

b) Code all signatures on each sheet to precinct, and ward or

township, and then begin checking the registration records.

c) Review computer records focusing by searching on address.

d) Examine the bulk of signatures that appear in large groups on

particular sheets before considering any individual signatures
in other precincts. Checking "stray" signatures wastes time.

e) Put aside partially filled signature sheets until all complete

sheets have been reviewed.

f) Work on sheets containing multiple wards, townships or

precincts last.

g) Use poll sheets to make preliminary determinations concern-

ing signer registration, if computer searching of Chicago,
County Clerk, and State Board websites is not readily
available.

14
(3) Handwriting and Signature Comparison

a) The handwriting of husbands and wives can become similar

throughout the years—but not that of their children, uncles,
grandparents, and nieces!

b) With experience you will recognize those pictorial qualities and

characteristics that can generally distinguish a woman's
handwriting from a man's handwriting.

c) "Printed", (non-cursive, or non-script, or block) “signatures”

more often than not are invalid and not genuine, but even if
genuine must be rehabilitated through a painstaking process.

d) A signature written in a "square-off", i.e. Eastern European

“print-writing” style, is almost always valid and genuine.

e) Before challenging any signature, consider both the ages of

the registration record and the signer as well as the normal
changes that take place in one's handwriting over the years.

(4) Circulators and the Circulator Affidavit

a) Very few people have the patience, time, access or ability to

obtain 2,000 signatures on their own.

b) The "Superman Circulator" never thinks that you will look at a

map! Plot the locations of the circulation activity on a map---
especially when the form of the Circulator Affidavit used
indicates the specific date(s) of circulation.

c) Find out whether the circulator has a daytime job.

d) "People are creatures of habit." All erratic or illogical patterns

of circulation activity must be automatically suspect.

e) Liquid paper used in the Circulator Affidavit is a dead give-a-

way of suspicious activity and/or a candidate that needs every
possible signature.

f) If the same notary executes the jurats on all of the petition

signature sheets (and especially if on the same date), a
question is then raised whether the circulators actually did
appear before him or her to take their oaths.

15
 g) If petition signature sheets were provided to the circulators at
any time before the first day of circulation, there is a good
chance that the sheets were actually "pre-circulated."

h) Despite the contrary assumptions which underlie several

federal court decisions, paid circulators ("hired guns") are
immediately suspect and those sheets need to be scrutinized.
Typically, their work is sloppy. It is riddled with unregistered
voters and voters not residing in the relevant political sub-
division, and at worst, contain an inordinate percentage of
questionable signatures and/or notarizations.

i) Find out as much as possible (e.g. work habits, ethnic

background, job, political experience or affiliation, location,
physical ability or lack thereof) about the circulators and the
notaries.

j) If possible, get pictures of circulators and do a random sample

check of suspicious sheets by having political workers
interview individual signers, and if possible, present voters
with picture-bearing affidavits.

k) The signatures of the voters are more often than not valid and
genuine if the circulators are the parents or grandparents of
the candidate.

l) The candidate who is a "Superman Circulator" is a disaster

waiting to happen. It is especially dangerous for a judicial
candidate/circulator.

m) Investigate whether there are restrictions on access to

shopping centers, churches, bingos, senior citizen events,
condominium buildings or community meetings which might
make alleged circulation suspect.

(5) Practical Considerations:

a) When comparing signatures to registration records, if you

cannot decide that the signature is not valid within 30 seconds,
then it is probably valid.

b) “Eyeball” all of the sheets of a single circulator together and at

once. Spread them out on a table to check for any patterns
or suspicious characteristics.

16
 c) A candidate’s prior affiliation with “the regulars” usually means
that some of those very “regulars” helped the candidate
collect signatures. However, they did not sign the Circulator
Affidavits in order to preserve their anonymity. Subpoenas
may be the answer!

d) Investigate rumors of several people collecting signatures in

an area. Then compare the names on the Circulator Affidavits
for that geographic area.

e) Filing less two times the minimum signature requirement

telegraphs vulnerability. Serious experienced candidates file
attempt to file at least three or more times the minimum
signature requirement.

f) Be wary of the all-encompassing “political consultant”. Make

sure that your campaign coordinates its effort with an
experienced election attorney and campaign finance person.

MYTH No. 6: Have no fear -- we’ve done it that way for the past 20
years”. (And, you would be surprised how many people know so.)

B. Strategic Considerations

(1) Enlist the assistance of local political operatives because they

know:

a) the geography of the district;

b) the local political history;

c) who are friends with whom;

d) the bartenders, store owners, building managers and doormen,

and condo board officers.

(2) Check the order of signatures on the sheets against the relevant
poll sheets.

(3) Multiple precincts and wards (or townships) on the same petition
signature sheets usually indicate that they were circulated at
taverns, shopping centers, VFW halls, stores, condominium
meeting rooms, bingos, churches, neighborhood fairs, train or
“EL” stations, senior citizen functions or community meetings.
Rather than checking each signature in the registration records,
check all names against poll sheets or computer records and then
17
 carefully scrutinize the circulator affidavits. Put out “feelers” into
the community and have workers “put their ears to the ground”.
You will often find out that those sheets were left unattended.

(4) “Pattern of Fraud” indicators include:

a) a high percentage of “not registered" coupled with a high

percentage of “not genuine” signatures’;

b) duplication of separate sheets or of the same names in

different locations on the sheets and/or in reverse order;

c) frenzied circulation activity at the last minute;

d) signatures in address order;

e) signatures in poll sheet order;

f) signatures in alphabetical order;

g) a high percentage of every voter signing who is eligible to sign

at several contiguous addresses;

h) not following a logical pattern of circulation, or the existence of

a helter-skelter mode of circulation or an abrupt change in an
established pattern of circulation;

(i) signatures from persons who have not voted in the past
several elections;

j) handwriting with common characteristics appearing through-

out petition sheets;

k) a failure to obtain signatures from large families on a particular

block;

l) misspelling or change of name in the Circulator Affidavit;

m) frequent use of liquid paper in Circulator Affidavits;

n) voluminous signature collection in areas with weak precinct

organizations; and

o) one or more of the above-cited irregularities together with the

use of only a handful of supposed circulators, one or maybe

18
 two notaries, and an all-controlling campaign manager and/or
candidate.

p) street address and municipality misspellings

q) handwriting similarities and “street address and municipality

misspellings

r) handwriting similarities and “round-tabling”

See People of the State of Illinois v. McCulloch, 404 Ill.App.3d

125 (2nd Dist. 2010); Fallis v. Cook County Officers Electoral
Board, 2016 IL App. (1st) 160370-U; Mitchell v. Cook County
Officers Electoral Board, 399 Ill.App.3d 18 (1st Dist. 2010), pet
for leave to appeal den, 236 Ill.2d 508 (2010); Harmon v.
Cicero Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 371 Ill.App.3d 1111,
864 N.E.2d 996 (1st Dist. 2007); Huskey v. Municipal Offices
Electoral Board, 156 Ill.App.3d 201, 509 N.E.2d 555 (1st Dist.
1987); Canter v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 170
Ill.App.3d 364, 523 N.E.2d 1299 (1st Dist. 1980); Fortas v.
Dixon, 122 Ill.App.3d 697, 462 N.E.2d 615 (1st Dist. 1984).
See also Castillo et al. v. Cook County Officers Electoral
Board, 378 Ill.App.3d 1115, 955 N.E.2d 181 (1st Dist.
2008)(Rule 23 order)].

s) Notary misconduct and personal responsibility (Cunningham

v. Schaeflein, 2012 IL App (1st) 120529, 969 N.E2d 861(2012);
Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill.2d 352, 939 N.E.2d 328 (2010)).

(5) Find out if the candidate was present in town during the entire
circulation period:

a) Did the candidate personally circulate? (It can result in a

candidacy being “dead on arrival” if the candidate personally
engaged in, supervised or orchestrated activity designed to
undermine the electoral process.)

b) WARNING NO. 7: “While the cat is away, the mice will

play.” Have the process capably managed.

(6) When looking for patterns in handwriting, focus on the signatures

of the voters. Do not be deflected by the handwriting used in the
addresses of those voters except to compare that handwriting in
the addresses to that of all of the circulators of all of the sheets
submitted.

19
VIII. PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE OBJECTION [See the following
sample Objector’s Petition]

A. Elements of the Petition

(1) Objector(s) - registered voter(s) with their legal interest stated in

petition

(2) Specific detailed allegations by sheet and line

(3) Prayer for relief

(a) strike the candidacy and declare the nomination papers

invalid – strictly speaking Electoral Boards cannot remove a
candidate’s name from the ballot even though it is always
requested in the petition;

(b) request that the name not be printed on the ballot

(4) Verification (1-109 does not apply to non-judicial proceedings)

(5) Appendix-Recapitulation

(6) Legal basis for legal challenges stated generally;

B. You must file and original and two copies. Have an additional copy file
stamped for your own use.

C. Board Will Issue “Call” (Summons)

D. Assemble witnesses, prepare evidence, and train checkers.

E. Anticipate your opponent's motion to Strike and Dismiss. The legal and
factual issues should have already been thought out and a defensive
posture prepared. Oherwise, the entire case may become eviscerated.

F. Taboos and Warnings --

(1) Late filing is barred no matter what the excuse.

(2) Once filed, an objector's petition may not be amended (Note: A

nominating petition similarly may not be amended or added to
after it has been filed. See 10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4; Nader v. Illinois
State Board of Elections, 354 Ill.App.3d 335 819 N.E.2d 1148 (1st
Dist. 2004)).
20
 (3) Allegations must be pleaded with detailed specificity, except
“Pattern of Fraud” which may or may not be pleaded. If pleaded,
see an example in paragraph 18 of the same objection. Other-
wise, they arise from the results of the records examinations and
the documentary and testimonial evidence presented

IX. ELECTORAL BOARD HEARINGS

A. Nature of Board:

(1) Composition, membership, recusal, substituted or public members,

process, procedure, and, rule-making are dictated by statute and
court rulings. See 10 ILCS 5/10-8, 10-9, 10-10; Zurek v. Petersen,
et al., 2015 IL App (1st) 150508; Daniel v. Daly, et al., 2015 IL App
(1st) 150544.

(2) Quasi-judicial powers

(3) Governed by published rules which are usually strictly construed

by the electoral boards and the courts

(4) Operate under severe time constraints

(5) Cannot pass on constitutional questions (but all better be raised!)

(6) Decisions by majority vote

(8) Failure to comply with the “Open Meetings Act” can invalidate the
decision. Lawrence v. Thornton Township High School District
205 Officers Electoral Board, 2013 IL App (1st) 130757.

(9) Decisions once rendered cannot be modified or amended

(10) Judicial review proceeding

B. Preliminary Issues:

(1) Determination of service and jurisdiction

(2) "Participation" will waive any "special and limited appearances"

(3) Requests for subpoenas should be made immediately

(4) Continuances are generally denied

21
 (5) Motions to Strike and Dismiss will be heard first, usually filed,
briefed, and argued within 2 days.

(6) Timetable and nature of proofs will be discussed at the first

hearing.

C. Hearing officers (or the Electoral Board itself) may “take the record”.

WARNING No. 8: There is no pre-trial discovery (only subpoena

power to produce persons and documents). There are virtually
no continuances. Motions are filed within 24 hours of the first
hearing and responses 24 hours thereafter. You may be in a
residency trial within a week. The election will take place on the
statutory date—with or without you as a candidate!

D. Types of Evidence and Proofs Permitted:

(1) Results of records examination and Rule 7 and 8 proceedings

(2) Affidavits—particularly of voters attempting to "rehabilitate" signa-

tures) (See Romanelli v, Fritchey, ___Ill.App.3d, ___ (Docket 1-
08-0031, 1st Dist., Feb. 11, 2008]) (Order); Vazquez v. Board of
Election Commissioners, 2016 IL App. (1st) 160349-U; Inguez v.
City of Chicago Board of Election Commisisoners, 2016 IL App
(lst)160535-U. See also Caldwell v. Board of Election
Commissioners, 2012 COEL 002 (Jan. 30, 2012)(735 ILCS 5/1-
109 certifications are not permitted) and the corresponding rules
adopted by Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois State Electoral
Boards; IICLE, Election Law, 1.83.

(3) Any relevant, probative, and material documentary or tangible

evidence

(4) Candidate testimony

(5) Testimony of witnesses (e.g. election authority officials, hand writ-

ing experts, circulators, notaries, landlords and tenants, candidate
family members and supporters, voters and affiants, bank or utility
company representatives, business owners or employees, etc.)

(6) Testimony of Objector(s) (limited in scope)—to “verify” or not.

(7) Official records or documents of government agencies (e.g. filing

officer, County Clerk, Secretary of State, municipalities)

22
 (8) Offers of proof submitted by the parties

(9) Stipulations or agreements from pre-hearing conferences

(10) Legal briefs; proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

(11) Materials/persons produced via properly subpoena

(12) Registration records, poll sheets, computer generated materials,

and district maps from election authorities

(13) Facts, documents, official records, utility subscriptions, and other

information supporting or challenging residency

(14) The actual nominating papers

(15) Transcripts of proceedings

E. A written decision will be issued detailing the controlling law and facts.

I. Chicago Board Rule 20 Appeal to Electoral Board itself

J. Judicial Review in Circuit Court (expedited)

Note: Only 5 days to appeal to circuit court, taking care to serve the
parties—not their attorneys. See Rivera v. Chicago Electoral Board,
2011 IL App (lst) 110283, pet. leave to appeal den. November 2011.

K. Appellate Review (expedited)

See Lenehan v. Schaumburg Township Officers Electoral Board, 2013

IL App (lst) 130619 for a thoughtful discussion of issues concerning
failure to name or serve electoral board and county clerk as parties,
laches, and the filing of the notice of appeal.

X. EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION AT A RECORDS EXAMINATION

A. In general:

(1) Establish a rapport with opposing watchers and the election board
personnel that allows the records examination to evolve into a
fluid and a smooth routine.

(2) Do not become argumentative, hostile, aggressive or contentious.

Otherwise, you will lose the close calls.
23
 (3) Make your objections to the “calls” at once but do not jump on the
“objection bandwagon”. Remember the tale of “Chicken Little” by
exercising prudence.

(4) When attacking, suggest groups of capital letters to the caller

which tend to look similar in handwriting, e.g. “T”, “L”, and “P”;
“J”, “H”, and “I”; “O” and “Q”; “P”, “D”, and “B”; “E” and “F”;
“U”, “V", and "W". The Chicago Board and the Cook County
Clerk have traditionally permitted two-guesses.

(5) When defending, have the common sense to remain quiet should
you receive a call in your favor.

(6) Be constructive, precise, detailed, and descriptive when “talking

through” a signature comparison while the caller is doing the
examination--provided that the caller does not have any objection
to your giving on-going commentary.

(7) Use your own copy of signature sheets for your own personal
notations. However, always be looking at the actual signature
sheet in order to compare with the digitized signature shown on
the election authority computer screen.

(8) Mark your own copies of the appendix sheets from the objections
with notations in red ink for objection “sustained” and in blue or
black ink for those “overruled.”

(9) When possible, feel the impression made by the handwriting on

the reverse side of each sheet and make any relevant notations
for yourself for further proof or other legal challenges later.

(10) When attacking remember that the “illegible” or “unreadable”

signature cannot be found if the objector does not guess about the
first letter of the last name. However, an objection based upon an
allegation that a signature is “illegible” or “unreadable” per se is
not valid.

(11) Do not argue about the lack of middle initials, shortened forms of
names, and minor trivial differences. These technical defects do
not invalidate signatures.

(13) The best watchers are old-time politicos, school teachers, bank
employees, pharmacists, nurses, and persons who have
widespread experience in viewing handwriting. The records

24
 examination is not the place for friends of the candidate who want
to “have a part” in the process.

(14) The Chicago Board and the Cook County Clerk now have an
integrated system for checking signatures on file and also provide
computer generated results and tabulations. You are also free to
keep your own notes and worksheets.

B. Handwriting and Signature Comparison

(1) Basic Characteristics and Elements

a) Form, movement, and flow;

b) Connections and spacing;

c) Slant and alignment;

d) Shading, retracing, embellishments, and “style”.

(2) Always “move your eye with the flow of the letters”.

(3) Some general “rules” for handwriting analysis:

a) Pauses before every new pen application create a “stop and

start effect” and usually leave distinctive ink blobs.

b) Speed is usually less at the beginning or at the end of writing

than in the middle of the writing.

c) A change in the angle of writing reduces the speed and

retards the flow of writing

d) Hand muscles function best, and most naturally, in a

rhythmical fashion.

e) The grip on a writing instrument is usually more forceful in the

down stroke than in the upstroke.

f) Cramping and fatigue will create an interrupted and choppy

flow to the writing.

g) There are decided differences between a writing made while

sitting down and one made while standing.

25
h) Transposition of letters and others oddities in style of writing
are very difficult to forge.

I) Look for similarities in capital letters and for dissimilarities in

the small letters.

j) Pay more attention to the first name as opposed to the last

name.

k) Within the last name, pay more heed to the front of the name
than to the ending. People writing in a hurry tend to “taper off”
their signatures at the end.

[See MOENSSENS, MOSES AND INBAU, SCIENTIFIC

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES 413-414, 417-418-425, 439-
440 (1973)]

l) Some specific characteristics to consider:

[1] “Arcades” - a connective from shaped like an arch usually

found in letters “h”, “m”, and “n”; frequently found in
writing of young women and may include clockwise circle
letters and circle “i” dots.

[2] “Ascenders” - strokes above the body of the letter moving in

an upward direction that may turn to form a loop; com-
monly found in letters “b”, “d”, “l”, “f”, “h”, “k”, and “t”.

[3] “Decenders” - strokes below the body of the letter which

occupy the lower one-third of the writing zones; most
commonly found in bottom portion of the letters “f”, “g”, “j”,
“p”, “q”, “y”, and “z”.

[4] “Garlands” - connective forms joining letters found in

rhythmic writing where formations resemble the letter “u”.

[5] “Pictorial Quality” - fluency, rhythms, spatial orientation,

slant, shading, and general letter designs.

[6] “Slant” - slope or angle of writing in relation to base line

which can be modified by paper or body position, changed
pen grip, or use of the opposite hand.

[7] “Graphemes” – letter(s) reflecting a class of group of

sounds in combinations of “p”, “pp”, “r”, “br”, and “gh”.

26
 [8] “Anomalies and variations” within ethnic groups

[9] Elements of personal style, flare, fluency.

[10] Cultural, linguistic, environmental, personal, social, and

external forces affecting handwriting.

[See Bonnie L. Schwid, “Forged and Altered Records,” 15-18

(Anagraphics, Inc., Milwaukee and Chicago) (1994), and
“Elements of Language and Handwriting, “Journal of Forensic
Document Examinations, Vol. 5, 15-31 (Fall, 1993)]

(4) When on the attack, resort to the handwriting expert of the

election authority with care. The expert will tend to find the close
calls to be genuine and it is very hard to attack the expert’s
decision before the electoral board without additional evidence.
However, where a signature sheet contains many obvious
forgeries, it is usually beneficial to the objector in a “pattern of
fraud case” that the handwriting expert should view the entire
sheet. See Marcel B. Matley, “Using and Cross Examining
Handwriting Experts,” Practical Litigator, 21-33 (Sept. 2002).

C. Special Procedural Rules Employed by Electoral Boards

(1) Where genuineness of a signature is challenged:

a) Cook County Offices Electoral Board: The clerk will check the
computer lists/records for the voter. If found a signature
comparison will be made. If not found, the objections may be
overruled.

b) Chicago Board of Election Commissioners: The computerized

records with digitized signatures will be checked.

(2) Where registration is challenged (Always check the rules as

adopted each year. These rules are subject to change.)

a) Cook County Officers Electoral Board: The clerk will first

check the computerized registration records or registration
lists. If no record if found, the objection is sustained. If an
address is found but it is different, it should be sustained.

b) Chicago Board of Election Commissioners: The computerized

records will be searched with a similar approach taken.

(3) Where signature is challenged and no registration found (same):

27
 a) Cook County Officers Electoral Board: If no voter registration
is found, the objection will be overruled.

b) Chicago Board of Election Commissioners: If no computerized

record exits for the voter, the objection will be sustained with a
notation of “not registered”.

(4) Otherwise, all objections must be made with specificity and

precision within the Objector’s Petition and the attached
Appendix-Recapitulation (See sample objection).

(5) Remember that if an election authority is checking registration

under the authority of its own electoral board, it will apply those
rules. However, if it is acting as the agent for another electoral
board, then it will apply the rules of that board. Both agencies
have collaborated to create a mutually compatible tallying system
for recording rulings on objections.

(6) To preserve objections to the calls made by the election authority

clerks, the complaining party must say “object” and have record of
that “objection” to the call noted in the official report. Failure will
constitute a waiver foreclosing further review by the hearing officer
or the full board. The Chicago and Cook County Electoral Boards
have precise rules in this regard (e.g. timeliness of initial objection;
form of motion to preserve objection and present further
evidence). The Courts strictly construes such procedural rules as
well as those governing timely filing and notice of such objections.

(7) The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and the Cook

County Clerk now have an interactive and compatible data entry
system to record rulings on signature and registration objections.

D. Other Possible Sources of “Hard Copy” Registration Records

(1) Chicago Board Master File—no longer used [experience had

shown maybe find 2-3% of the registration records at issue];

(2) Suspended registration files;

(3) Trays containing very recent registrations from the libraries or

Deputy Registrars which have yet to be “keyed in” to the system;

(4) Ward, Township, District, or Precinct Maps computerized records;

28
 (5) Cook County Clerk "Voter Edit Screen" print out and "Certification
of Registration" record;

(6) Computer lists from which the poll sheets are created;

(7) Chicago Board of Election Commissioners alphabetical listing

computer sheets and lists of recently registered voters;

(8) Deputy Registrar "Audit Report" and Motor Voter Records.

(9) See Greene v. Board of Election Commissioners, 112 Ill. App.3d

862 (1st Dist. 1983); G. Fresen, “What Lawyers Should Know
About Digital Signatures,” Ill. Bar Journal, Vol. 85, 170-173 (Apr.
1997); T. Smedinghoff, “Illinois to Embrace Digital Signa-tures for
Secure Electronic Commerce, “ The Corporate Lawyer [ISBA
newsletter], Vol. 34, no. 1, 1 (Oct. 1996).

XI. CONTACT INFORMATION AND RESOURCE MATERIAL

A. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners:

http://www.chicagoelections.com (312-269-7900, fax: 312-263-3649;
TTY: 312-269-0027).

B. Cook County Clerk: http://www.voterinfonet.com/sub/disclosures.asp

(312-603-0907; fax: 312-603-9786).

C. Chicago Board of Ethics: http://www.cityofchicago.org

D Illinois State Board of Elections: http://www.elections.state.il.us, for the

the 2018 Candidate’s Guide, with petitions and forms.

E. Chicago Board of Elections “Index of Electoral Board Decisions”

(2016), available on the website and older editions in hard copy.

F. Chicago Board of Elections, “Library of Electoral Board Decisions:

1980-2012” (2015), available on the website.

G. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, current Election Calendar

as well as the instructional video “Navigating Petition Objections”
instructional video, both maintained on its website.

G. Illinois Secretary of State, www.cyberdriveillinois.com.

H IICLE, ELECTION LAW HANDBOOK, Chapters 1, 2, and 3 (2016).

29
XII. FINAL THOUGHTS

A. Success lies in attention to the details.

(1) “There is no substitute for hard work.” -- Thomas Edison

(2) “Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a

result of hard work.” -- Booker T. Washington

i) It is amazing how many how candidacies rise or fall on the

validity of less than 20 signatures!

SECRET No. 1: Election lawyers really love this stuff.

SECRET No. 2: Incumbents especially do too.

THE INCUMBENT’S CREED: Before you have won for the first time, the
watchword of “democracy” is: “Unrestricted ballot access-Let the people
decide!” Once you have been elected, the advantages of “benevolent
despotism” as a form of government become readily apparent. The new
mantra is: “The best election is the uncontested election. No need to
have a situation in which the people might make a mistake.”

A FEW WORDS OF WISDOM

“Politics ain’t beanbag” (“Dr. Dooley”)

Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936)

“Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business.”

Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

“I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”
Will Rogers (1879-1935)

“The most important office is that of the private citizen.”

Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1939)

“I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice,

I wanna be elected,
I'm your yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce,
I wanna be elected . . .

30
 I never lied to you, I've always been cool,
I wanna be elected . . .

We're gonna be elected, elected, elected,

Respected, selected, call collected,
I wanna be elected, elected . . .”

Vincent Damon Furnier [“Alice Cooper”]

2011 Inductee into the “Rock and Roll” Hall of Fame

If you are removed from the ballot, you can avoid the fray. If you succeed in
staying on the ballot, you can join the fray.Just remember that when you
thrust yourself into the “vortex of the public debate”, you will find that it is
very noisy and chaotic in the “marketplace of ideas”.

Presented at the Chicago Bar Association Election Law

Seminar, “Running for Office: How to Get on the Ballot and
Win” (October 2017). Portions of this outline have been
used in an October, 2007 IICLE presentation as well as
numerous CBA presentations over the past twenty+ years.

31
 SAMPLE OBJECTOR’S PETITION

Note: Verify the relevant facts and consult with counsel before using the
suggestions contained in this Sample Objector’s Petition.

STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF COOK )

BEFORE THE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE

HEARING AND PASSING UPON OBJECTIONS TO THE NOMINATION
PAPERS FOR CANDIDATES OF THE ________________ PARTY (OR
INDEPENDENT OR NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF
MAYOR (or Trustee or Alderman of the ___ Ward or District) OF THE
VILLAGE OF ____________,** IN THE COUNTY OF COOK AND THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS OF ________________ )

TO THE NOMINATION PAPERS OF _______________________ )
OF [address], AS A CANDIDATE OF THE _________PARTY (OR)
NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATE OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE )
FOR TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR (or Trustee or Alderman of the) No.
_____ Ward or District) OF THE VILLAGE** OF __________ IN )
THE COUNTY OF COOK AND STATE OF ILLINOIS TO BE )
VOTED UPON AT THE____________ELECTION TO BE HELD )
ON _________,20_____. )

[**Note: This format for the objections which follow, is provided for
illustrative purposes only. Both the format and the objections will depend
upon the office sought, its official title, term length (if applicable), whether
the candidacy is by law partisan, non-partisan or independent, and other
conditions established of the Illinois Election Code and/or the Illinois
Municipal Code, including the requirement that the signers be registered
voters within the political division of the candidate seeking election. For
convenience for this example, the continuing references will be only to a
candidate who is seeking election to an office known as “Mayor of the
Village of _____________”. ]

VERIFIED OBJECTOR’S PETITION

NOW COMES, ____________________, hereinafter referred to as the

“Objector,” and respectfully represents that Objector resides at
_____________________________________, in the Village of __________ of
the State of Illinois; that Objector is a duly qualified, registered, and legal
32
voter at such address; that Objector’s interest in filing the following
objections is that of a citizen desirous of seeing to it that the laws
governing the filling of nomination papers for candidates seeking Election
to the office of Mayor of the Village of _________________ in the County of
Cook and in the State of Illinois are properly complied with and that only
qualified candidates have their names appear on the ballot as candidates
for the said office; and therefore your Objector makes the following
objections to the nomination papers of __________________________ as a
candidate for election to the office of Mayor of the Village of
_____________in the County of Cook and State of Illinois, and files the
same herewith, and states that the said nomination papers are insufficient
in law and in fact for the following reasons:

1. Your Objector states that in the Village of ____________ of the

County of Cook and the State of Illinois the signatures of not less than
______ nor more than ________ duly qualified, registered, and legal voters
of the Village of ____________ in the County of Cook and the State of
Illinois are required for the office of Mayor of the Village of
______________. In addition, said Nomination Papers must truthfully allege
the qualifications of the candidate, be gathered and presented in the
manner provided for in the Illinois Election Code, and otherwise be
executed in the form and manner required by law.

2. Your Objector states that the Candidate has filed _____ petition
signature sheets containing a total of ____ signatures of allegedly duly
qualified, legal, and registered voters of the Village of _____________ in the
County of Cook and the State of Illinois.

3. Your Objector states that the laws pertaining to the securing of ballot
access require that certain requirements be met as established by law.
Filings made contrary to such requirements must be voided, being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided. One such legal
requirement mandates the filing by the Candidate of the receipt from the
“Statement of Economic Interest” filed pursuant to the Illinois
Governmental Ethics Act, which receipt and statement must be made “in
relation to his candidacy.” See Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board,
112 Ill.App.3d 926, 446 N.E.2d 256, (1st Dist. 1983). This nominating petition
fails to contain a SOEI Receipt that is a mandatory requirement, the
absence of which renders the petition fatally defective. Bolger v. Electoral
Board of City of McHenry, 210 Ill.App.3d 958, 569 N.E.2d 628, (2nd Dist.
1991); Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill.App.3d 334, 785
N.E.2d 1014 (5th Dist. 2003). The nomination papers are, therefore, not in
compliance with the statutes in such cases made and provided.

4. Your Objector states that the candidate has filed a false Statement of
Candidacy and has made a false statement on each and every one of the
petition signature sheets to the affect that [he] [she] resides at

33
____________________ when, in fact, [he] [she] actually legally resides at
____________________, and from which address the candidate, in fact,
voted in the most recent past election. Further, the Candidate has not
resided at an address located within the Village of _______________ in the
County of Cook and the State of Illinois, the political subdivision which [he]
[she] seeks to represent, and does not, and will not have resided therein,
as of the date of the April 4, 2017 Election, for the requisite durational
period as required by law. Such false representations of residency are in
violation of ILL.CONST. (1970) art. IV, §1 and 2(a); l0 ILCS 5/8-3, 8-ll, and 8-
12, 5 ILCS 420/1-108, and 65 ILCS 20 et seq., making the candidate
disqualified from, and ineligible to seek and serve in, the office for which
the nomination papers were filed. See also, Ill. Const. (1970), art. VI, sec.
11, 705 ILCS 35/2(e), Goodman v.Ward, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 446 (Ill. 2011); In re
Golniewicz, No. 03-001 (Illinois Courts Commission) [Nov. 15, 2004]; Neely
v. Board of Election Commissioners, 371 Ill.App.3d 694, 863 N.E.2d 795 (1st
Dist. 2007), pet. for leave to app. den. 224 Ill.2d 577, 871 N.E. 2d 56 (2007).

5. Your Objector states that the Candidate has failed to fulfill the
mandatory requirement of 10 ILCS 5/7-10 that [he] [she] sign the sworn
Statement of Candidacy under oath and file the original with the
nomination papers. The failure to comply with this mandatory requirement
is a fatal defect. Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill.2d 48, 344 N.E.2d 443 (1976);
Serwinski v. Board of Election Commissioners of City of Chicago, 156
Ill.App.3d 257, 509 N.E.2d 50 (1st Dist. 1987). See Adamcik v. Hacker, No.
04-EB-WC-069 (Chicago Electoral Board 2004).

6. Your Objector further states that the aforesaid nomination papers

contain the names of numerous persons who are not in fact duly qualified,
registered, and legal voters at the addresses shown opposite their names
in the Village of ____________ in the County of Cook and the State of
Illinois and their signatures are therefore invalid, as more fully set forth in
the Appendix-Recapitulation under the column designated “SIGNER NOT
REGISTERED (A),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said
signatures being in violation of the statutes in such cases made and
provided.

7. Your Objector further states that the said nomination papers contain
the names of numerous persons who have signed said petition but who are
not, in fact, duly qualified, registered, and legal voters at addresses that are
located within the boundaries of the Village of _____________ in the
County of Cook and the State of Illinois as shown by the addresses they
have given on the petition, as more fully set forth in the Appendix-
Recapitulation under the column designated “SIGNER NOT IN DISTRICT
(B),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said signatures being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

8. Your Objector further states that the said nomination papers contain
the names of numerous persons who did not sign the said nomination

34
papers in their own proper persons, and that the said signatures are not
genuine, as more fully set forth in the Appendix-Recapitulation under the
column designated “SIGNER NOT PROPER PERSON AND NOT GENUINE
(C),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said signatures being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

9. Your Objector further states that said nominating petition contains

the signatures of various individuals who have signed the petition more
than once, and such duplicate signatures are invalid, as more fully set forth
in the Appendix-Recapitulation, under the column designated “SIGNED
PETITION MORE THAN ONCE (D),” with a further notation therein of the
sheet and line numbers of the alleged duplicate signature(s) as Sh.__, L.__,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said signatures being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

10. Your Objector states that various purported signatures are legally
defective and deficient for a variety of reasons, as more fully set forth in
the Appendix-Recapitulation, under the column designated “OTHER (E)”
(together with an appropriate further reason) attached hereto and made a
part hereof, all of said signatures being in violation of the statutes in such
cases made and provided. These objections include, but are not limited to
improper, partial, incomplete, or no address; names stricken or crossed
out from the sheets; use of only a partial name; and improper use of name;
or individual signature lines being left unfilled or blank or containing a
name that has been crossed off, eradicated, stricken, or removed, all of
said signatures being in violation of the statutes in such cases made and
provided.

11. Your Objector further states that the said nominating petition
contains petition signature sheets nos. ______, ______, and ______
(containing ______ signatures) in which the circulator of those particular
sheets (one ______________) certifies under oath: “that I reside at
______________, in the City of ____________” when, in fact, said circulator
resides at, and is registered to vote from, _______________, ____________,
Illinois ___________, making those particular Circulator Affidavits false and
perjurious, and rendering each and every one of the signatures on such
petition signature sheets nos. ______, ______, and, ______ invalid, as more
fully set forth in the Appendix-Recapitulation under the column designated
as “OTHER — IMPROPER CIRCULATOR (E)” attached hereto and made a
part hereof, all of said signatures being in violation in the statutes in such
cases made and provided.

12. Your Objector states that petition signature sheet no. ______, which
purportedly contains ______ valid signatures is defective and void in its
entirety and all signatures thereon are invalid because the sheet has not
been properly signed by the Notary Public, the absence of such signature
being a fatal defect, as more fully set forth in the Appendix-Recapitulation
under the column designated “OTHER — DEFECTIVE NOTARIZATION (E),”

35
attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said signatures being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

13. Your Objector states that the circulator of petition signature sheet
no. ______, has failed to sign the Circulator Affidavit and take the oath, as
required by law, on the line indicated for the “signature of person making
this affidavit,” rendering each and every signature on the aforesaid sheets
as invalid, as more fully set forth in the Appendix-Recapitulation under the
column designated as “OTHER — UNSIGNED CIRCULATOR AFFIDAVIT
(E),” attached hereto and made a part hereof, all of said signatures being in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

14. Your Objector also states that petition signature sheets nos. ______,
______, and ______ (consisting of ______ signatures) are legally void in
their entirety for the following reasons:

(a) Several of the sheets petition that the candidate be nominated for the
office of “Trustee of the Village of ________ for the ______ District,
unexpired term” which is an entirely different office than that for which
these nomination papers have been filed (namely: “Mayor of the Village of
_____________ in the County of Cook and the State of Illinois”);

(b) 10 ILCS 5/7-10 requires that nomination papers specifically identify

“the office” being sought by the candidate and further that “the heading of
each sheet shall be the same” and this petition uses multiple variations.

(c) Individual petition signature sheets identifying an incorrect political

division or office designation within a set of nomination papers are legally
insufficient and void, rendering all signatures on petition signature sheets
nos. ______, ______, and ______, in violation of the statutes in such cases
made and provided.

15. Your Objector states that all ______ signatures which appear on
petition signature sheet no. ______ also appear on petition signature sheet
no. ______, making each of those ______ signatures “duplicates”, in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided, requiring that
one of the sets of ______ signatures be invalidated.

16. Your Objector states that all ______ signatures that appear on
petition signature sheet no. ______ are not, in fact, the “original”
signatures of the voters but are photocopies of the signatures, all in
violation of the statutes in such cases made and provided.

17. Your Objector states that on petition signature sheet no. ______, the
Notary Public’s jurat authenticates that the true actual circulator of said
sheet, one __________________, appeared before the Notary on
_______________, and swore to the Circulator Affidavit, despite the fact
that the name of the person making the affidavit is one

36
__________________, whose signature appears on sheet no. ______ as the
circulator, rendering all ______ signatures thereon in violation of the
statutes in such cases made and provided.

18. Your Objector states that there will be presented substantial, clear,
unmistakable, and compelling evidence which establishes a “pattern of
fraud and false swearing” with and “utter and contemptuous disregard for
the mandatory provisions of the Election Code.” In addition, an
examination of the nominating petition as well as the results of the records
examination hereunder will reveal a pervasive and systematic attempt to
undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Consequently, your
Objector states that this Electoral Board “cannot close its eyes and ears”
but will be compelled to void the entire nominating petition as being illegal
and void in its entirety under the principles set forth in Cunningham v.
Schaeflein, 2012 IL App (1st) 120529, 969 N.E2d 861(2012); Harmon v. Town
of Cicero Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 371 Ill.App.3d 1111, 864
N.E.2d 996 (1st Dist. 2007); Canter v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board,
170 Ill.App.3d 364, 523 N.E.2d 1299, 1300 – 1301 (1st Dist. 1988); Huskey v.
Municipal Officers Electoral Board for Village of Oak Lawn, 156 Ill.App.3d
201, 509 N.E.2d 555, 556 – 558 (1st Dist. 1987); and Fortas v. Dixon, 122
Ill.App.3d 697, 462 N.E.2d 615, 617(1st Dist. 1984). This allegation is made
with specific reference to petition signature sheets nos. ____, ____, ____,
____, ____, ____, ____, ____, ____, and ____ and, with investigation
continuing to, portions of petition signature sheets nos. ____, ____, ____,
____, and ____. Your Objector will produce documentary and testimonial
evidence that will establish inter alia that:

(a) The purported circulator of the following enumerated sheets was not,
in fact, the actual circulator: _______________________________________.

(b) Several signatures were not placed on the petitions by the voters in
their own proper persons but were signed by other individuals and family
members on the following enumerated sheets: _______________________.

(c) The candidate signed the Circulator Affidavit on several of these

sheets when, in fact, [he] [she] was not the true circulator, as follows:
_______________________________________________________________.

(d) Several signatures that appear on the following enumerated sheets

were written by the same hand and are forgeries: _____________________.

(e) Several signature sheets exhibit, evidence of “round-tabling”,

particularly the following: _________________________________________.

(f) The circulators of these sheets never actually appeared before the
Notary Public to take the Circulator Oath, but instead presented these
sheets to other persons who procured notarization after the fact and out of
the presence of the circulators:_____________________________________.

37
 (g) An excessively high percentage of signatures procured by
circulator(s) ____________________ on sheet(s) ____________ are not
genuine; and

(h) _________________ [state allegations]____________________.

[Note: For each of the preceding sub-paragraphs, it is advisable to

enumerate the specific petition sheets then known to fall within each
allegation. A further notation of “with investigation continuing” may
also be added where appropriate. The actual facts known (names,
places, dates, and circumstances) at the time of filing the objection
should be alleged with as much specificity as possible in order to
fairly apprise the candidate of the nature and extent of the conduct
being brought into question.

Such challenged acts/events might include: known specific false

circulator affidavits, individual sheets of signatures allegedly written
in the same hand, false notarizations, fraudulent circulator activity,
and the reasonably anticipated results of the records examination.
See Daniel v. Daley, 2015 IL App (lst) 150544 (and the related Chicago
Board rule) requiring an objector to establish a “credible showing of
a good faith basis” for allegations. If pled, there must be some
allegation, specific or general, which charges a pattern or fraud, false
circulator affidavits, an invalid statement of candidacy or
notarization irregularities in the objection. Wiesner v. Brennan, 2016
IL App (2nd) 160115.]

19. Your Objector states that the Candidate has incorporated into [his]
[her] attempted ballot name (on the Statement of Candidacy and each and
every petition signature sheet presented to the voters) an improper and
illegal “political slogan” that attempts to espouse a political position or
convey a philosophical point of view or meaning other than merely to
convey the identity of the candidate, to wit: “No Conceal and Carry Gun
Shops”, in violation of 10 ILCS 5/7-10.2, 10 ILCS 5/7-17, and 5/10-5.1
rendering the entire nomination papers invalid.

20. Your Objector states that the Candidate has failed to comply with the
provisions of 10 ILCS 5/7-10.2 and 5/10-10.5.1 in the [he][she] has
undergone a legal change of name through a court proceeding in the [ ]
court of the State of [ ] within the past three years and has not, as
required by law: (a) placed upon the nomination papers the notation :
“formerly known as” together with a listing of all such former names and
the date of the name change; and (b) has failed to file with the nomination
papers the necessary affidavit setting forth such facts, rendering the entire
nomination papers invalid. This candidate has been previously variously
known as ___________________ and __________________.

38
 21. Your Objector further states that the candidate has also filed
nomination papers for both the office of “Commissioner of the Board of
Review of Cook County for the First Election District” and for “Mayor of the
Village of ____________ in the County of Cook and the State of Illinois”,
which offices are incompatible, and in which [he] [she] may not legally
serve simultaneously, and that the candidate failed to withdraw the
nomination papers for one of the offices prior to the statutory deadline in
which case [his][her] name may not appear on any ballot. 10 ILCS 5/7-12(9)
and, 10-7. See People ex rel Myers v. Haas, 145 Ill.App. 283 (1st Dist. 1968).
Your Objector also states that the holding of both offices simultaneously
would be a violates Ill Const. (1970), art. II, sec. l; art. IV, sec. 1; and art. VI,
sec.l.

22. Your Objector states that the Candidate is ineligible to seek office as
a nominee of the ___________ Party because he has voted in the in the
opposite political party in the current election cycle:

(a) is “locked in” to the previous party declaration until the next
primary election; and therefore

(b) has filed a false Statement of Candidacy in that [s]he was not, at
the time of (1) signing the Statement and (2) filing the nomination papers, is
not now, a “qualified voter” of the ___________ Party (Hossfeld v. Illinois
State Board of Elections, 238 Ill.2d 418 (2010); Rosenzweig v. Illinois State
Board of Elections, 409 Ill.App.3d 176 (1st Dist. 2011); Cullerton v. DuPage
County Officers Electoral Board, 384 Ill.App.3d 989, 894 N.E.2d 774 (2008)),
rendering the entire nomination papers invalid.

23. Your Objector states that the nomination papers herein contested
consist of various sheets supposedly containing the valid and legal
signatures of ______ individuals. The individual objections cited herein
with specificity reduce the number of valid signatures by ______ or to
______ or ______ below the statutory minimum of ______. In addition, the
allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of this
Objector’s Petition render the entire nominating petition null and void.

WHEREFORE, your Objector prays that the purported nomination

papers of __________________ as a candidate for nomination of the
________________ [Party] to the office of Mayor of the Village ________ of
the State of Illinois be declared by this Honorable Electoral Board to be
insufficient and not in compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois and
that the Candidate’s name be stricken and that this Honorable Electoral
Board enter its decision declaring that the name of _______________ as a
candidate for election to the office of Mayor of the Village of ____________
in the County of Cook and the State of Illinois BE NOT PRINTED on the
OFFICIAL BALLOT for the ____________ Election to be held on ____, 20__.

39
___________________________________
OBJECTOR
[address, city, state, and zip code]

VERIFICATION

The undersigned as Objector, first being duly sworn on oath, now

deposes and says that [he] [she] has read this VERIFIED OBJECTOR’S
PETITION and that the statements therein are true and correct, except as to
matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such
matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that [he] [she] verily believes
the same to be true and correct.

___________________________________
OBJECTOR

[address, city, state, and zip code]

[Note: The Election Code does not require verification and there are
conflicting strategic considerations concerning whether you want
the objection to be verified.]

County of ____________ )
) ss.
State of Illinois )

Subscribed to and Sworn before me, a Notary Public, by ______________,

the Objector, on this the ______ day of 20____ at ________________,
Illinois.

_______________________________ (SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires: ______________

[Attorney Information]

40
Candidate: ___________________________________
Office: Mayor
District: Village of __________________________

APPENDIX RECAPITUALTION

SHEET NO. ________

A B C D E

SIGNER NOT SIGNED

PROPER PETITION
PERSON AND MORE OTHER:
SIGNER NOT SIGNER NOT NOT GENUINE THAN STATE
LINE NO. REGISTERD IN DISTRICT ONCE REASON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

TOTAL SIGNATURES: ___________

TOTAL OBJECTIONS: ___________

41
THOMAS A. JACONETTY received his B.A. Honors degrees in History and Political
Science, summa cum laude from Loyola University of Chicago (1975) and his J.D.
degree from Northwestern University School of Law (1978). Mr. Jaconetty is a member
of the Chicago, Illinois State, and American Bar Associations as well as the Justinian
Society of Lawyers and the Advocates Society. He is the author of Chapter one, “Ballot
Access” in the current IICLE ELECTION LAW HANDBOOK (2016), the 2012 edition, the
2007 edition, its 2009 supplement as well as the 2002 edition and its 2005 Supplement.
He was co-author of the same chapter in the 1991 edition, the 1995 Supplement, and
the 1998 Cumulative Supplement. He has participated in twenty-seven Chicago Bar
Association Election Law Seminars since 1989, made dozens of presentations to
political organizations and committees, and appeared on the CBA “You and the Law”
cable television program in 1994. Over the past thirty-eight years, Mr. Jaconetty has
represented scores of candidates, objectors, political groups, the Cook County
Democratic Party, and various campaign committees in a variety of election law matters
as well as election contests and discovery recounts. He regularly appears before the
Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, the Cook County Officers Electoral Board,
the Illinois State Board of Elections, and other local electoral boards. Mr. Jaconetty has
been counsel to electoral boards and has been appointed several times by the
Presiding Judge of the County Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County to act as
Chair or as a public Electoral Board member. He represents candidates, objectors, and
parties at all levels of the Illinois State Courts. Mr. Jaconetty has served as Chair of the
Chicago Bar Association Election Law Committee three times (1994-1995, 2004-2005,
2007-2008) and occasionally substitutes as a lecturer in classes at the John Marshall
Law School on ballot access and the “Suffrage and Elections” Article of the Illinois
Constitution. Mr. Jaconetty is active in a variety of civic and community organizations,
Chair Emeritus and 9 year member of the Board of Directors of Regina Dominican High
School, regularly participates in grammar and high school education programs
(including mentoring and judging student projects for the Chicago Metro History
Education Center), and judges Northwestern University, American Bar Association, and
other Moot Court Competitions
October 2017

42
 NOTES
_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

43