The following statement consists of my arguments to defend against the Lake County Electoral Boards recent decision to prevent my name from appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot as the Independent Candidate for State Representative of District 62. On Appeal, in the case of Zurek v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board (CCOEB) (2014), “the circuit court held that because the requirements of the Election Code “may be only substantially, and not strictly, complied with as long as the violations are technical in nature and do not prevent a fair election,” The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Board to apply the doctrine of substantial compliance and upheld the decision to place the name of the candidate on the ballot—even though he used the wrong form. Illinois Elections Code states: The name of a candidate shall appear on the primary ballot as long as “a petition for nomination has been filed in his behalf as provided IN THIS ARTICLE in SUBSTANTIALLY the following form:…”(emphasis added). In Zurek v. CCOEB, (Justice Joseph Gordon held that the phrase “ ‘in substantially the following form’ ” “applies to all, not some, of that section’s requirements.”). Thus, we do not find persuasive petitioners’ [the objector] argument that the statutory doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply. The question to ask is when does the application of the statutory doctrine of substantial compliance apply? Based on the appellate decision in Zurek which deemed that the wrong form qualifies under the doctrine of substantial compliance, I will question how did the Lake County Electoral Board follow the law by invalidating a photocopy of the correct form? Which form complies with the legislature’s intent of the law: providing the wrong information or providing a photocopy of the right information—both of which are technical errors “The doctrine of substantial compliance will save a candidate’s nominating papers only when the defect is minor and the papers still satisfy the apparent purpose of the statute’s requirements” Cortez v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the City of (Calumet City) (2013). Although 69 petition sheets were photocopies, I will argue that the Lake County Electoral Board erred when it failed to apply the doctrine of substantial compliance to my petition as a whole on the basis that; I swore before a notary that all the signatures on my petition sheets were signed by the voters in my presence and that I collected those signatures within the dates required by law, regardless of the fact that 69 petition sheets were photocopies does not release me from my oath; that the signatures on the photocopy petition sheets had been signed by qualified registered district voters on the original petition sheet and that those voters signed such sheets with the knowledge that I was seeking the opportunity to appear on the ballot as the Independent Candidate for State Representative of District 62 at the November 4, 2014 general election; that the photocopy petition sheets were not duplicate sheets and the objector did not allege fraud; the photocopies were taken from original sheets containing the original signatures of qualified voters and therefore the photocopy sheets did not cause any confusion to the voters and those sheets did not upset the integrity of the electoral process because the objector was able to conduct a thorough investigation on each of the 206 challenges that she sought to invalidate and through her attorney, she provided evidence at the Electoral Board hearing of the signers’ voter registration cards that were on file at the Clerk’s office. The Board only sustained 10 objections to those signatures, all the other objections were either withdrawn by the objector or overruled by the Board. As such, my petition exceeded the minimum number of qualified signatures from registered district voters and my nominating papers did not ignore one of the requirements prescribed by law when taken as a whole. Therefore, the statutory doctrine of substantial compliance must be applied in order to save my petition and have my name appear on the ballot as the Independent Candidate for State Representative of District 62. -Elect Denise Rotheimer State Representative 62nd District
Posted on: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:21:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015