STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS
COUNTY OF COOK )

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED STATE

OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD
STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

SHARON ANN MERONI )
Objector, )
vs. )
)
JEFF TREXLER ) 10 SOEB GE 524
MICHAEL L. WHITE ) 10 SOEB GE 532
GARY DUNLAP ) 10 SOEB GE 533
LOUIS COTTON ) 10 SOEB GE 534
TIMOTHY BECKER ) 10 SOEB GE 535
DAWN CZARNY ) 10 SOEB GE 541
)
BILL MALAN ) 10 SOEB GE 526
JAMES PAULY ) 10 SOEB GE 527
JOSH HANSON ) 10 SOEB GE 528
JUILE FOX ) 10 SOEB GE 529
MIKE LABNO ) 10 SOEB GE 530
ED RUTLEDGE ) 10 SOEB GE 543
LEX GREEN ) 10 SOEB GE 544
)
GREGG MOORE ) 10 SOEB GE 525
)
CARL E. OFFICER ) 10 SOEB GE 537
)
STEPHEN F. ESTILL ) 10 SOEB GE 550
)
WILLIE BOYD, JR. ) 10 SOEB GE 553
Candidates. )

HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT

MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS (AND/OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

The matter having come before the State Board of Elections as the duly qualified Electoral Board (the
“Board”) and before the undersigned Hearing Officer pursuant to Appointment and Notice issued
previously, the Hearing Officer makes the following Recommendation to grant the Motions to Strike
and Dismiss (and/or for Summary Judgment) filed in the above referenced matters:
 BACKGROUND

Over the period of June 14 through 21, 2010, the various above referenced candidates (the
“Candidates”) filed various independent or new party nomination petitions (the “Petitions”) with
the Illinois State Board of Elections, seeking to be placed upon the ballot as candidates for various
statewide offices (both state and federal) for the November 2, 2010 General Election.

A Verified Objector’s Petition was timely filed on June 28, 2010 with respect to each of the Candidates
(the “Objections”). The Objections contained identical allegations that:

“The Candidate’s nomination papers are insufficient because they fail to demonstrate and/or
provide documentation that the candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office.”

No further allegations were made, and no further detail as to any specific deficiencies is provided.

Pursuant to the schedule set forth by the Board, the Candidates filed respective motions to strike and
dismiss (and/or for summary judgment, hereinafter the “Motions”) and the Objector filed her
substantially identical responses to the Motions (the “Response”).

ANALYSIS

The basis of the Objections is that the Candidates have not provided proof that each possesses the
requisite qualifications to hold office (but there are not any allegations as to any specific deficiencies on
the part of any individual candidate). The Response is long, rambling, disjointed, and entirely devoid
of any legal authority which is on point as to the relevant issues in an electoral board matter; it
essentially asserts that the Board is obligated to uphold the constitution and appears to operate on the
(erroneous) belief that should an unqualified candidate somehow appear in the ballot then the ballot is
rendered “unconstitutional” and the Board would be derelict in its duties to let that occur.1

However, the Objector does not raise, reference or cite any requirement under the Illinois Election
Code indicating that the Candidates must provide the proof she desires to see, and there is no
allegation as to any specific Election Code requirement(s) which any of the Candidates are alleged to
have violated with regard to the Petitions. There is no presentation of arguments or evidence available
that could sustain an Objector’s burden sufficient to remove any of the Candidates from the ballot, as
she has not alleged any specific legal deficiency in any of the Petitions, and can not go outside of the
Objections’ allegations in attempting to present a case.

Each of the Candidates signed standard forms of Statement of Candidacy which included, verbatim,
the language averring to their qualifications for office that is required under Section 10-5 of the Illinois
Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-5). Those averments are unrebutted, and nothing could be presented by
the Objector within the proper scope of hearing the Objections that would rebut them.

1 The Objector appears to have some passing awareness that there are longstanding legal remedies provided at law
should an unqualified person somehow be elected (e.g. quo warranto) and that the law provision for dealing with the
situation (e.g. the doctrine of de facto officers) but finds them unsatisfactory.
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Candidates’ Motions to Strike
and Dismiss (and/or for Summary Judgment) be granted primarily on the grounds that the Objections
do not set forth allegations which raise any deficiency in the Petitions under the Illinois Election Code.
The secondary basis for this recommendation is that to the extent that the Objections seek to raise
challenges to the Candidates’ Constitutional qualifications to hold office, the Objections fail to state any
specific deficiencies as to those qualifications, and thus fail to “state fully the nature of the objections”
as required by 10 ILCS 5/10-8.

The Hearing Officer therefore recommends that the names of the Candidates be printed on the ballot
(as candidates for the respective offices specified as to each of the Candidates in the Petitions) at the
November 2, 2010 General Election, except to the extent that any of such Candidates is subject to one
or more other objections which might be sustained by the Board in the course of determining such
other objections.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth R. Menzel

_____________________
Kenneth R. Menzel
Hearing Officer

Dated: July 16, 2010