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. )
)
SHON-TIJAN “SANTIAGO” HORTON ) 10 SOEB GE 531
WILLIAM WALLS III ) 10 SOEB GE 538
COREY DABNEY ) 10 SOEB GE 539
EDWARD J. SCANLON ) 10 SOEB GE 540
ANDY MARTIN ) 10 SOEB GE 549
)
CHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN ) 10 SOEB GE 542, 545, 546, 547,
) 10 SOEB GE 548, 551 and 552
Candidates. )

EXCEPTIONS TO HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION TO INVOKE RULE 4

SUA SPONTE AND TO STRIKE OBJECTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY

This matter comes before the State Board of Elections as the duly qualified Electoral Board.
Now here comes the Objector, taking Exception to the Hearing Officer‟ and General Counsel‟s
recommendations to the Board to invoke Rule 4 – Sua Sponte filed in the above referenced
matters:

1. Mr. Ken Wenzel is the Hearing Officer, Mr. Steve Sandvoss is the General Counsel who
have made recommendation in this matter to the ISBE through the SOEB.

2. Verified Objector‟s Petitions were timely filed on June 28, 2010 with respect to each of the
Candidates. No one has claimed a lack of timeliness or found deficiency in the Objector‟s
Statement of Interest filed according to 10 ILCS 5/10-8

Any legal voter of the political subdivision or district in which the

candidate ... having objections to any certificate of nomination or
nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector's petition

….The objector's petition shall give the objector's name and residence
address, and shall state fully the nature of the objections to the
certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions in question,

1
 and shall state the interest of the objector and shall state what relief
is requested of the electoral board.

3. The Objector‟s Statement of Interest states the Objector‟s

“ interest in filing the following objections is that of a citizen

desirous of seeing to it that the Illinois and US Constitutions are
upheld, laws governing the filing of nomination papers for a candidate for
election to the office of _________________________________ are properly
complied with and/or that only a qualified candidate would appear upon the
ballot as a candidate for said office.”

4. Neither of the Recommendations addresses the Constitutional issues raised in the

Objector‟s Statement of Interest.

5. The two Recommendations seek to circumvent the Objectors Standing and therefore
„Interests‟ without legal cause and without finding insufficiency in the Objector‟s Interest
which is in the Spirit and Intent of all Election Law as set out in the Illinois and US
Constitution.

6. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board of
Elections that her Civil Rights are violated by their lack of governance in this matter.

7. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board of
Elections that her various US and Illinois Constitutional Rights are violated by their lack of
governance in this matter. (Especially, but not exclusively, US Bill of Rights, Illinois Bill of
Rights, Illinois Article III, Section 3 & 4)

8. The US and Illinois Constitution requires all Candidates for office be US and Illinois Citizens.
The Board refuses to permit any process by which Objectors can exercise her right to Object
and/or verify “Legally Qualified” during the 5 day period.

9. The Hearing Officer and General Counsel seem to believe the Petitioner is magical and can
produce evidentiary testimony when the process and those administrating it refuse to
require it.

10. The Recommendations fail to address critical Civil Rights Issue and seek to dismiss without
merit the Objector‟s uncontested Interest to uphold the Laws and the Constitution.

11. The Objector has claimed her Civil Rights are violated by the Board‟s, and it‟s lawful agents,
lack of correct governance and refusal to act upon their oath to uphold the US and Illinois
Constitution.

Civil Rights violations exist because there is no way for the Objector to identify the
qualifications of candidates except to use “Profiling” evidence.(See Exhibits from the Meroni
Response) Also this example is clearer shown in a recent related issue in Missouri ( Hector
Maldonado candidate for US Senate Letter on Scribd and Mr. Maldanado on video declaring
his Civil Rights were violated )

2
12. Civil Rights violations exist because the issue places an unnatural tension between the
Candidates running for office and those that wish to object when no evidence is available to
objectively evaluate that candidate.

13. Civil Rights and Due Process violations exist based on a lack of legal statutes that prove
“Must and Shall” constitutional qualifications for the position applied for are met, and
because of the lack of an official process by which Candidates - who are almost always
more than willing to prove their Citizenship - can in fact prove their qualifications.

14. Due Process violation: The only party that has access to the information affirming Legally
Qualified is the candidate.

15. Incredibly, the Hearing Officer and General Counsel argues against themselves in these
recommendations. Claiming on one hand the Objector cannot contest the SOC because she
does not prove the lack of veracity in the SOC signature affirming legally qualified, yet
agreeing to place Mr. Pedersen on the ballot without any Statement of Candidacy signed.

“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.”

Mr. Pedersen has not averred to possessing the correct credentials and therefore his papers
CLEARLY “fail to demonstrate and/or provide documentation that the
candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office.”

16. Mr. Sandvoss informs the Objector on 8/05/10 that contrary to IL Code, the ISBE does not
use any Apparent Conformity Standards. This necessitates all issues related to candidate
placement must be addressed through Objection. Yet, incredibly they recommend approving
a candidate (Mr. Pedersen) who clearly has not affirmed he is eligible. The Hearing Officer in
refusing to hold Hearings has deprived the Objector‟s uncontested Standing and Interest to
examine the Candidate‟s claims of being Legally Qualified.

17. Rule II-B and E Objections to Circulators provides the “Competent evidence” may be
presented to prove eligibility. Yet no such rule specifies “competent evidence“ that will prove
the same standard for Candidates

18. The Objection to Mr. Horton was removed on July 21st, 2010.

19. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer fails to find the Objector is deficient in her claim that
insufficient evidence exists in the nomination papers, only that she could not produce what
does not exist in the public record.

“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. “

3
20. “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.” This is the deficiency.
The only way to resolve it is through the hearing process.

21. RESPONSE – The Objector‟s Petition lays out the full objection as she understands it.
There is no proof of the Candidate‟s affirmation available in the public record. The Objector
can not specify a deficiency without alleging information that she has no way to acquire,
especially during the brief 5 day objection period.

22. RESPONSE – That Recommendation (above) violates various Illinois and US Constitutional
rights, not exclusive to, but especially Due Process.

23. RESPONSE - The recommendations do not argue that there is another path by which the
information could be obtained.

24. RESPONSE - The Recommendations do not argue she is not entitled to the information,
only that procedurally there is no process to provide it - Establishing the Board‟s deficiency.

25. RESPONSE – Fails to state that the Board is not required to provide information proving
legally qualified – only that it has not done so.

26. RESPONSE – The Objector makes her Objection to each candidate, not based on non-
existent code but on the USA and Illinois Constitution to which the Board and all of its
Agents, Codes and Rules must answer to and uphold.

27. RESPONSE – The Objector cannot refer to some law or rule that does not exist.

28. RESPONSE – The lack of existence of a law, rule or regulation to prove constitutional
eligibility is not the fault of the Objector, but it is the responsibility of the IBSE in its
Administration role.

29. RESPONSE – I cannot rebuke statements without a public record to do so.

30. RESPONSE – Relief requested is

WHEREFORE, your Objector respectfully requests that the petition papers of

___________________________________, as a candidate for
_________________________________, be declared insufficient and not in
compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois

31. “It should further be noted that the Objector asks that the Board declare Candidates’ Petitions
“insufficient and not in compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois” but does not ask that
the Candidates names be removed from (or otherwise not be printed on) the November 2,
2010 General Election ballot. “ (Menzel)

32. RESPONSE – When the Relief is granted, it is step 1 and step 2. If the Nomination papers
are insufficient, then the candidate is not placed on the ballot.

4
33. “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.”

34. RESPONSE – The Objector petition is specifically phrased because the Objector is unable
to prove or disprove the Candidate‟s affirmation of being „Legally Qualified” because no
evidence is available in the public record.

35. RESPONSE - The ISBE fails to provide a definition for “Legally Qualified” such that the
Objector can exercise her rights with Due Process.

36. Through the March 2010 TRO, (Meroni Vs Illinois State Board of Elections) and the letter to
the ISBE (Exhibit 2) the Objector has openly informed the Board and attempted to follow up
seeking to testify and or present these various deficiencies to the Board.

37. The Objector takes particular issue with the Hearing Officer‟s blatant attempt to mis-
characterize her legally filed response to the Candidates listed in terms related to racism
when she specifically objects to this process as violating her Civil Rights.

“That provision in Rule 4 of the Rules was added after the 2008 election cycle, following the
filing of certain objections based upon the utterly untenable assertion that non-white persons
ought not be permitted to run for office. The Objections at issue here do not assert a
proposition as socially offensive as the prior matter, but they are equally untenable as a matter
of the applicable law.”

“The Objector herself appears to be totally sincere and earnest in presenting the Objections.
However, as legal pleadings, the Objections can only be characterized as entirely frivolous”

The Hearing Officer thinly concealed racist related remark claims to add weight to the
argument that the Objector‟s petition similarly lacks merit. The Objector vehemently
DENOUNCES Mr. Menzel and Mr. Sandvoss for this OBVIOUS political ploy!

This statement clearly demonstrates neither grasp the constitutional issues raised, or
without demonstrating any respect to the Citizen‟s rights and the tremendous effort involved
in these Objections –

38. Objector was told in the March 2010 TRO testimony,(Meroni V ISBE) by your counsel,
Mark Ishu, that she had to exercise her options through ISBE Administrative processes (see
transcripts from the Court Proceedings)

39. The Objector went through the procedures and has standing and is still denied access to
any information whatsoever establishing the Legal Cause to claim the candidates are legally
qualified..

40. RESPONSE – Contrary to Illinois code 10 ICLCS 5/8 - 8 and legal bindings and
responsibilities

(Specifically, the clerk s duty is to determine whether, upon the

face of the petition, it is in compliance with the law. Dillon, 266

5
 Ill. at 276.)

The ISBE does not use Apparent Conformity Standards to vet applications and now
provides no way for the citizenry to do so either. NO such standards were used on Mr,
Pedersen.

41. The ISBE fails to set or post clear Apparent Conformity Standards so the public understand
what qualifications the Applicants on the Ballot have.

42. The ISBE Fails to have any Apparent Conformity Standards and in direct opposition to its
responsibilities

43. The Board of Elections fails to provide a definition for „legally qualified‟ creating a due
process violation for the petitioner who wishes to challenge the legal qualifications of the
candidates

44. No Candidate‟s (listed above) papers provide evidence that the Candidate is legally
qualified. Therefore the Objector has offered each candidate the opportunity to prove they are
citizens, and then she will withdraw her objection.

45. 4 Candidates have provided proof of citizenship: These candidates‟ objections were
removed.

46. The Objector moves to

1) Set aside/Deny - and to allow Hearings to proceed as required to establish Constitutional

eligibility of the candidates.

2) Set aside the Hearing Officer‟s bizarre recommendations specifically as relates to Rule 4
- Relating to Mr. Pedersen and all other candidates on this motion, who have failed to file
any response proving or disproving their qualifications

3) Request all candidates objected to voluntarily submit proof of Citizenship, with a raised
seal birth certificate or naturalization papers. This will reduce the need for further
litigation

4) The Hearing Officer‟s unsubstantiated racism remark and remark related to frivolous be
stricken from renounced by the Board and removed from the record.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________________

SHARON A MERONI PRO SE