Rotman Jr v Drury 17 SOEB GP 527 Candidate: Scott Drury Office: Attorney General Party: Democrat Objector: thomas Rottman Jr Attorney for Objector: James Nally Attorney for Candidate: pro se/Casey Westover Number of Signatures Required: 5000 Number of Signatures Submitted: Number of Signatures Objected to: Basis of Objection: Candidate failed to file a Statement of Candidacy and Statement of Economic Interests “in relation to his candidacy” not later than December 4, 2017 Dispositive Motions: Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement, Objector's Response to Candidates Motion to Strike and Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement, Candidate's Reply in Support of Candidate's Motion to Strike and Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement, Objector's Motion for Summary Judgement or in the Alternative Judgement on Pleadings, Candidate’s Opposition to Objector’s Motion for Summary Judgement or in the Alternative Judgement of Pleadings Binder Check Necessary: No Hearing Officer: James Tenuto Hearing Officer Findings and Recommendations: The issue before the Hearing Officer is whether the Candidate's filing of a statement of economic interest as a State Representative satisties the requirement that a candidate file a statement of economic interest “in relation to his candidacy...unless he has filed a statement of economic interest in relation to the same governmental unit....within a year preceding the date on which such nomination papers were filed,” 10 ILCS 5/7-12 (8). In relying on Miceli v, Lavelle', the Hearing O' Branch are not in the same “unit of government +t found that the members of the Executive as members of the Legislative Branch and, "114 IILApp.3d 311, 448 N.E.2d 989 (1983).therefore. that the candidate failed to satisty the Code’s requirement to file a statement of economic interest in relation to his candidacy or in relation to the same governmental unit. This finding was supported by the fact that the Executive and Legislative Branches appear in and were created by separate Articles of the Illinois Constitution. ‘The Candidate further argued that he substantially complied with the provisions of the Code, as any additional filing with the Secretary of State would be identical to the statement of economic interest he has filed for the office of State Representative. The Hearing Officer did not find the Candidate's error to be a “minor defect” in the filing of the statement of economic interest and rejected this argument. The Hearing Officer recommends that (1) Objector's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (2) the Candidate’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss be denied, (3) the objection be sustained, and (4) the Candidate’s name NOT be certified to the ballot as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for the office of Attorney General Recommendation of the General Counsi The Hearing Officer's Recommendation finds that Miceli v. Lavelle is controlling (for the proposition that executive office and legislative office require separate, specific statements of ‘economic interest filed by the candidate). However, Miceli is distinguishable because itis clear in that case that the Board of Education and the City of Chicago are not the same governmental unit, and the present case concems two offices (one legislative and one executive) for the State, The General Counsel finds Purnell v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the City of Chicago” more on point. In Purnell. the Candidate for Chicago alderman relied on filing of a statement of economic interest for his employment as a Police officer for the City of Chicago. The First District Appellate Court of Illinois ultimately struck the Candidate from the ballot because the Candidate filed the statement of economic interest late, but the analysis in the case shows that if the Candidate had filed a statement of economic interest with the same governmental unit (the City of Chicago as a Police Officer, and the City of Chicago as an alderman) on time, the provisions of the Election Code would be satisfied. ‘The General Counsel is not convinced that the Legislative and Executive, being separate branches of government, are also separate units of government. The statement of economic interest that the Candidate has on file as a State Representative relates to the State of Illinois, not only the Representative District that he represents. ‘The General Counsel does not concur in the Hearing Officer's recommendation, and recommends that (I) the Motions for Summary Judgment be denied, (2) the objection be overruled, and (3) the Candidate's name be certified to the ballot as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for the office of Attomey General. 2275 Il. App. 3d 1038, 657 N.E.2d 55 (1995).