MERONI V IL SBoE (JUDICIAL REVIEW) - RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - 9-20-10 - For 97

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
ILLINOIS SANGAMON COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF: )

SHARON ANN MERONI - )
)
OBJECTOR AND PETITIONER )
)
vs. )
) 2010 MR 501
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS )
SITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED )
STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD )
BRYAN A. SCHEIDER )
WANDA L. REDNOUR )
ALBERT S. PORTER )
JOHN R. KEITH )
WILLIAM F. MCGRUFFAGE )
JESSE R. SMART )
PATRICK A. BRADY )
ROBERT J. WALTERS )
)
CANDIDATES )
CONSTITUTION PARTY )
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
)
LIBETERIAN PARTY )
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
WILLIE BOYD, JR. ) 10 SOEB GE 553
COREY DABNEY ) 10 SOEB GE 539
EDWARD J. SCANLON ) 10 SOEB GE 540
CHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN ) 10 SOEB GE 542, 545, 546,
547,548,551, 552
1|Page
All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of laws. (Il Constitution Ar
1Sec 1 AND 11 – Bill of rights
)
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
I - Introduction – Personal Statements

I, Sharon Ann Meroni (One Surrey Lane, Barrington Hills, Illinois,
60010) testifies to these statements contained in this introduction:
I have been seeking resolution to what is a profound question related to the most
basic right of our Constitution. The Right to be represented by constitutionally
eligible representatives, regardless at what party they are from, the level they
preside, or specifically in what capacity they govern.
Constitutionally qualified to govern….According to the US and Illinois
Constitutions means to be a USA Citizen. Age restrictions apply. Other
specifications include voter registration, address and license requirements, etc.
Courts have long held states can place specifications on candidates for participation
in the election process. It is in these specifications that many ballot access issues
arise for the courts to review. It is how the game is shaped. Still, age and
citizenship requirements are mandated by both Constitutions. Thus as an
undisputed FACT; the laws must support the fulfillment of these requirements.
Before I briefly outline the journey that got me here, let me explain what I
learned has stunned me. Nowhere in the election process in Illinois does the law
support the constitutional mandates such that the Administrators of the election
can certify that candidates for office meet the constitutional mandates.
Furthermore, the law is so eschewed such that even when a citizen seeks to discern
the same, there is no ability to do so. There is a luck of the draw approach to
citizenship requirements for ballot placement with no remedy or relief in the law
available.
I began the journey into this controversy at hand about a year ago… Seeking
to determine how the ISBE assured the constitutional integrity of the ballot in
February 2010; I sought relief twice in McHenry County Court.
The first time seeking to speak to the Local Grand Jury to testify to how there
was no integrity in the ballot served to me in the 2008 election. (Patriot’s Heart V
McHenry County Grand Jury ) I learned, after the 5 day qualifying period, it is the
discretion of the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General to investigate if a
2|Page
candidate was eligible to serve and they could only bring a cause of action if there
were facts in the record from which they could apply the Law. Assistant State’s
Attorney Bianchi, both in court and in meetings between the interested parties,
communicated that this was a bar he needed to see in order to use his discretion to
bring this matter before the Grand Jury. He stated that the County Grand Jury is not
financed specifically as an investigative body. Summarizing, that generally the
County Grand Jury hears evidence investigated by other bodies. I discerned that
this case had fatal flaws as filed and determined my next step was to go to the body
legally empowered by the General Assembly to administer the election statutes.
February 2010, the timing was such – in my growing evolution of
understanding of election law and procedures - that the Primary for 2010 was in its
final phase. I elected to file a TRO in the McHenry County Court asking to prevent
the certification of the Primary results until after the candidates had established
they were constitutionally eligible. (Meroni v ISBE – McHenry County) McHenry
County Judge Caldwell ruled that I had timeliness issues, that I had not exhausted
procedures of the ISBE, and that the correct jurisdiction was either Sangamon
County or Cook County. He ruled the flaws were fatal in his court.
While the case was never tried on the merits, In this case, McHenry County
Clerk Katherine Schultz and Lake County Clerk Willard Helander provided certified
statements as evidence that affirmed nowhere in the election process is there
verification that voters are US Citizens, nor is there any posting of factual
documents affirming citizenship or age of candidates for office. Furthermore, there
is no authority for, nor resources allocated for the Clerks to check that candidates
are constitutionally eligible. In addition, Mark Sheldon, Champaign County Clerk
answered in writing, questions specifically addressing the fact that in Illinois
apparent conformity standards are not equal and that the Illinois State Board of
Elections had permitted Alan Keyes ballot placement even though he had not
personally applied for it, and did not sign a Statement of Candidacy (Exhibits page
03-05 SHELDON )
In Meroni v ISBE – McHenry County the Assistant Attorney General argued
and prevailed in their argument, that I had not gone through the Administrative
processes of the Illinois Board of Elections.
3|Page
I was disappointed because once again, I was denied access to redress for my
legitimate grievance, (as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America and
of the grand State of Illinois, and a qualified legal voter who had participated in both
the 2008 and 2010 Primary and General elections) to know if the ballot I was given
contained only candidates that were ‘legally qualified” or if indeed the law is
deficient in ascertaining in the public record as fact, that they were. Still, for a
variety of reasons all unrelated to the merits of the controversy, and based on the
Judge’s ruling, I concurred that the case was likely fatal, now understanding the
need to go through the Administrative process, (10 ILCS 5/10-8) before this could
come to its natural remedy as questions of law.
Ill Election Code sets out a 5 day period for which a candidate’s application
for ballot placement can be contested by other candidates and qualified voters in
the respective districts – or simply for any candidate that applies for my ballot, I can
contest during time periods set out in 10 ILCS 5/10-8.
This is the only place I can contest a candidate placement on my ballot.
In good faith, I contacted the Assistant Attorney General Mark Ishu, seeking
to testify before the Illinois State Board of Elections about this controversy. (R 133)
I was never asked to testify.
The ISBE of duties are defined 10 ILCS 5/1A-8) (from Ch. 46, par. 1A-8)
Section 1A -8 defines the duties and include
Review and inspect procedures and records relating to conduct of
elections and registration as may be deemed necessary and to
report violations of election laws to the appropriate State's
Attorney or the Attorney General;(8) Recommend to the General
Assembly legislation to improve the administration of elections
and registration;
When a controversy over the very constitutional integrity of the ballot was
filed against the ISBE in a court of law, even while procedurally they prevailed, they
had to argue I should go through procedure, they have should have provided an
opportunity to hear about the vulnerability of the ballot as it relates to this
controversy. They did not respond to my request to testify before them.
4|Page
This controversy cannot be resolved through facts because it is the lack of
facts that is this controversy. The Law(10 ILCS 5/10-5) does not support the
constitutional mandates of Citizenship.
Nowhere has the State argued that the candidates are constitutionally
eligible. They have failed to affirm that in the record. The State has only argued
their own deficiency and then … Demonstrating the sheer arrogance of this process,
stated I needed to go the Legislature, when in fact the Code specifically mandates
that that is the job of the Illinois State Board of Elections. ((10 ILCS 5/Art.1A)
Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358, 137 L. Ed. 2d at 598, 117 S. Ct. 1369 affirms that states
must enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce
election-and campaign-related disorder. The State and the ISBE have failed
to enact reasonable regulations that secure in the public record facts
asserting constitutional eligibility, thereby denying the petitioner equal
protection rights.
Indeed the law as currently practiced, provides for politicians to be a special
class. The federal government routinely requires proof of citizenship for many
federal jobs, including joining the Military and various other federal jobs posted on
http://www.usajobs.opm.gov , USAJOBS is the Federal Government's official one-
stop source for Federal jobs and employment information. Most positions require a
background check, which includes proof of citizenship.
Indeed this is not a political question, it is a judiciable question.
Lastly, the reason that I chose all of the candidates on my ballot is because it
really is a question that affects all of them. I believe candidates from the major
parties should be held to the same standard of proof. The issue is how and where.
That question is part of the issue needing resolution. I do not attempt to answer it
for myself except to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander…
and by-golly if our men and women in arms must provide a raised seal birth
certificate to serve then why can’t candidates for office? Perhaps passports will
work…….
I believe the how and where is part of the solution needing to be ascertained
through judicial inquiry.
5|Page
II - Response to Defenses “Brief in support of administration decision
Response: BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION -This section is a
direct response to the brief filed by the Illinois State Board of election through the
Assistant State’s Attorney, Jessica L. Reeves.
Comments related to Defense’s Introduction
1) Defense ” Introduction and Background” stipulates “Illinois Election Code
Requires that these prospective candidates file, among other things, a
Statement of Candidacy.” (10ILCS 5/10-5.)
2) The Board admits it’s own legal deficiency in the follow – up sentence “With
the exception of one candidate Christopher Pederson, (discussed later),
….legal qualifications of office”
a. According to Druck V ISBE the board is required to use apparent
conformity standards
b. Accordingly, they do this at the time the petitions are accepted.
c. It is a question of ignoring the law and Judicial decisions that the Illinois
State Board of Elections (SBOE) is violating in refusing to impose
apparent conformity standards
d. It is a due process violation when the state refuses to make available
to the public apparent conformity standards or the lack there of.
e. Meroni’s pleadings from the ISBE Hearing process consistently affirm
that the Illinois State Board of Election (SBOE) refuses to do its job in
not using apparent conformity standards
f. This refusal has prejudiced Meroni’s ballot choices at least in the 2008
and 2010 Primary (Alan Keyes ) and influenced the current objection
process by causing for an inordinate number of unqualified candidates
application to be placed for ballot position for the petitioner and others
to object to, causing for disarray in the election process. (Especially
Pedersen, but not exclusively – Many candidates did not fulfill apparent
conformity standards -)
g. Just prior to testimony before the SBOE Meroni called Mr. Steve
Sandvoss in his capacity as Counsel for the ISBE (SBOE) and asked at
what point does the ISBE assert apparent conformity standards. Mr
6|Page
Sandvoss stated that the ISBE (SBOE) does not apply any standards of
apparent conformity.
3) The Board asserts “there is no evidence presented to rebut these Statements
of Candidacy”.
a. This statement argues against the State’s later assertion that the
correct Standard of Judicial Review is Law and Fact.
b. State stipulates there are no facts in dispute.
c. State stipulates there were never any facts in question
4) The Petitioner’s original petition makes 4 points.
a. Asserting Meroni’s standing and clearly stating her interest as 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 on the ballot as a
candidate for said office.
The Defense provides no challenge to Plaintiff’s standing or

interest
b. Meroni’s second point defines the challenge in an affirmative

statement of Law, not a statement of fact. “All candidates for office
must meet certain Constitutional requirements to be qualified for
office. “ She then affirms the constitutional requirements in question in
the objection petition “All candidates must be a specific age and be a
Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois”
At no point during this process has the Hearing Office, the ISBE
(SBOE) nor in Ms. Reeves Response do they
i. Dispute this point of Law
ii. Claim any deficiency whatsoever in this statement.
iii. Indeed the State ignores this statement entirely because it
disputes their claim that the petition lacks specificity. This
7|Page
second point on the objector’s petition affirms with exact
specificity what the question is about.
c. Meroni identifies who the candidate she is objecting to is and the office
sought.
d. Meroni affirms: That the papers are insufficient because they fail to
demonstrate or provide documentation (fact or evidence) the
candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office.
i. This is not disputed by any fact.
e. “The remedy is that the papers be declared insufficient and not in

compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois.” Meroni affirms, she
did not ask that the candidates be removed from the ballot because
the law stipulates that if the papers are not in compliance the
ministerial obligation of the Board is to not award the candidate the
desired ballot position.
i. The Defense offers no fact to substantiate its claim of deficiency.
Indeed it cannot, because to do so would argue its own
deficiency. The current practice of the ISBE is to permit
candidates ballot access whose papers are not in apparent
conformity on the ballot
ii. This deficiency is both according to statute and to legal rulings
mandating otherwise. (Druck )
iii. The petitioner seeks permission to write a Mandamus to compel
the ISBE (SOEB) and the General Assembly to do their jobs!
The State’s errs in its pleading that what was insufficient about Meroni’s
statement, claiming “no further detail to what was insufficient about the candidate
papers” (Defense motion - page two line 7-9) as if closing its eyes to the 2nd
statement on the petition defining the requirement means it does not exist.
Indeed on the flip perspective, what fact could the Plaintiff have affirmed was
missing? If the Plaintiff, in the Objection, had stated a lack of factual evidence
8|Page
specifically itemizing a birth certificate, or naturalization papers, she would have
ended up in the same place; the ISBE (SBOE) would have affirmed Meroni was
asking for something not required, and this would fatally prejudice through
erroneous fact, proceedings in a strike and dismiss motion filed by candidates. Her
claim by necessity is strictly a question of law.
R Page 128-130
The Defense incorrectly states Meroni’s position that “potential
candidates are constitutionally required to prove to the Board that they are
citizens of the United Sates and eludes to the fact that this procedure
somehow caused harm during the 2008 elections” (R 128-130 and 121)”
(Defense motion p3 line 1-4)
The discussion on these pages (R 128-130 – specifically points 81-116)
involve the absence of public document to establish constitutional
qualifications. This defect of law eviscerates the election process,
undermining and destroying the natural and intended effect of her right to
object during the 5 day qualifying period and that this presents a due
process issue.
Indeed these lapses also violate 1st and 14th amendment rights
because it treats one party favorably during the contest period, and forever
prejudices against the voter as objector or the voter in her ballot access; and
through painful violations of the most grievous sort of her equal protections
afforded under the law. The only party that has factual evidence of
compliance with Constitutional mandates is the candidates.
In addition, these points argue that through apparent conformity and
other statute provisions various other constitutional requirements are proven
in the public record, ( for instance: statement of economic interest, voter
registration) and as such can then be used as evidence for factual challenges
to the candidate’s applications.
9|Page
In addition the points on these pages prove that the Statement of
Candidacy (herein SOC) is too general and therefore imposes deficiencies in
the uniformity of elections. The SOC violates 14th Amendment, equal
protection rights and 1st Amendment rights because the SOC does not
specifically identify conformity with US and IL Constitutional mandatory
requirements to be a USA Citizen. The SOC therefore eviscerates the
petitioner’s right to assess candidate’s subjective and self certifying
statement of being legally qualified.
The Plaintiff makes the point there is no definition of legally qualified
from which she can find as reference to assess the candidate’s applications.
Again, affirming that “while evidence of eligibility exists in the public record
for other qualifications required for legally qualified, it does not for
citizenship.” (R p129 point 104)
On page 130, Meroni states the fact that this problem will re-occur in
the 2012 election. (point 108) Specifically reporting that there is no
definition in the Illinois Statues (or in Federal Statues) that define natural
born citizen. Without a definition, the voter who has a right to object, cannot
asses the veracity of the candidate’s self certifying and self defining
statement according to a standard of law, especially as required in legally
qualified.
Big time due process problem!
Furthermore, the requirement for being legally qualified for any office
specifically as relates to citizenship status (natural born citizen, US citizen, or
naturalized citizen) or age, is never moot; yet without public record that
information cannot be accessed nor can it be prosecuted. This refers back to
lessons learned from State’s Attorney Louis Bianchi in McHenry County
Court. (Meroni v ISBE February 2010)
10 | P a g e
It is this very question that originally brought the petitioner to this
controversy of law surrounding the most profound right in a Republic; the
veracity of the vote, and the integrity of the ballot.
It is a question of law that there is no definition of natural born citizen
and also no posting of proof establishing fact or evidence of “legally
qualified.”
These questions of law will re-occur. They already have. (Separate
issues in 2008 – Alan Keyes – placed on ballot without signing a Statement of
Candidacy and Obama) While these cases are not part of this review, they
are germane as examples. This question of law requires judicial intervention
and resolution because fundamentally this is not a political question that
should be resolved by negotiations in the legislature.
These questions of law will re-occur when the petitioner returns during
the next cycle of candidate qualification for ballot to discern if the candidates
are legally qualified. If the petitioner adjusts her wordage in some fashion,
the Board will still refuse her, not because the merit of the claim is deficient,
but because the ISBE will hide behind similar procedures designed to
frustrate the petitioner’s lawful access to the election process.
The harm done to the public confidence in its government is
indisputable.
Just a month ago, CNN – a Liberal Cable News Media posted the following shocking
poll. Poll numbers for those questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama continue
to rise. It is shocking to have such a basic question unanswered considering it is the core to our
Republic (Exhibits pages 01-02 CNN)
Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in
the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another
country? July 16-21, 2010
Americans Democrats Independents Republicans
Definitely born in U.S. 42% 64% 37%
23%
Probably born in the U.S. 29% 21% 31% 34%
11 | P a g e
Probably born in another country 16% 7% 17%
27%
Definitely born in another country 11% 8% 12%
14%
No opinion 2% 1% 2% 3%
Other polls reflect similar or even larger percentages of Americans
(around 1/3) who question the very validity of this government, which if not
constitutionally eligible, is reducing Americans to mere slaves, (15
Amendment violation) as unwilling recipients of the Executive Office’s
contrived governance that is not constitutionally based.
Is Mr. Obama a natural born citizen? The truth is he subjectively self
certified to legally qualified; he is the only one with proof of his affirmation,
and he has refused to enter that proof into the public record. Despite
obvious political realities of the situation, the reason this large public
question is germane to this discussion is because of this unconstitutional law
(10 ILSC 10) and a lack of governance from the ISBE (SOEB) and the General
Assembly. There is no ability for the public to look for resolution of that
question. Thus, the question lingers in the public arena, now nearly 1/3 of
the electorate are concerned with this same profound question, demoralizing
the voting public and undermining the authority of the office Mr. Obama (or
any other candidate or elected official) holds.
It is beyond the absurd, it is tragic.
Just like there is no record in a legal format establishing that Mr.
Obama is a natural born citizen, so too there is no evidence of citizenship of
any candidate in office in Illinois; with the exception of the 11 or so that
produced proof to the petitioner.
Subjective self certification of legally qualified is not legally sufficient
for proof for constitutional mandates, especially when the description of
legally qualified is subjective to the opinion of the signer and no fact is in the
public domain to assess it.
12 | P a g e
While the initial scope of this petition of Judicial Review of an
Administrative decision, does not factually address the issue of natural born
citizen; this is included here as a case in point affirming the Plaintiff’s
testimony, especially since the Defense mischaracterized Plaintiff’s
responses on these pages of testimony in question.
It is incredibly demoralizing to struggle so intensely for such a

simple answer…
”Yes, but…. Are they legally qualified….?”
Lastly these pages (R 128-130) the Defense referenced, address the fact that
the ISBE is not doing its job because it refuses to enforce standards of
apparent conformity.
Meroni asserts in arguments on these pages that the obligation shifts
on a SOC for the signatory to prove with evidence their qualifications when
challenged. (by affirming they are in possession of licenses required and
because they are the only one who has access to the information)
Meroni also asserts that apparent conformity standards that do not
include proof of constitutional eligibility deprive the objector of due process
because she cannot challenge what is not provided in the factual record.
R Page 121
Defense also erroneously references Plaintiff’s testimony in R- 121,
claiming the Plaintiff affirmed candidates had to prove citizenship to the
Board. This section includes the Oath of office of the Board of Election
members. This Oath was renewed on July 6th 2010
The pleadings then progress to establishing responsibility of the
various players in the game. There are many important points in those
pleadings, none of which include a statement to the effect that the
petitioner believes candidates are constitutionally required to prove
13 | P a g e
to the Board they are citizens. This is a misstatement of Meroni’s
position.
However, to address that point specifically. This is a question of Law.
The candidates must be US citizens (and of certain ages, no less then 18).
There is no public posting of proof such that only one party in the contest
has proof of eligibility, and therefore the election that they administer over is
not “fair and equal” as required by the Illinois constitution (3rd Amendment).
The ISBE (SBOE) eviscerates the voter’s rights when they fail to assure the
fairness of the election process. While they cannot make law, they are
required to report to the General Assembly. They have broad powers which
include that they are bound by oath to uphold the Illinois and US
Constitution. Yet, they fail to do so. Who ultimately is responsible for
holding the proof of US Citizenship, that question the petitioner deliberately
does not address. Her point is that proof of citizenship should be part of the
public record and available for examination during the application for ballot
and subsequent objection period. A subjectively derived and self certifying
statement is not legally sufficient to establish fact of citizenship in the public
record.
Lastly page 121 addresses the fact that barriers to contest citizenship
as currently framed are an extreme barrier on the electorate. And that a
constitutionally unstable or false ballot undermines the American electoral
process with implications at all level of the government.
Standard of Review
The Defense is fundamentally wrong in arguing that this is a mixed question
of fact and law.
The Defense admits in its own pleadings there are no facts in dispute and
that no facts were ever in dispute. Clearly there are only questions of law
involved because there is no evidence available, and therefore the question
of law arises in this controversy.
14 | P a g e
The correct standard of Review in this case is a Question of Law.
Questions of Law are reviewed de nova. (Bill v Education Officers Electoral
Board of Community Consolidated School District NO. 181, 299 Ill. App.3d
548 701 N.E.2d 262 233 Ill. Dec. 619 (1st Dist. 1998)
Mixed questions of law and fact require the following (1) where
historical facts are admitted, (2) where rule of law is undisputed, and (3)
where the only remaining issue is whether the facts satisfy a statutory
standard. Meroni’s petition involves no facts. The Defense and Plaintiff
agree that there are no admitted facts. The Defense refuses to prove what
facts are admitted because there were none.
Clearly there is a rule of law in dispute.
Speaking of facts: There are no facts to judge because no facts are
given, so what are we to argue? We are to argue questions of law! Thus Ms.
Reese’s brief is in error. To be a mixed question the rule of law must be
undisputed. In this case the rule of law is what the dispute is about.
The offending laws do not require any public fact to establish proof of
eligibility – There are no facts regarding eligibility. The Defense correctly
argues there is “no dispute as the fact presented”. This is because no facts
are available in the public record to prove or not, eligibility. (Defense motion
page 6 line 4)
If the question of Law to be considered is whether the objections meet the
statutory requirement, then Defense has failed to provide any fact to prove that the
objections were too vague. No evidence is presented affirming that the candidates
objected to were confused or somehow prejudiced against because of confusion,
nor that they did not understand what was asked of them. 11 of the candidates
challenged produced proof of citizenship.
The Defense deliberately ignores Plaintiff’s 2nd statement. Her Objector
petition must be read in its entirety to be understood.
Objections Insufficient as a Matter of Law:
15 | P a g e
The State does not claim any case in point nor identify anyone who was
unsure of what the Petitioner was seeking, conveniently ignoring the definition of
constitutional requirements in question – “all candidates for office must meet
certain Constitutional requirements for office. All candidates must be a specific age
and be a Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois. (R 1 #2 )
The Legal Question here is: Does the Rule 4 allow broad based denial of the
petitioner’s 1st and 14th Amendment Rights, as well as Illinois Constitutional Rights
(Article L Sec 1 and 2; and Article III Sec 3)
“ When reviewing challenges to a state's election laws, courts must weigh
the “ ‘character and to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth
Amendments ․’ against ‘the precise interests put forward by the State as
justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.’ ” Burdick v. Takushi, 504
U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 2063, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) (quoting Anderson v.
Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1570, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983)).
In applying this flexible standard, courts must also consider “the extent to
which those interests make it necessary to burden the Plaintiff's rights.” Id.
(quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. at 1570). If the state subjects
these rights to “severe” restrictions, the regulations must be “narrowly drawn
to advance a state interest of compelling importance,” Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S.
279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 705, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992); see Socialist Workers
Party, 440 U.S. at 184, 99 S.Ct. at 990. If the state imposes reasonable,
nondiscriminatory restrictions on these rights, however, the state's important
regulatory interests will generally be sufficient to justify the regulations.
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. at 2063-64. Libertarian Party v. Rednour”
10 ILCS 5/10-8 permits any voter having objections to any certificate of

nomination or nomination papers the right to file objections within the 5 day
qualifying period. In this case the objection is based on insufficiency of the
candidates papers, not because of proof that the candidate is specifically lacking in
constitutional sufficiency but because there is no fact in the public realm to discern
the constitutional qualifications of the candidate. This is a question of Law.
Motion to Strike and Dismiss
16 | P a g e
Please enter these exhibits as testimony provided during the SOEB hearings.
Exhibit: Meroni Responds Constitution Party (R-120-146)
Exhibit: Meroni Responds Boyd (R-147-162)
Exhibit: Meroni Responds Libertarian Party ( R 163 – 190)
Exhibit Meroni Responds Gregg Moore (R 190- 108)
Exhibit Meroni Responds Stephen Estill (R- 209 -223)
Exhibit Meroni Responds Carl Officer (R 224- 239)
Exhibit: Exception to the Hearing Officer’s and General Counsel’s
Recommendation to Grant Motions to Strike and Dismiss. (Meroni Exhibits p
014-019)
Exhibit : Estill Responds (Meroni Exhibits 033)
The SOEB decision granting a motion to Strike and Dismiss to Carl

Officer again reflects the Board over stepping it’s authority in order to avoid
the question at hand. Meroni did not receive Mr. Officer’s motions, and she
alerted the Board and Mr. Officer of this (Meroni Exhibits 06-07- Officer
Email). In addition even after complaint was made about not receiving the
motion, none were produced in the record. To Meroni’s knowledge, Mr.
Officer never made a motion to Strike and Dismiss, thus the Board, acting
like the lawyer for Mr. Officer, pleading for him. Essentially sua sponte,
making motion for Mr. Office.
The same is true of Mr. Stephen Estill. The Plaintiff is not aware of any
Motion to Strike and Dismiss from Mr. Estill. The motion Mr. Estill did file
provided no response to Meroni’s objection. Clearly it was insufficient. By
taking on the role of Mr. Estill’s counsel, the Board violated Meroni’s rights to
equal protection, the Hearing Officer obviously biased against her interests
with no fair arbitrator at the Board.
Ironically and incredibly, the Hearing Officer Menzel’s ruling – affirmed
by ISBE (SBOE) –effectively stepping in to protect Mr. Estill’s insufficient
pleading, while arguing the right to do so against Ms. Meroni’s petitions on
17 | P a g e
grounds her pleadings were insufficient. Essentially sua sponte, making
motion for Mr. Estill
I know… huh?
Mr. Moore failed to file a Strike and Dismiss Motion. His motion to
dismiss was inaccurate because it stated that the age and citizenship proof
was in the filed papers. Had this claim been held in a Hearing under the
weight of evidence standards, it would have been proven clearly as false.
Therefore the Board erred in granting essentially sua sponte a motion that
essentially assumed Mr. Moore’s role as counsel, while arguing Ms. Meroni’s
deficiency in her part 3 of her petition.
Mr. Moore makes an interesting example for the Defense to use. First,
the ISBE (SOEB) assumes a motion for Mr. Moore. (No Strike motion was
submitted) secondly they decided to grant a motion he did not make
depriving Meroni the natural effect of her right to object to candidates legal
qualifications to be on her ballot.
Importantly - Thirdly, the petitioner had the opportunity to meet with
and to speak with Mr. Moore on a couple of occasions. A black man, he
clearly has a strong foreign accent. Mr. Moore expressed some offense to the
petitioner’s objection to his candidacy saying anyone should be able to run
for office, regardless of citizenship status. Still, he proudly affirmed he is
proud to be a Naturalized Citizen. Meroni assured Mr. Moore that her
objection was not prejudicial to him, and that she had objected to all of the
candidates. Mr. Moore promised to send Meroni a copy of his naturalization
papers, but to her knowledge, he has thus far failed to do so.
If the Petitioner had access to Mr. Moore during the 5 day period, or
earlier, and had objected strictly based on his accent, then the Constitutional
Rights (1st and 14th) of both the candidate and the objector would be
infringed upon. Further the objector at that point could only assert a reason
based on profiling and thus is forced by the insufficiency of the Statue, to
issues related to “1983” and civil rights infractions.
18 | P a g e
Shon-Tijan Santiago Horton makes a different case. During the 5 day
objection period, the only information the Petitioner had about Horton was
his name. “Shon Tijan Santiago Horton” Unfamiliar, with the ethnic
background of Mr. Horton’s name, on the face of his application, Meroni was
unable to discern if he was a man or woman, let alone his citizenship status.
As it works out, Mr. Horton provided his birth certificate. Thus while he is not
a Defendant in this case, his case is germane because the Petitioners
objection to his candidacy was rejected in the Board’s erroneous sua sponte
Rule 4 decision.
To the point of civil rights, if either of these candidates had been
challenged and argument in support of that objection was based on accents
or ethnicity of the name, the Petitioner could be held in violation of civil
rights profiling. Thusly, affording rights unequally between candidates and
the voters is costly in many regards, not the least of which is creating an
unnatural civil rights tension between voters and candidates; which are
easily resolved be it not for this restrictive and unconstitutional law. (10 ILCS
5/10) The petitioner is denied her right to assess candidates except through
profiling as a consequence of this deficient statute.
The Luck of the Draw Worksheets filed out for each candidate
succinctly illustrates the difficulty of the problem. (R 145-146, 161,177-183,
206-207, 223, and 225). There is no rational legal basis to use to discern
constitutional mandates establishing “legally qualifications” in the public
record. Related to Standing and Remedy (R- 136)
Invoking Rule 4 – Sua Sponte and to Strike Objections

Please review “Exceptions to Hearing Officer’s Recommendation to Invoke
Rule 4 Sua Sponte and to Strike Objections in their entirety” (Meroni Exhibits pages
08-013)
In addition, Plaintiff assets - Christopher Pederson: This candidate brings a
unique challenge to this Legal question. In the first instance, the ISBE (SBOE) erred
19 | P a g e
in accepting his candidate filings because on the surface they were clearly
insufficient. This shows complete disregard for its duties as required by Law
(Election Code 10 ILCS 5/10) and judicial rulings (Druck).
Incredibly the ISBE later attempts to shift the responsibility for its lack of
governance to the Plaintiff stating without any legal authority that this is an issue
she should have with the Legislature, effectively eviscerating the election process,
especially since the election code 10 LICS 5/10 – 8 allows objectors a 5 day time to
assess candidates for ballot placement according to being legally qualified and it is
the ISBE (SOEB) ministerial mandate to advice the Legislature and make policy, not
the petitioners. (10 ILCS 5-1a)
Druck is particularly interesting because it rules against candidate access.
The candidate, Druck was denied ballot access because of the number of voter
signatures in his nomination papers. (Druck thought his attorney Spiegel) argued
that the Apparent Conformity standards were randomly enforced through the
objection process. “ (2) whether Druck’s first and fourteenth amendment rights
are violated if the signature requirements for ballot access in section 10-2
of the election code are only enforced when the objections are filed pursuant
to section 10-8 of the election code” (Druck v. Illinois State Board of Elections
[1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26, 2008 pg 2)
The court decided 1) the nomination papers have to be filed as required by
the Code and (2) the nomination papers have to be in apparent conformity with the
provisions the election code 10 ICLS 5/10 -8 (West 2006) (Druck v. Illinois State
Board of Elections [1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26, 2008 Pg 14)
The Defense does not argue or present evidence that any candidate was
confused by the objection. It assumed the deficiency, standing in as counsel and
making argument for the candidates , prejudicially in their favor, and denying her
any right to a hearing on the question of merits.
The 4th rule needs to be struck as providing the Illinois Board of Elections
assumed powers. This is a first impression case on this rule. The Defense provides
no legal justification for the right to impose this Rule 4. Petitioner would like to brief
specifically about it.
20 | P a g e
Amending Illinois Code
The petitioner believes it is well within the wisdom, mandates and
abilities for the General Assembly and the ISBE (SBOE) to fulfill their
mandated responsibilities, and surely that role should not be given to a mere
voter.
The Defense mischaracterizes the petitioner by refusing to admit that
the petitioner attempted to resolve this issue of law within the processes of
the board along with her right to object, the core of the disagreement is over
the law.
“I would ask the Board, what would you like me to state and to
prove that my ballot is constitutional and that my candidates are
eligible “ (Pg 90 Line 16-18 )
“One of the options that I made for all, because I recognize the
difficulty of this problem. The Illinois General Assembly has not done
their job. The ISBE has not done their job. You have not recommended
that we have a security issue related to our ballot that anybody
basically – right now, Mickey Mouse could sign up and get on there as
long as nobody objects to it.
Nobody has done their job in that regard. And I recognize that.
I’m sympathetic to it. But what I don’t understand is what we’re going
to do ABOUT MY BALLOT IN November. Because when you guys turn
down … and I fully understand that my options of winning here, my
chances of winning in this board is very small. Okay… but when you
turn it down, the consequences are going to be that I’m going to court.
And I am here to say our country right now is in a huge problem.
Chicago is too. Is there any way that we can avoid court? I would like
to try to do that as part of our conversation today.
And I also want to go to some of these candidates and say, if
you…. If the Board makes this decision today, and you decide that,
yes, you are going to… you are going to hold these objections up
21 | P a g e
(meaning deny the Objector her Hearing on the merits – clarification in
words added) then you’ve now got all of these candidates that all they
had to do was show me a birth certificate and I would withdraw my
objection to them and they would not have to go on to the next level of
civil court.
And I know you may not be able to forcibly say “present your
certifications” but you can recommend it. There’s nothing in the
policies and procedures that would prohibit that.(Pg 92-93)
Second: Response to Defense quoting -The full transcripts state.

“And the arguments don’t say that I’m not entitled to the information.
They just say procedurally that there’s no process. But if you don’t provide
me the process, how can I be in conformity under my five-day objection
period?
I know you guys are a ministerial body. I know you don’t set laws. I
know you’re not going to address constitutional issues. That’s not your role
potentially. But this is an issue of process. I want to have a ballot that I
know is valid. I can’t do that going to the General Assembly” (R – 95) In this
context by process, Meroni affirms she was referring to the fact that the law
does not provide for a process that the ISBE enforces assuring constitutional
eligibility – The ISBE (SBOE) doesn’t enforce any apparent conformity
standards.
The comment in relation to the General Assembly refers to the fact
that save extraordinary legislative action, nothing can be done in the
General Assembly to assure candidates on Meroni’s upcoming 2010 ballot
are constitutionally (legally ) qualified.
This is clearly a question of law.
22 | P a g e
“If Plaintiff wishes to see the Statement of Candidacy provision changed, then her
recourse is with the legislature and not with the Board.”( Defense motion – P 9 lines 6-9)
Defense fails to establish legal sufficiency or legal precedence imposing this limitation on her
right to vote and is clearly wrong.
Delay V Board of Elections is important because the Court affirms in Delay
that the Board cannot take an interested role in the proceedings, thus Meroni
asserts in fact this ruling does apply to her point that the Board exceeded its
authority when devising motions for candidates and then deciding on that motion,
sua sponte. Defense has not presented case law to substantiate the usage of sua
sponte.
The Defense complains about Plaintiff’s lack of case law to prove her
position in opposition of the Board’s erroneous usage of sua sponte, yet refuses to
cite any legal cause for their extraordinary usage of power and in support of their
Rule 4, Rules of Procedure as adopted by the Board at its July 6, 2010 meeting.
(Defense motion p 12 Line 15-19); or of their usage of sua sponte motions - both as
Motions to Strike and Dismiss and in the Rule 4 usage.
III Additional Issues - Apparent Conformity

In relation to apparent conformity, besides constitutional requirement,
having consistent standards holds considerable weight from judicial viewpoints.
‘[A]s a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair
and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process’
”quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S.724, 730, 39 L. Ed. 2d 714, 723, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 1279 (1974),
When the word “shall” appears in a legislative provision, courts have
generally interpreted the provision to be mandatory Watson v. Howard, 322 Ill. App.
3d 562, 565, 749 N.E.2d 427, 429 (2001); Niziolek v. Chicago Transit Authority, 251
Ill.App.3d 537, 541, 189 Ill.Dec. 780, 620 N.E.2d 1097 (1993).
In Druck V ISBE the Court states “We find, based upon our reading of the Election
Code, (1) that section 10-2 of the Election Code imposes signature requirements; (2) that section
10-8 imposes conditions precedent for nomination papers to be valid before a candidate's name
is placed on the ballot; (3) that section 10-14 requires the SBOE, the election authority with
23 | P a g e
whom the nomination papers are filed, to certify the papers; and (4) that, if the nomination
papers are valid on their face and the election official does not remove the candidate's name
from the ballot, section 10-8 provides a vehicle for an objector to challenge the nomination
papers. 10 ILCS 5/10-2, 10-8 (West 2006).
This Judicial opinion supports the ministerial (not discretionary) requirement of the ISBE
to enforce apparent conformity standards. It also affirms that 10-8 rightfully provides a vehicle
for the objector to challenge nomination papers. However, in the instance of constitutional
mandates of age and citizenship, the subject at hand, that vehicle is denied its intended effect for
the petitioner because of a lack of fact in the public record.
To avoid questions of fact from entering into this dispute, Meroni agreed to
remove all objections from candidates who produce proof of citizenship. This was
the only option available to her in light of the deficiency of the Statute. (10 ILSC
5/10-8)
Candidate’s potential claims of privacy issues when the constitutional
mandates for public office is citizenship would not sustain a judicial review,
based on the merits. Surely, the Public’s right to know would prevail.
IV Conclusion
That this matter is exclusively a matter of law, and that the Judge examines
the Law questions, de nova. These cases do raise a judiciable controversy under the
Constitution and cannot be relegated to the political arena.
That the Primary question of law involved: Is the public entitled to a public
record affirming that US and Illinois Constitutional mandates are met, especially as
relates to age and citizenship?
That the court will allow the petitioner to amend her remedies to be as
follows:
To rule as a point of law denying the Board the right to act as a movant in the
proceedings for motions of Strike and Dismiss.
To rule that Rule 4 restricts the due process rights of the Petitioner and is
unconstitutional.
24 | P a g e
That the Court will answer - Is there a fundamental due process, and 1st and
14t h Amendment controversy, especially equal protection violations caused by the
insufficiency of 10-5/10-5 and 1- 5/10-8.
There is a National Security issue to assure only elected officials are holding
office. The petitioner seeks leave to write a brief on this.
To find that 10 ILSC 5/10-8 is unconstitutional because it fails to assure a
process whereby proof of citizenship and age is included in the public record,
especially during the 5 day contest period.
That Constitutional mandates are never moot, that the Court, in it’s judicial
wisdoms, assure proof of citizenship is kept available in the public record for as long
as required.
That the Court find that in order to affirm an application of legally qualified,
evidentiary proof of meeting all milestones of legal compliance with the
specifications of “legally qualified” becomes part of the public record.
That the Court would rule on the problem of the term for legally qualified on
the Statements of Candidacy being too general and leaving the term to the
subjective interpretation of the self interested politician. Therefor definitions of
legally qualified must be made public.
That the Court rule it is unconstitutional to keep from the public apparent
conformity standards and that these should be kept in the public view.
That the court rule the Board acted outside of its authorities in granting the
motion to Strike and Dismiss and the Rule 4 sua sponte, depriving the petitioner of
her various constitutional rights, especially 1st and 14th.
The Court permits the petitioner time to prepare a Writ of Mandamus
to seeking testimony from the Board about how it secures the constitutional
integrity of the ballot, and to account for its willful disregard of the Court’s
and Law requiring them to practice and enforce apparent conformity
standards.
In lieu of a Writ, that the Court rule as judicially empowered on the
issue of the Board’s failure to perform it’s ministerial duties.
25 | P a g e
Meroni seeks the Court to bring grant other reliefs she is entitled to.
Sharon Ann Meroni
____________________________
Plaintiff: Sharon Ann Meroni
Address: One Surrey Lane
Barrington Hills, IL 60010
26 | P a g e
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I have served, through email and through the US Postal Service, the defendants
were served via their attorney of record, Jessica Reeves. At the address know for her at the
Illinois State Board of Elections in Springfield
CANDIDATES:
JEFF TREXLER
MICHAEL L. WHITE
GARY DUNLAP
LOUIS COTTON
TIMOTHY BECKER
DAWN CZARNY
BILL MALAN
JAMES PAULY
JOSH HANSON
JUILE FOX
MIKE LABNO
ED RUTLEDGE
LEX GREEN
GREGG MOORE
CARL E. OFFICER
WILLIE BOYD, JR.
COREY DABNEY
EDMUND J. SCANLON
CHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN
on September 20, 2010
SHARON MERONI
27 | P a g e

MERONI V IL SBoE (JUDICIAL REVIEW) - RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - 9-20-10 - For 97

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MERONI V IL SBoE (JUDICIAL REVIEW) - RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - 9-20-10 - For 97

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF

ILLINOIS SANGAMON COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

I - Introduction – Personal Statements

The Defense provides no challenge to Plaintiff’s standing or

b. Meroni’s second point defines the challenge in an affirmative

e. “The remedy is that the papers be declared insufficient and not in

Big time due process problem!

It is incredibly demoralizing to struggle so intensely for such a

Objections Insufficient as a Matter of Law:

10 ILCS 5/10-8 permits any voter having objections to any certificate of

Motion to Strike and Dismiss

The SOEB decision granting a motion to Strike and Dismiss to Carl

Invoking Rule 4 – Sua Sponte and to Strike Objections

Second: Response to Defense quoting -The full transcripts state.

This is clearly a question of law.

III Additional Issues - Apparent Conformity

Sharon Ann Meroni

on September 20, 2010

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen