1

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

rip m
2 SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

sc co
3 SHARON ANN MERONI,

4 Plaintiff,

an w.
t
5 -vs- NO. 2010-MR-501

6 ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL,

Tr bo
7 Defendants.

8 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

9 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS of the hearing held

10

11 al og
before the Honorable PETE C. CAVANAGH on the 23th day of

September, 2010.
pe eF
12 APPEARANCES:

13 MS. SHARON MERONI

Plaintiff, Pro se.
Ap h

14
n- f T

15 THE HONORABLE LISA MADIGAN

Attorney General of the State of Illinois, by
16 MS. JESSICA REESE,
Assistant Attorney General
17 for the Defendants.
o

18
No s

19
d

20
ien

21 LAURA K. BERRY, CSR#084-1931

Official Court Reporter
22 716 Sangamon County Complex
Springfield, IL 62701
23 (217) 753-6813
Fr

24
 2

rip m
2

3 I N D E X

sc co
4 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS

5 None

an w.
t
6

Tr bo
8

al og
10

11
pe eF
12

13

14
Ap h

15 EXHIBITS
n- f T

16 None

17
o

18

19
No s

20
d

21
ien

22

23

24
Fr
 3

rip m
2

3 P R O C E E D I N G S

sc co
4 THE COURT: All right, this is 10-MR-501, Sharon

5 Ann Meroni, Plaintiff, versus Illinois State Board of

an w.
t
6 Education, Defendants.

7 MS. MERONI: Board of Elections, did you put

Tr bo
8 Education in there?

9 THE COURT: Did I say that, pardon me, Illinois

al og
10 state Board of Elections, Defendant, pardon me.

11 All right, the discovery process proceeded

pe eF
12 without incident then?

13 MS. MERONI: Yes, Your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Very well. I appreciate the parties

Ap h

15 working together on our expedited discovery schedule.

n- f T

16 Are you ready to proceed then?

17 MS. MERONI: Yes, Your Honor.

o

18 THE COURT: All right, counsel, you may argue at

19 this time.
No s

20 MS. MERONI: Which one would you like to hear

d

21 first, Judge?
ien

22 THE COURT: The burden, who has got the burden?

23 MS. MERONI: Well, I have never argued a case

24 before, so I am hoping that I do this properly. The --

Fr
 4

1 I believe --

rip m
2 THE COURT: It is helpful, why don't we look to the

3 outline of your Complaint and summarize your case for

sc co
4 the Court?

5 MS. MERONI: Well, my Complaint is on the complex

an w.
t
6 side, because it involves points of law, strictly, and

7 as I mentioned in my introduction that I have tried

Tr bo
8 numerous different processes in order to find out

9 whether or not my ballot is -- contains constitutionally

al og
10 eligible candidates on it, and through that discovery

11 process, I have learned a variety of bits of different

pe eF
12 information on one of those, is that the Board of

13 Elections is required to not certify for ballot

14 placement anybody that doesn't meet the standard

Ap h

15 conformity, apparent conformity standards, and by them

n- f T

16 not certifying or by their not obeying that law and the

17 judicial mandates such as you find in Druck, essentially

o

18 out of the thirty-two candidates that I objected to,

19 sixteen of them were removed for apparent conformity

No s

20 standards, which meant that it offered confusion and

d

21 disarray to the process, especially since those sixteen

ien

22 had been viewed at the face of their petition.

23 When the -- when the nominating papers

24 were actually delivered, they should not have been

Fr
 5

1 placed on the ballot. The majority of them lacked

rip m
2 sufficient signature as to even come close to being

3 on the ballot or to be of actually certified

sc co
4 positioning on the ballot, one of them lacked his

5 Statement of Economic Interest, so the Board of

an w.
t
6 Elections has been disobeying and disregarding the

7 laws of the State of Illinois, as well as the

Tr bo
8 judicial decisions, and has been refusing to use

9 concepts of standard conformity, apparent

al og
10 conformity, and that is one of the issues that I

11 raised and that I would like the judge, the Court to

pe eF
12 rule upon that, compelling them through a mandamus

13 to -- which I would like to write to enforce them to

14 use apparent conformity standards before they

Ap h

15 represent a slate of potential candidates for us to

n- f T

16 review.

17 Now my petition on its face basically has

o

18 four parts to it, my original complaining petition,

19 and I am speaking of the one that is for the

No s

20 objections for the Board of Elections, and the first

d

21 section of that primarily states that my name and my

ien

22 interest and my interests are unopposed in the

23 matter, and after my interests, I make a very

24 definite statement of law, and I -- I will tell you,

Fr
 6

1 Your Honor, I struggled quite a bit with what to

rip m
2 write in my petition, because I am asking, you

3 know -- I see nothing in the statutes that say I'm

sc co
4 not allowed to know if candidates running for office

5 are legally qualified. There is no definition in

an w.
t
6 the Code that I can find that specifically lays out

7 what legally qualified means, and when you look at

Tr bo
8 that statement, it would be a subjective statement

9 that the candidate then self-certifies and says that

al og
10 they are legally qualified.

11 Now I am afforded a five day period to

pe eF
12 contest these candidates and their application to be

13 on the ballot, but with no fact in the public

14 record, I lose that due process right to assess them

Ap h

15 according to what legally qualified means.

n- f T

16 Now the petition that -- my petition, my

17 original objections were difficult to write because

o

18 on the one hand I have the right to assess these

19 candidates as to whether or not they are legally

No s

20 qualified, on the other hand, the State refused to

d

21 ask for any proof that would allow me to exercise

ien

22 that right, so I would put forth to the Court that's

23 a question of law that needs to be addressed,

24 because it is a -- you know, definitely a due

Fr
 7

1 process situation where I am allowed to -- you know,

rip m
2 afforded the right to assess my candidates, but not

3 the information of which I can do so, and so my

sc co
4 second part of that, my petition basically is very

5 clear, and I -- as I said, I struggled with it, and

an w.
t
6 what I essentially wrote is that I affirmed the law,

7 and the law states that, here I go getting nervous

Tr bo
8 again, that the candidates are required to -- here

9 we go, sorry about that.

al og
10 THE COURT: Are you reading from your petition?

11 MS. MERONI: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to get

pe eF
12 the wording.

13 All candidates must be a specific age and

14 be citizens of the United States to hold office in

Ap h

15 Illinois, and that's an affirmative statement, and

n- f T

16 my petition needs to be read in its entirety, and

17 what the Board chose to do is just to take one

o

18 paragraph and isolate it from the rest, and then

19 because the third part was that these papers are

No s

20 unsufficient because they failed to demonstrate or

d

21 provide documentation that the candidates meet the

ien

22 recommendation, and they said that that was

23 problematic in there because it did not give an

24 exact remedy, but if the papers are insufficient and

Fr
 8

1 the Board is doing their job, then the remedy is the

rip m
2 candidates don't go on the ballot.

3 Now -- and so in my view, in order to

sc co
4 exercise my right of discerning whether or not these

5 candidates are actually legally qualified to be, so

an w.
t
6 I had to be very careful, because if I put down,

7 well, there is no birth certificate there and the

Tr bo
8 Board doesn't ask for it, then they would have

9 slammed me down because I was asking for something

al og
10 that they don't ask for themselves, and the other

11 aspect of this is that, you know, in the very

pe eF
12 arrogance of the Board's game, they say to me that I

13 need to go to the Legislature and resolve issues of

14 the state of candidacy with them, but the fact of

Ap h

15 the matter is is that the Board is the governing

n- f T

16 body that is given the power by the Constitution and

17 by the General Assembly to advise the General

o

18 Assembly and to function and run elections, I'm not

19 given that authority, so they are, you know,

No s

20 tracking that backwards and trying to make it seem

d

21 like I somehow am in the wrong venue, when this

ien

22 clearly is a venue of needing judicial intervention,

23 because even if I went to the Legislature, there is

24 no way that I would have guarantee that my ballot

Fr
 9

1 would have constitutionally eligible candidates on

rip m
2 it at the end of -- at the end of the ballot period

3 in November, so that would be another issue that we

sc co
4 would have to -- that needs to be considered by the

5 Court.

an w.
t
6 The -- in terms of the deficiencies, now

7 the Board has refused to identify any candidates

Tr bo
8 that were harmed by the so-called deficiency in my

9 petitions, and they refused to identify what that

al og
10 harm was or what the prejudice was, and, in fact,

11 what part of my ballot or my objection they didn't

pe eF
12 understand.

13 They say that it is too vague, but there

14 is really nothing else that I could have put in

Ap h

15 place of that that would have held the power of the

n- f T

16 question before us, which is, as I have already

17 argued, that the only thing that I could have done

o

18 would have been the reverse of, you know, asking for

19 some kind of evidence, and this is not about

No s

20 evidence, it is about law.

d

21 The other problems that -- and I

ien

22 understand that the Court, you know, in questions of

23 law has the ability to -- you know, that the

24 Illinois Board of Elections doesn't necessarily

Fr
 10

1 address the questions of law, but that authority is

rip m
2 in the -- in the judicial review, and I'm not that

3 good at quoting things, but I do write them down, I

sc co
4 just can't find them after I wrote them, and -- but

5 it says here that the Certificate of Nomination

an w.
t
6 shall in part have the Statement of Candidacy, and

7 except for candidates for electors, that those will

Tr bo
8 have -- you know, will be subscribed to and that

9 they will state legally qualified, and again I run

al og
10 up to that problem.

11 If you look at every single bit of

pe eF
12 information that's discerned from legally qualified,

13 there is room for it, the statement of candidacy, it

14 has to be signed, even though the Board doesn't pay

Ap h

15 attention to that, they need to be legally

n- f T

16 qualified, they have to have so many signatures,

17 they need to have their voter registration issues

o

18 taken care of, and you can go back in the record and

19 you can say, well, look, it is publicly posted, I

No s

20 know that they weren't registered, so I can protest,

d

21 but I don't have any of those freedoms and --

ien

22 THE COURT: What freedoms don't you have, you can't

23 go and see the Statement of Candidacy?

24 MS. MERONI: I can't because it doesn't prove that

Fr
 11

1 they are U.S. citizens or not, except by the candidate's

rip m
2 affirmation, that's unprovable in the public record.

3 The only person that has that information and can prove

sc co
4 it one way or the other is the candidate, so I lose my

5 freedom of the right to appeal and decide whether or not

an w.
t
6 these candidates belong on my ballot as far as that

7 goes. So that was one issue that really concerned me a

Tr bo
8 bit.

9 Now legally qualified in general we

al og
10 believe that that means to be a U.S. citizen of one

11 designation or another, natural born or U.S. citizen

pe eF
12 or naturalized, but if I were to find out later on

13 that some candidate was not when I was going through

14 that five day period I had to discern who I was

Ap h

15 going to object to, the only information available

n- f T

16 to me is what's in the public record or if I have

17 some time to go on the Internet and check the

o

18 Internet, as well as most of the candidates at the

19 time do not have websites up.

No s

20 Now when you look at some of these

d

21 candidates, for instance, Gregg Moore, who is, you

ien

22 know, obviously from a foreign land, and I say well,

23 how can I prove if he is legally qualified, and he's

24 not required to prove that in the current law, then

Fr
 12

1 when I go to ask him, when I had a phone

rip m
2 conversation with him, he was saying that I was

3 racially profiling him, and I wasn't, that's why I

sc co
4 specifically had to go after all thirty-two

5 candidates so that I wouldn't be accused of being

an w.
t
6 discriminatory, because it is the last thing that I

7 want to do, I just want to have a ballot that's

Tr bo
8 legally qualified, and Mr. Hartung was a different

9 example because he had a very unique first name, and

al og
10 ethnically I didn't know if he was a man or a woman,

11 and there is nowhere in the papers where you can

pe eF
12 either discern if they are male or female, let alone

13 if they are a U.S. citizen, so what the Board did is

14 they -- when I first went to the first meeting, I

Ap h

15 could tell how they were going to handle it, they

n- f T

16 kind of jumped everybody into one big basket and

17 then they separated from there into two groups of

o

18 people who responded to me and people who did not,

19 and the ones that responded to me, without any

No s

20 motion from the candidates, they gave them a strike

d

21 and dismiss action, which I see no authority

ien

22 whatsoever in any of the Board's decisions that I

23 reviewed where they can act as the counsel for the

24 candidates, and, you know, prepare a strike and

Fr
 13

1 dismiss motion, which, of course, I never saw, but

rip m
2 claim that they have now given them that authority,

3 even though the candidates, themselves, didn't ask

sc co
4 for that, so just based on that alone, that decision

5 needs to be reversed and sent back.

an w.
t
6 The problem that we face is that a number

7 of these candidates are removed from the Board by

Tr bo
8 other actions. Now if nobody else is going to the

9 sua sponte Rule 4 issue, I objected to a group of

al og
10 candidates, and this is the group that nobody

11 responded, for whatever the reasoning was, so the

pe eF
12 Board, not knowing what to do, they just had all of

13 a sudden out of thin air invoked this new rule

14 called Rule 4, which they assume an authority to

Ap h

15 make motions based on their interpretation that

n- f T

16 there is no way that the action will prevail.

17 Now there is no argument they have, no

o

18 authority that I can find in the law to support

19 that, and certainly there was none in the briefs, so

No s

20 when you look at that you are saying well, what's

d

21 essentially happening here is that they are

ien

22 complaining that my petition was somehow deficient,

23 and then they are covering for the candidate's

24 deficiencies and for lack of responsiveness by

Fr
 14

1 either writing their motions for them, sua sponte

rip m
2 presenting them or by invoking a Rule 4 and stating

3 that well, we made the decision, even though by law

sc co
4 none of these people have objected, and the rules

5 are generally if they don't object, they are removed

an w.
t
6 from the process or the case can be decided without

7 them, so that's what I think that should have

Tr bo
8 happened. So I really have a big problem with that,

9 and I can't see any quotations in the law that allow

al og
10 for it.

11 There is a lot of things that I really

pe eF
12 am -- still I don't really understand. I have to

13 get a dictionary and look up everything as I go, so

14 some of these terms, if I am a little awkward in

Ap h

15 them, I apologize, and I have one little page of

n- f T

16 corrections on some of my notations because I didn't

17 really exactly know how to make all the notations,

o

18 and I will present that to you.

19 Also there was a section in the record, I

No s

20 had asked for the full record and was understanding

d

21 from the 10. -- 10.1 that I was entitled to the full

ien

22 record, and I was presented with part of it and

23 didn't really realize or I would have mentioned it

24 to you yesterday, but I didn't see that a whole

Fr
 15

1 bunch of the candidates --

rip m
2 THE COURT: Pardon me, what was yesterday?

3 MS. MERONI: I was coming to understand some of the

sc co
4 details still, I was still studying yesterday.

5 THE COURT: I thought you said you had a

an w.
t
6 conversation with someone?

7 MS. MERONI: Oh, no, I meant when, excuse me,

Tr bo
8 Jessica, Ms. Reeves and I communicated in e-mail, she

9 asked me if I had received the stuff.

al og
10 THE COURT: I see.

11 MS. MERONI: And I had communicated that I hadn't

pe eF
12 noticed that these individual papers hadn't been filed.

13 May I give them to you now?

14 THE COURT: You have seen copies of them?

Ap h

15 MS. REEVES: No, I don't know what she is referring

n- f T

16 to.

17 THE COURT: What are you referring to?

o

18 MS. MERONI: These are all the Motions to Strike

19 that are all part of the record, but they are not part
No s

20 of the court record that she submitted. These are all

d

21 from the candidates.

ien

22 THE COURT: Show them to Ms. Reeves first.

23 MS. REEVES: Well, Your Honor, just looking at

24 these, none of them are signed and none of them were in

Fr
 16

1 the possession of the Board, so I'm not sure --

rip m
2 MS. MERONI: Yes, they are. They came through the

3 Board's e-mail. These are all part of the Board, they

sc co
4 came to me through e-mail.

5 THE COURT: For what purpose are you introducing

an w.
t
6 them?

7 MS. MERONI: Well, because the issue of Motion to

Tr bo
8 Strike, these are the candidate's responses to me on

9 their Motion to Strike and Dismiss, so I just thought

al og
10 that since the Motion to Strike and Dismiss is an issue,

11 that we should have them as part of the record.

pe eF
12 MS. REEVES: Your Honor, I would have to object, I

13 really don't know -- I'm not questioning your truth

14 here, I don't know for a fact that these came from the
Ap h

15 Board. Some of them aren't signed, they don't appear to

n- f T

16 be dated, and so I can't agree it is a part of the

17 record.
o

18 THE COURT: Very well.

19 Ms. Meroni, you may approach, I will take

No s

20 a look at the documents. As to how the Court will

d

21 deal with those documents, I am unsure. You

ien

22 proffered that they were disclosed to you as part of

23 the discovery process for the State.

24 MS. MERONI: Yes, they came to me from e-mail.

Fr
 17

1 THE COURT: All right.

rip m
2 MS. MERONI: And I -- I have that e-mail as proof,

3 that's probably why they are not signed.

sc co
4 MS. REEVES: It is possible, Your Honor, that those

5 may have been e-mailed to her directly from another

an w.
t
6 party in this case, in which case the Board didn't see

7 them or consider them, so we can't vouch for them.

Tr bo
8 THE COURT: I see. Very well.

9 All right, you may continue.

al og
10 MS. MERONI: Part of the requirement is that the

11 full record should be presented, so perhaps then the

pe eF
12 Board would be responsible for going back and presenting

13 the rest of the record, and that would clear up this

14 confusion, because I know for a fact that these actually

Ap h

15 did go through Mr. Wenzel and that he received them.

n- f T

16 THE COURT: So what, specifically, are you asking

17 the Board to do?

o

18 MS. MERONI: If the full record isn't here and we

19 need that full record, I am asking them to check and see

No s

20 why the full record wasn't given, because as I

d

21 understand it, it is not just for the defense to pick

ien

22 and choose what part of the record they want to display,

23 they are supposed to present the full record.

24 THE COURT: Okay, I asked at the beginning of the

Fr
 18

1 hearing whether or not discovery has been completed. It

rip m
2 seemed to me that it had.

3 Ms. Reeves?

sc co
4 MS. REEVES: To be perfectly honest, I don't know

5 that those change our arguments or her arguments, so --

an w.
t
6 THE COURT: I don't either.

7 MS. REEVES: If my not objecting is fine, we can do

Tr bo
8 that. I don't think it is going to help or hurt, so I

9 can withdraw my objection, and they can be part of the

al og
10 record.

11 I would like there to be some sort of

pe eF
12 notation that that came from her and not from us.

13 THE COURT: I'm going to admit it over the

14 objection, your stated position. I will allow

Ap h

15 Ms. Meroni to present her full argument. I understand

n- f T

16 she is pro se remembering that you are held to the

17 standard of an attorney, and I want to give you every

o

18 opportunity to present your case.

19 That being said, with regard to the

No s

20 objections to discovery not all being disclosed, you

d

21 are going to need to proffer to the Court what it is

ien

22 that was not disclosed, because this is sort of a

23 blanket statement, after having told the Court at

24 the beginning of this hearing that the discovery

Fr
 19

1 process was expedited and completed, so I am a

rip m
2 little bit at a loss now as to where you are going

3 with the discovery discrepancies.

sc co
4 MS. MERONI: I see. I didn't understand fully what

5 discovery meant when that was asked to me.

an w.
t
6 I do have some question about the

7 documents, they are not the full documents and

Tr bo
8 record of the proceedings, they are missing certain

9 aspects, and I have presented some of those.

al og
10 THE COURT: Okay, well the time for that is

11 probably prior to the hearing, and that's why I started

pe eF
12 this hearing with the question as to whether or not the

13 parties were essentially satisfied as to whether or not

14 the expedited discovery was completed.

Ap h

15 Today, now, is the time for you to argue

n- f T

16 your position and for the Court to render a ruling.

17 I have reviewed everything you have put in front of

o

18 me, and I am here to hear argument. I am a little

19 bit at a loss to now at the middle of your argument

No s

20 take up discovery issues.

d

21 MS. MERONI: With the Court's permission, I will

ien

22 put that aside, all the candidate's responses for Strike

23 and Dismiss were considered.

24 THE COURT: That's for you to decide. If you think

Fr
 20

1 you have adequately covered that ground, that's fine.

rip m
2 If we need to stop here and take up discovery issues,

3 that's fine as well. It may delay things.

sc co
4 MS. MERONI: Yes.

5 THE COURT: That's for you to decide. I'm not

an w.
t
6 trying to put any undue pressure on you. I want to make

7 sure that I afford both sides a fair hearing and that we

Tr bo
8 adequately resolve any outstanding discovery issues.

9 MS. MERONI: Okay, thank you.

al og
10 THE COURT: You may continue.

11 MS. MERONI: So part of the right afforded to

pe eF
12 citizens is a five day period, and essentially that's

13 all we get, doesn't matter how you try to play with the

14 game, they give you five days. If you are a minute

Ap h

15 late, then your objection doesn't count, and the law

n- f T

16 doesn't specifically lay out what has to be objected to,

17 except it has to relate to the sufficiency of the

o

18 nominating papers, and if the papers don't affirm one

19 way or the other the citizenship status and the age of

No s

20 the individual that is seeking position on my ballot,

d

21 and the U.S. and Illinois Constitution as points of law

ien

22 provide that assurance, then I can see no precedence

23 whatsoever for the Board to ignore that, and in fact, in

24 their permission they had the ability to go ahead and do

Fr
 21

1 different things rather than inventing Strike and

rip m
2 Dismiss Motions for some candidates and doing them sua

3 sponte. They could have subpoenaed -- they could have

sc co
4 brought together the different parties and asked us, you

5 know, if we could work something out.

an w.
t
6 I did work out things with a variety of

7 different candidates, and last night we did get an

Tr bo
8 agreement with the Libertarian Party that I have

9 here someplace, and so that agreement allows the

al og
10 Court to discern whether or not he needs to see the

11 birth certificates of the party.

pe eF
12 THE COURT: The Board or the Court?

13 MS. MERONI: The Court, I beg your pardon, in

14 chambers.
Ap h

15 Just give me a second, I just had them.

n- f T

16 See I try so hard not to be confused by this.

17 THE COURT: Just because the Board has the power to

o

18 do certain follow-up research such as subpoena

19 documents, things of that nature, doesn't seem to the

No s

20 Court to be the issue. The issue here is whether or not

d

21 the board acted properly, appropriately in taking the

ien

22 actions that it took, not to say that it didn't have

23 other options available, it is whether or not the

24 options that it did take were appropriate and legal, so

Fr
 22

1 I just don't want to get too far afield, because they

rip m
2 could have done these things that would have been

3 potentially to your benefit and that they didn't do

sc co
4 them, doesn't seem to me to be the issue.

5 MS. MERONI: Okay.

an w.
t
6 THE COURT: I get where it helps your position, I

7 just don't want to get too far afield. It is whether or

Tr bo
8 not the action it did take is a legal and appropriate

9 action.

al og
10 MS. MERONI: I think when you are dealing with a

11 question of law, it becomes so difficult because there

pe eF
12 really are no facts in the situation that you can

13 dispute, and except for the reality that I am afforded a

14 right, and their seems to be no -- a law seems to be

Ap h

15 clearly unconstitutional, because it allows one player

n- f T

16 in the party in the contest to have power that I don't

17 have, and we are all supposed to be essentially fair and

o

18 equal is the rule. They have that power, they know for

19 sure if they are constitutionally eligible, and I don't.

No s

20 THE COURT: You have a right to object, you have a

d

21 right to a hearing. What I am sort of waiting for you

ien

22 to argue, because I sense and discern this from

23 everything that I have read, that there was some

24 deficiency with the Statement of Candidacy or some

Fr
 23

1 obstacle from you reviewing that Statement of Candidacy.

rip m
2 It seems like therein lies the issue where you seem to

3 be arguing you are not getting enough information to

sc co
4 evaluate whether or not you have candidates with the

5 appropriate credentials.

an w.
t
6 MS. MERONI: Correct, and so the Statement of

7 Candidacy is particularly unconstitutional, because it

Tr bo
8 doesn't provide anyplace in the law to define legally

9 qualified, number one, and number two, it doesn't

al og
10 provide any requirement for the candidates to prove

11 their affirmation, so part of the question then goes to

pe eF
12 when I go into an objection period, the burden is

13 initially on me, but if the candidate is the only one

14 with the information, then I would argue with the Court

Ap h

15 that the burden must switch to them, because I have no

n- f T

16 access to that.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

o

18 MS. MERONI: And so, oh my gosh, I'm sorry.

19 THE COURT: Take your time.

No s

20 MS. MERONI: So the Statement of Candidacy is --

d

21 violates legal protection and First Amendment rights

ien

22 because, number one, it doesn't define legally

23 qualified, and number two, it doesn't afford for any

24 posting of public proof.

Fr
 24

1 Now I don't know if the sufficiency of

rip m
2 my -- the problem with the sua sponte has been

3 determined, but I looked at the Delay decision, and

sc co
4 when you look at that decision, it is actually

5 pretty interesting because what they -- what happens

an w.
t
6 in there is they are trying to toss out the

7 candidates, or no, in the Druck decision they are

Tr bo
8 asked to toss out the candidates because the

9 petitions weren't sufficient and there weren't

al og
10 sufficient signatures, and so he goes on in the

11 Druck case to argue that the Statement of Candidacy

pe eF
12 and the rules of that state -- sets forth signatures

13 are obsolete because it is randomly enforced,

14 Statement of Candidacy Evaluations apply. The

Ap h

15 Board, and I would agree with that, it is randomly

n- f T

16 enforced, but the judge ruled very succinctly that

17 the State is required to, both by statute and by

o

18 prior judicial decision, to enforce apparent

19 conformity standards, and so they don't do that, and

No s

20 then Druck goes on, and I find that -- oh, shoot, I

d

21 find that decision to be so interesting because they

ien

22 require the Board check before the papers get put

23 out for the candidates, for those people like us to

24 go ahead and protest, and the Board absolutely

Fr
 25

1 refuses to do that.

rip m
2 Okay. Okay, one more quick review of

3 this. I had a bit of a struggle with devising

sc co
4 remedies because I know that if I give you the wrong

5 remedy, then I end up not getting what I need, and I

an w.
t
6 know if I ask for something that you can't do, that

7 that creates a problem, and so when I am dealing

Tr bo
8 with the question of law, and this was even at the

9 Board level, and I was making my -- making my four

al og
10 point questionnaire, I knew that I had to make an

11 affirmative statement about what is insufficient

pe eF
12 about the nominating papers, that is, they don't

13 demonstrate the age or citizenship. I couldn't

14 affirm anything further because the Board would

Ap h

15 ask -- you can't ask for that because it is not in

n- f T

16 the statute. I affirmed that there is no way that

17 anybody can say I don't have the right to object to

o

18 candidates, so then I look back and say what else

19 could I have said, and it just, it is so crazy that

No s

20 the Board would go through this process and say that

d

21 your statement isolated alone is not considered as a

ien

22 whole petition is insufficient and then take other

23 people who shouldn't have been on the ballot

24 position anyways, and basically write their story

Fr
 26

1 for them or, you know, give them their -- their very

rip m
2 motion, and I couldn't find anyplace they justified

3 their right to do that, and so I think that that

sc co
4 would be the crux of my argument, except that I --

5 you know, Your Honor, I have been through this for a

an w.
t
6 whole year, and all I really want to know is if the

7 government that we have is constitutionally

Tr bo
8 eligible, and people will say to me things like

9 where in the Constitution does it say that the Board

al og
10 has to be the one to decide, and I was very careful

11 to not state that the candidates should prove it to

pe eF
12 the Board, because I don't know how it should become

13 part of public record.

14 I am sensitive to the different candidates

Ap h

15 that I spoke to and talked to about how they felt

n- f T

16 about this, and most of them were so proud to be

17 American, they were just busting, that's what they

o

18 want to say, "I am an American, I'm all about it,"

19 then they say what about privacy issues, so I felt

No s

20 sympathetic to that, and when I was working with the

d

21 Libertarian Party, one of their people said to me,

ien

22 "I don't want to give you my birth certificate,

23 would you accept my passport," and I thought it out,

24 I said in order to get a passport, you have to prove

Fr
 27

1 you are a U.S. citizen or have naturalization

rip m
2 papers, so that seems to be something the federal

3 government would ultimately, it is not for me to

sc co
4 make that decision, the place that I have to stand

5 my ground on is where the place is I am afforded the

an w.
t
6 right, that is the right to object because I did on

7 if they are legally qualified, and that is where I

Tr bo
8 have to stand, because if I go anywhere else, I get

9 blocked out by asking for powers that they don't

al og
10 have, but, in fact, the Board does have the power,

11 and when I went through that T.R.O. and that

pe eF
12 gentleman stood there next to me saying, "You should

13 go through the Board's procedure," so when I did

14 that, then what does the Board do, it tries to knock

Ap h

15 me out again for procedure, and their procedures

n- f T

16 that they define and that they do action on and that

17 they determine, even before I had a chance to make

o

18 the argument, so -- and then the other issue that

19 goes to this is the basic reality is the issue of

No s

20 mootness and whether or not if the candidates, the

d

21 sixteen or so that would have been struck anyways

ien

22 matter, they do because I am coming back. If I

23 lose, nothing is going to stop me. I want to know

24 if my ballot is legal, and so if I have to change my

Fr
 28

1 words a little bit this way or that way to make it

rip m
2 so now somebody will actually hear the merits of it,

3 that's what I have to do. It would be a great

sc co
4 tragedy, but this issue will recur. It recurs

5 because there is an insufficiency in the law, not

an w.
t
6 because I am guilty of frivolous action, in fact

7 this has consumed so much of my life that I can't

Tr bo
8 even imagine it. What it has taken to do this is

9 far from frivolous. I consider it to be a

al og
10 responsibility, and that's why I always put on my

11 quotes, you know, about how important our

pe eF
12 Constitution and our document is, and I don't want

13 to speak too long, so --

14 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, Ms. Meroni.

Ap h

15 Ms. Reese?
n- f T

16 MS. REEVES: Thank you, Judge.

17 I'm not going to repeat everything we have

o

18 said in our brief, I am just going to hit some of

19 the main points.

No s

20 The first and biggest one is that the

d

21 issue before this Court is fairly narrow, it is

ien

22 whether the Board of Elections erred in dismissing

23 Plaintiff's objection to the nominating papers of

24 the candidates, that's all.

Fr
 29

1 I understand Ms. Meroni's desire to put

rip m
2 her case out there, and she has that right, but

3 legally on admin review the only issues to be

sc co
4 decided are those that were at the agency level.

5 The only evidence to be considered is the

an w.
t
6 administrative record, and there is a lot of case

7 law on that, so references in her brief to her prior

Tr bo
8 litigation or to any of those types of things have

9 no bearing on this case.

al og
10 The second issue I wanted to mention is

11 the standard of review for this case. The basis for

pe eF
12 the Board's dismissal of her objections was that

13 they did not meet statutory standard, excuse me, on

14 admin review. When an agency applies facts, and the

Ap h

15 facts in this case would be her objection, when they

n- f T

16 apply those facts to a statutory standard, excuse

17 me, it is considered an issue of mixed law and a

o

18 fact, and the standard for that is clearly

19 erroneous.
No s

20 THE COURT: Take your time.

d

21 MS. REEVES: Getting to the substance of the

ien

22 argument, Section 108 of the Election Code states

23 clearly that the objector's petition shall, quote, state

24 fully the nature of the objections.

Fr
 30

1 The twenty-three objections at issue in

rip m
2 this case say the candidates' nomination papers are

3 insufficient because they fail to demonstrate and/or

sc co
4 provide documentation that the candidate meets the

5 constitutional requirements of office, and just to

an w.
t
6 respond to something the Plaintiff said, I have

7 reviewed the entire petition, I am picking out the

Tr bo
8 paragraphs that seem to have some substance to them.

9 These objections are not specific to any candidate,

al og
10 they don't say what's missing.

11 There -- she asked earlier how can she be

pe eF
12 more specific, well a more specific objection would

13 be the candidate didn't have enough signatures or I

14 know that the candidate lives in Ohio, and those

Ap h

15 would be the specific type that would need to be

n- f T

16 there in order to kick somebody off the ballot.

17 Later in the proceedings at the Board

o

18 level she argued that she believes that the Board

19 needs to require proof of citizenship in order to be

No s

20 on the ballot.
d

21 Illinois state law doesn't require that,

ien

22 the Election Code doesn't require that, the General

23 Assembly in reading the Constitution and passing

24 laws under it decided that instead they would

Fr
 31

1 require a Statement of Candidacy.

rip m
2 I talked about the General Assembly in my

3 brief, because if she is dissatisfied with the law,

sc co
4 her remedy is to try to change that law at the

5 Legislative level.

an w.
t
6 In fact, the Illinois State Board of

7 Elections can't require anything more than what the

Tr bo
8 law does, because that would actually be illegal, I

9 have case law on that, as well it is in our brief,

al og
10 so the Plaintiff wants the Board to go beyond what

11 the statute requires, and the Board simply can't do

pe eF
12 that.

13 And just finally here on this issue of the

14 dismissal sua sponte, the Board has properly adopted

Ap h

15 rules of procedure that allow objections to be

n- f T

16 dismissed when the Board determines they aren't

17 specific enough, which is what happened in this

o

18 case. The Board has the authority to do this under

19 the Election Code 51(a)-8. The Plaintiff argues

No s

20 that the Board had no authority to do this, but

d

21 there is no case law cited anywhere that says that

ien

22 they can't, in fact, the ruling which she mentioned

23 earlier actually prohibits the Board of Elections

24 from investigating an objection beyond what it says,

Fr
 32

1 and in terms of the apparent conformity issue, the

rip m
2 way I understand it, apparent conformity required an

3 election authority to make sure that nominating

sc co
4 papers apparently conform to what's required,

5 meaning there is a Statement of Candidacy, there are

an w.
t
6 signatures. At that point the election authority

7 has to or cannot remove that name from the ballot

Tr bo
8 unless there is a valid objection filed, so apparent

9 conformity actually means they have to go on the

al og
10 ballot unless there is an objection or clearly

11 something deficient like they didn't get the number

pe eF
12 of signatures or something, so I don't think that

13 that concept in any way supports her argument, and

14 it is in the statute, it is at the Election Code,

Ap h

15 Section 5/10-8, but in conclusion, the Board of

n- f T

16 Elections here did exactly what it was supposed to

17 do. If it acted in the way Ms. Meroni wanted it to

o

18 act, it would be exceeding its authority, and that

19 would be illegal, not the procedure that they did.

No s

20 Thank you.
d

21 THE COURT: Ms. Meroni, one final word from you.

ien

22 MS. MERONI: Yes, well, the Board actually has

23 broad powers, and they do include to hold hearings, and

24 so they had other options than to just do a straight

Fr
 33

1 denial of due process for me, and that did not

rip m
2 necessarily mean that they would have to demand that

3 people gave a copy of their birth certificate. I said

sc co
4 that they could make a recommendation, in which case

5 that could have addressed the issue that I had, and I am

an w.
t
6 being penalized because they haven't done their job and

7 assured that they have -- we have a process that permits

Tr bo
8 us to assess whether or not candidates fulfill the

9 Statement of Candidacy and signatures, which is what my

al og
10 right allows.

11 Also the sua sponte does not -- there is

pe eF
12 plenty of case law that says the Board cannot make

13 action on its own motion, and that when they do make

14 action, it has to be narrowly defined so it doesn't

Ap h

15 inhibit my rights as well, and the effect of their

n- f T

16 rule was let's just say such as in 2008 when Alan

17 Keyes ran for office and he was placed on the ballot

o

18 without any signatures and nobody questioned him, so

19 he actually got on the ballot without apparent

No s

20 conformity.
d

21 Now if these other individuals that -- the

ien

22 sixteen that they did not take from the ballot

23 because they did not comply with apparent

24 conformity, some of them had no significance

Fr
 34

1 whatsoever or just one page, obviously that's not

rip m
2 25,000 on the face of any petition, and if they --

3 if they had that standard and they didn't listen to

sc co
4 it and they had turned mine down sua sponte, then

5 even though I was saying that the papers were not

an w.
t
6 legally qualified, it would have allowed them to

7 stay on the ballot, and that's a problem because I

Tr bo
8 had a valid complaint about them, and they -- you

9 know, it is a combination between them refusing to

al og
10 do their job, I just don't understand why they

11 continue.
pe eF
12 The other point that I wanted to make is

13 that it is a due process issue that they don't post

14 what apparent conformity standards are. If there is

Ap h

15 three legs in this game, the administrators, the

n- f T

16 voters, the candidates, all three of us should be

17 entitled to the same public information, that

o

18 includes if the Board is making decisions about what

19 parts of apparent conformity they are going to

No s

20 listen to and what they aren't, it should be posted

d

21 in the public record, because when I go to do my

ien

22 part of the game, I am -- I have got deficient

23 information, and so beyond that, the case law and

24 facts, there are no facts, and as I read the de

Fr
 35

1 nova, if there is no facts, the Board -- the defense

rip m
2 agrees that there are no facts from the beginning,

3 there is none in dispute and there never have been

sc co
4 any in dispute. In order to be mixed law and

5 review, there can be no question of statute, and

an w.
t
6 that's what this question is all about is whether or

7 not the statute is unconstitutional.

Tr bo
8 Thank you, sir.

9 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Meroni.

al og
10 MS. MERONI: Thank you, sir, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Let me just speak for a moment to the

pe eF
12 Motions to Strike and Dismiss that were presented. It

13 would seem like these are the type of documents that

14 would be in the record. I don't know if they are in the

Ap h

15 record or not, I don't believe in my own estimation,

n- f T

16 although I haven't had time to review these, I'm not

17 sure how they would advance your argument. I am not

o

18 considering them in making my ruling here today. I

19 wanted to make a record of the Court's position with

No s

20 regard to those.
d

21 I do believe that what Ms. Reeves argues

ien

22 is correct, and that is the Board did what it was

23 supposed to do. If it were to take action proposed

24 by Ms. Meroni, it would be exceeding its authority,

Fr
 36

1 and in not taking certain actions that Ms. Meroni

rip m
2 feels that the Board should have taken, the Board

3 essentially used some of the small discretion that

sc co
4 it has in ruling before other actions.

5 I do hear the merits of your argument,

an w.
t
6 Ms. Meroni. I understand a concern that you have

7 with regard to the Statement of Candidacy and where

Tr bo
8 the burden should lie with regard to obtaining

9 information about a candidate on their ballot,

al og
10 however there is a process in place. You have a

11 right to object, you have done so. You have a right

pe eF
12 to contest whether that candidate is qualified, you

13 have been afforded that right, and essentially the

14 process has played out. Essentially you did appeal

Ap h

15 by bringing this action, and my job is to find

n- f T

16 whether or not the Board erred in dismissing your

17 action, so I have reviewed everything, I have heard

o

18 the arguments, taken time to review these matters in

19 chambers, and I do not find that the agency

No s

20 exercised power in an arbitrary or capricious

d

21 manner, and that the agency's actions were not

ien

22 contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

23 The Court doesn't find the Board made a mistake in

24 the facts and law in dismissing your objection.

Fr
 37

1 I do find the Plaintiff's objections are

rip m
2 vague in the sense that you have a very long

3 petition, I would, for lack of a better phrase or

sc co
4 term, call it sort of a moving target as to just

5 what exactly your objections are. I think in hearing

an w.
t
6 your argument over a couple of hearings and having

7 reviewed all the terms, I have got a pretty good

Tr bo
8 sense it has to do with the Statement of Candidacy

9 and where the burden should lie with regard to what

al og
10 information should be provided to the voter. I do

11 find your objections are vague in the sense that

pe eF
12 they are sort of a moving target and that you failed

13 to state fully the nature of the objections as

14 required, so with that, the Board's decision will be

Ap h

15 affirmed. I would ask that the prevailing party

n- f T

16 prepare an order.

17 Ms. Reeves, can you do that for me?

o

18 MS. REEVES: I have one right now, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Can I review it, please?

No s

20 MS. REEVES: Yes.

d

21 THE COURT: Is there anything I can do to clarify,

ien

22 without reinitiating the argument, to clarify my ruling?

23 MS. MERONI: Yes, did you rule on the Strike and

24 Dismiss sua sponte. I didn't hear that as part of your

Fr
 38

1 decision.

rip m
2 THE COURT: Pardon me?

3 MS. MERONI: Is the sua sponte, the Rule 4, I

sc co
4 didn't hear whether or not you felt that --

5 THE COURT: My decision is that I have been offered

an w.
t
6 no argument or authority that proves or shows to this

7 Court that the agency exercised its power in an

Tr bo
8 arbitrary and capricious manner, in that this was not

9 inappropriate rule or action that the Board took, so

al og
10 therefore I found in favor of the Board.

11 MS. MERONI: Thank you.

pe eF
12 THE COURT: All right, I have signed the State's

13 Order.

14 Thank you.
Ap h

15 MS. REEVES: Judge, actually I have two more

n- f T

16 copies.

17 THE COURT: Very well. Is this the original?

o

18 Thank you. All right, that will be all.

19 Well argued, both of you. Thank you.

No s

20 (Hearing adjourned)
d

21
ien

22

23

24
Fr
 39

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

rip m
2 SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

sc co
4

an w.
t
6 I, Laura K. Berry, an Official Court Reporter

7 for the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Seventh

Tr bo
8 Judicial Circuit of Illinois, do hereby certify that I

9 reported in shorthand the proceedings had on the hearing

al og
10 in the above-entitled cause; that I thereafter caused

11 the foregoing to be transcribed into typewriting, which

pe eF
12 I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of

13 the proceedings held before the HONORABLE PATRICK W.

14 KELLEY, Judge of said Court.

Ap h

15
n- f T

16

17
o

18

19
No s

20 Laura K. Berry
d

Official Court Reporter

21 License #084-001931
ien

22

23 Dated this 7th day

24 of October, 2010.
Fr