Dems Continue Effort to Make Sure Mary McClellan Unopposed in Republican Judicial Primary Election

Maybe someone else can come up with another interpretation, but the appeal Circuit Court decisions leaving Justin Hansen and Donald Brewer on the ballot running against Mary McClellan seems to me to be an attempt to make sure the weakest candidate is left standing to face off against the Democratic Party candidate Jeanine Ridding this fall.

Both Hansen and Brewer are defending their ballot position, of course.

Brewer has shared his memo to the Appellate Court:

ARGUMENT

THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE CIRCUIT COURT’S ORDER WHICH AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MCHENRY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTORS THAT DONALD R. BREWER SHALL APPEAR ON THE MARCH 17, 2020 GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT AS REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE 22 ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MCHENRY COUNTY, SUBCIRCUIT 3, JUDGESHIP A.

Respondent maintains that in its review, this Court should give deference to the factual and credibility findings that were made by the Board of Electors, as they were able to hear and see the witness testimony. In fact, the board’s findings and conclusions on issues of fact are prima facie true and should not be disturbed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Jackson-Hicks v. East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL App (5 th ) 150028, ¶ 12 (citing Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200 (2008)).

However, even if this Court conducts a de novo review, as suggested by petitioner-appellant, the result is the same, and this Court should affirm the McHenry County Circuit Court’s decision of February 6, 2020 (C. 303-06), which affirmed the decision of the McHenry County Board of Electors that Donald R. Brewer shall appear on the March 17, 2020 General Primary Election Ballot as Republican Candidate for the Office of Circuit Judge of the 22 nd Judicial Circuit Court of McHenry County, Subcircuit 3, Judgeship A. (C. 225-231).

As an initial matter, this Court should note that petitioner’s memorandum is misleading, in that it lists both “Don Brewer” and “Donald Brewer” as potential Republican candidates for the position at issue. (Pet. Memo. 3). In fact, respondent is candidate “Donald R. Brewer,” and he clearly established in his documents that he resided in and was running for the 3rd Subcircuit position. (C. 184-85).

Moreover, petitioner has filed a separate action challenging the candidacy of Justin Hansen for the same position, which is now pending before this Court as case number 2-20-0127.

In that regard, it is important to consider that there are only three Republican candidates running for the position at issue and petitioner is attempting to disqualify two of the three candidates (C. 181), thereby restricting the ability of the voters to fairly choose their candidate.

Specifically, it should be noted that respondent obtained and filed 97 pages of voter signatures for his nominating petition. (C. 47-98, 186-87, 199-200).

During the hearing before the election board, respondent testified that he personally presented 64 or 65 of those petitions to the people who signed those pages and, “I guarantee you under oath that when I talked to each and every person that signed those petitions, I told them exactly, I clarified exactly for them what I was hoping to run for, and asked them to sign my petition to nominate me, get me on the ballot for the 3rd Subcircuit in the 22nd Judicial Circuit, where the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan had been.” (C. 200, 203).

If they asked if there were other spots open, he told them that there was a different spot open in Subcircuit 4, where Mark Gerhardt is running, and that Countywide for Judge Caldwell’s vacancy Dave Gervais is running. (C. 200).

He testified, “I made it clear, and clarified for them, and I think that the top, top of my petition was very, very clear about what was being proposed to them as a potential signator on a petition for nomination.” (C. 201).

The chart drafted by petitioner misstates the facts regarding Donald R. Brewer’s nominating petition. Citing C. 20, petitioner asserts that Donald R. Brewer’s nominating petition listed “Judge of the Circuit Court to fill the vacancy of the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan. (Pet. Memo 3). In fact, C. 20 is the Statement of Candidacy and it states that the office is for Circuit Judge of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of McHenry County Sub-circuit 3.

Donald R. Brewer’s nominating petition states that it is “for the office of JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT to fill the vacancy of the Honorable MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, 3RD SUBCIRCUIT of the Twenty-Second (22nd ) Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, McHenry County to be voted for at the primary election to be held on MARCH 17, 2020.” (C. 21).

The position at issue was certified as “Judgeship A” for Subcircuit 3, but on the certifying line, at the far right hand side, it shows that the judicial officer who held the position was Michael J. Sullivan, who retired on December 31, 2018. (C. 25, 33-34).

The same chart shows that Justin M. Hansen replaced Michael J. Sullivan, as an appointment, rather than an election, on February 4, 2019. (C. 25). The certification is clear that there is only one vacancy that is specific to Subcircuit 3. (C. 25).

Respondent is entitled to have his name on the ballot because there is no basis for confusion as to the office for which his nominating papers were filed. Pacente v. County Officers Electoral Board of the County of Cook, 373 Ill.App.3d 871 (1 st Dist. 2007).

Petitioner’s sole complaint boils down to the claim that Donald R. Brewer failed to assert in his documents that the position was “Judgeship A,” allegedly causing confusion for the people who nominated him. (C. 193-96, 204, 227-28).

There are several flaws in petitioner’s claim.

Most importantly, Subcircuit 4 for the 22nd Judicial circuit also has a “Judgeship A” available. (C. 25, 33-34). That position shows that the judicial officer who held the position was Sharon Prather, who retired in July 12, 2019. (C. 25, 33-34)

The same chart shows that Mark R. Gerhardt replaced Sharon Prather, as an appointment, rather than an election, on July 15, 2019. (C. 25, 33-34).

In addition, there was an at large position available for the entire 22 nd Judicial Circuit, which shows that the judicial officer who held the position was Michael T. Caldwell, who retired in December 31, 2017. (C. 25, 33-34).

The same chart shows that David R. Gervais replaced Michael T. Caldwell, as an appointment, rather than an election, on February 5, 2018. (C. 25, 33-34).

Respondent asserts that by clearly explaining that the elected position he was seeking was the one created by Michael J. Sullivan’s retirement, Donald R. Brewer created less confusion than if he had stated it was for “Judgeship A,” because there were two positions labeled as such, i.e. “Judgeship A.” (C. 198-99, 200-08).

Ultimately, after reviewing the applicable law and considering the testimony and documentary evidence, “The Board found that the heading on all of the nominating sheets was consistent. The Board also found that, even though the term, “Judgeship A” was not included in the office description, it was clear that the Candidate was seeking to run for the one vacancy in Subcircuit 3.

As a result, there was no reasonable basis to create confusion among the voters and the Objection was overruled.” (C. 230).

On review, the circuit court affirmed the board’s decision. (C. 303-06).

The circuit court specifically noted that petitioner failed to seek a hearing on its petition and had an “apparent lack of interest in having this matter resolved by the court prior to the beginning of voting. (C. 303).

Citing Pacente v. County Officers Electoral Board of the County of Cook, 373 Ill.App.3d 871 (1st Dist. 2007), the circuit court correctly pointed out that there was no basis for voter confusion because the nominating papers described only one possible vacancy in the district. (C. 305).

Moreover, as was also correctly discussed by the circuit court, a description of the office sought in nominating papers is generally sufficient if there
is no basis for confusion as to the office for which the papers were filed, and there is no basis for confusion when the papers as a whole are clear which position the candidate seeks. (C. 306, citing Heabler v. Mun. Officers Electoral Bd., 338 Ill.App.3d 1059 (2 nd Dist. 2003).

The circuit court stated, “it is difficult to imagine a circumstance where that phrase [“Judgeship A”] would be a superior descriptor of the office than “Judge of the 3rd Subcircuit” or variations on that phrase referencing the 3rd Subcircuit,” especially because there was only one vacancy in the 3rd Subcircuit. (C. 306).

Based upon the foregoing, this Court should affirm the McHenry County Circuit Court’s decision of February 6, 2020 (C. 303-06), which affirmed the decision of the McHenry County Board of Electors that Donald R. Brewer shall appear on the March 17, 2020 General Primary Election Ballot as Republican Candidate for the Office of Circuit Judge of the 22 nd Judicial Circuit Court of McHenry County, Subcircuit 3, Judgeship A. (C. 225-231).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent, Donald R. Brewer, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court affirm the McHenry County Circuit Court’s decision of February 6, 2020, which affirmed the decision of the McHenry County Board of Electors that Donald R. Brewer shall appear on the March 17, 2020 General Primary Election Ballot as Republican Candidate for the Office of Circuit Judge of the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of McHenry County, Subcircuit 3, Judgeship A.

= = = = =

The Democrats have until Monday to reply.


Comments

Dems Continue Effort to Make Sure Mary McClellan Unopposed in Republican Judicial Primary Election — 11 Comments

  1. I don’t get what’s going on here.

    Could you explain it in a simpler, non-legalese way?

    Early voting started a long time ago and I’m pretty sure both these guys are on the ballot.

    Are people trying to throw away the election results?

  2. Where did Brewer go to law ‘skool’ — John Marshall?

    His brief is muddled and, in parts, incomprehensible.

    Yes he does make some good points, but not all that effectively.

    And he thinks he should be a judge at his advanced age?

    Here is my sole question to him: Why the hell did he even enter the race, making it easier for McClellan to win?

    McClellan is in an odd variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma trap by filing against BOTH rivals.

    If she loses both cases, she’s in a better position in a 3 person race, than if she only won a single case against a rival.

    Of course she’d be on Easy Street in the General Election w/ Trump at the head of the ticket, and running against another woman, if she managed to win BOTH cases.

    But that last scenario will never happen because she is such an extremely poor, terrible, despised and malignant candidate who finished dead last in a recent 4 candidate race, as the only female!

    That’s what’s so hysterical about her creepy candidacy?

    I’m wondering how she’s scheduled her last 4 bankruptcies…..

    did she do it immediately after 7 yrs from her earlier bankruptcy discharge….

    or did she at least let a few months go by before she stiffed her next batch of hapless creditors?!!!!

  3. That’s pretty much the case.

    If the two men are thrown off the ballot, Mary McClellan will be nominated.

  4. Who would benefit most if Mary became a judge?

    Pretty sure he is the one behind this lawsuit.

    Despite the fact that he is a horrible person, he is a pretty smart lawyer.

  5. Who do you think is behind the lawsuit to deny ballot access to Justin Hansen and Don Brewer?

  6. Nunya speaks the Truth.

    Although Mary Nader is one of McClellan’s advisors, too.

    She is still boiling mad Willbrant dared to defy her and run for circuit court judge, which Little Mary Nader (Nadir?) feels is her rightful place.

  7. OMG! Is she running again?

    How can a multi-bankruptee be a judge?

    Or a witch, for that matter?

  8. This is dispicable!

    And just wrong injustice to the people I would vote for a monkey before her!

  9. I find it amazing that the person who would benefit the most from this, McClellan, is not blamed for it.

    Dems are blamed.

    Tin foil hat logic at its best.

  10. What is the name of the person who filed the objections to the petitions, and what is the name of the person who filed the appeal?

    This story calls the “the Democrats,” but who?

    These things are signed and filed by people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *