Melissa Fischer Sanchez and others who filed petitions to abolish Algonquin Township as a separate unit of government, through attorney Robert Hanlon, filed papers arguing objectors had not identified names of those who were not eligible to sign.
Last week a reply was filed in rebuttal with the Algonquin Township Electoral Board, which meets tomorrow morning at 9 via Zoom.
Objectors attorney Michael Cortina argues,
…this Electoral Board must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the Objection and determine whether the allegations in the Objection, when viewed in the light most favorable to Objector, sufficiently sets forth an objection on which relief may be granted.
The Election Code requires that the Objection fully state the nature of the objections, and the Objection clearly objects to the signatures. There can simply be no doubt as to what is being challenged and what Proponent needs to attempt to defend.
Proponent also complains that because the Objection does not give a line-by-line recitation of each and every flawed signature that she has somehow been prejudiced. However, this is simply not true. Proponent is on notice that the nature of the Objection is the validity of the signatures
on the Petition.Proponent, just like Objector has done, has the ability to go to the McHenry County Clerk’s office and review all of the voter registrations for the people who claim to have signed the Petition.
Objector is not required to do Proponent’s work for her.
Proponent can determine
– if the signatories are actually registered voters,
– if the signatures on the Petition match the signatures on the voter registration roll,
– if the addresses noted on the Petition match the voter registration records, or even
– if the signers live in Algonquin Township.
Proponent should have verified that the signers of her Petition were valid signers before she filed her Petition, so there can simply be no prejudice to her by informing her that her signatures are being challenged.
Further, we cannot forget the fact that Proponent is not just Melisa Sanchez-Fisher. Counsel for Proponent stated to this Electoral Board that his clients in this matter were all of the 533 signers of the Petition. These are people that are appearing before this Electoral Board through their chosen counsel. Can these signers rationally argue that it is a burden for them to know if they signed the petition, or identity their signatures, or know where they live, or know where they are registered to vote, if anywhere? Of course not. There is no prejudice to Proponent.
The three Algonquin Township officials comprising the Electoral Board are
- Supervisor Chuck Lutzow
- Clerk Karen Lukasik
- Trustee Dan Shea
Again, hope nobody’s paying Cortina for this shit.
Cortina, if you cannot point out those incorrect specific signatures, sufficient in number to disqualify, the Electoral Board has no evidence to rule on, other than your word.
And as we see above, you have lots and lots of words
Did someone here say this guy is hoping to be some local municipal entity’s official attorney idiot of record?
✌️😎
Cortina is just another township flak atty, like Jimbo Kelly, of Algonquin Township infamy.
Shea needs to check into the Valley Hi dementia ward.
Lukasik is a cookoo.
Why isn’t she in jail?
Why are governments afraid of letting voters abolish them?
I used to think townships were quaint and nice.
Now I see what they really are: a total waste.
….and the pension these dull bureaucrats demand!
Vote them out.
Who’s the star of this tragicomedy?
Kelly trying to line his pockets?
Or Loonkasik trying to act semi intelligent?
Or Gasser trying to act polite to dingbats?
The fact that they don’t want voters to have a say is pretty telling.
A good government wouldn’t even fear the question being asked.
They would be confident in the people’s faith in them as public servants!
Only a bad, wasteful government would fear that sort of thing.
What they’re doing is the equivalent of censoring their opponent in a debate.
Good ideas should be able to speak for themselves.
Bad ideas, when aired, get rejected.
Why does Mr. Funk feel the way he does, that this question should be removed from the ballot?
Cal will get the article up later, but Hanlon’s objection was overruled to throw out the petition objection as invalid.
From what I witnessed on the ZOOM call, this is all very stacked in Algonquin Township’s favor, and are relying on signature checks.
No one has obtained the actual objection, and how many names they are objecting to, but it must be at least 99 which would bring the signature count under the minimum 442 signatures needed.
Sorry Lopez, it’s a sham hearing.
If they say the signatures are forgeries, get affidavits from the voters who’re supposedly the forgers’ victims.
Oh, there aren’t any?
Mike W., How do you know that these signatures are not forgeries?
Please provide your proof that they are all valid.
@John
Who has requested it?
Where can it be requested?
Why has the information not be released?
I agree with Mike W’s suggestion to get affidavits from these voters whose signatures are being challenged.
Bob Anderson claims he walked inside the district and talked to people who lived in the district.
I don’t agree with Bob on everything, but I believe he is being honest about that because he wants to give voters a choice.
Getting rid of townships is his shtick (even if he hasn’t been successful).
Contacting these voters will also be a good way to rile them up and get them to hate the township even more.
These voters will tell many others about tooty fruity rudy and his bald, dishonest lawyer trying to delete this referendum.
At the very least, they won’t be voting for tooty fruity rudy who believes voters should not have a choice in whether they want a township but he wants to be a township official himself… It perfectly illustrates how they think about us.
I would not vote for Randolf Funk aka tooty fruity rudy based solely on him objecting to this.
His objection shows he is selfish and does not really care about voters.
not been* released