Algonquin Township Abolition Petitioners Suffer Court Loss

Although no paperwork has been filed concerning Judge Kevin Costello’s decision, those on both sides of the issue have been telling people that those seeking an April referendum to consolidate Algonquin Township into McHenry County government have met with a second loss.

The first was at the Algonquin Township Electoral Board.

Consisting of three current Township officials

  • Supervisor Chuck Lutzow
  • Clerk Karen Lukasik
  • Senior Trustee Dan Shea

the Electoral Board ruled 3-0 that the petitions did not have the required number of signatures to be placed on the ballot.

In the administrative review court hearing, Judge Costello must have agreed.

One source says that plaintiff attoney Robert Hanlon sued the wrong entity.

The McHenry County Circuit Clerk’s web site reveals that Costello will file a decision by February 3rd:

In his brief on the case, Republican Supervisor candidate Randy Funk attorney Michael Cortina points to Hanlon’s failure to

“file his challenging petition with the clerk of the court within five days
after the Board’s service of its decision”

Continuing,

…the deadline for compliance was extended to Monday, January 25, 2021. Plaintiff filed her petition on January 21, 2021, but did not serve any
parties by registered or certified mail by January 25, 2021…

Because the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Funk by registered or certified
mail expired by January 25, 2021, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction…

while it was not known until this certified mail envelope was seen, the
certified mail was not sent to the Algonquin Township Electoral Board – it was sent to Algonquin Township. The Algonquin Township Electoral Board is a separate entity…

there is no provision in section 10-10.1 authorizing a temporary restraining order, a stay of execution, or an order for mandamus.

This Court does not have authority to order anything regarding the decision of the Algonquin Township Electoral Board other than a review of the Decision under the applicable legal standard.

Cortina concluded,

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to engage in administrative review of the Algonquin Township Electoral Board decision dated January 19, 2021. Service of Plaintiff’s petition was not made by January 25, 2021, depriving this Court of jurisdiction.

Further, there is no proof of service of Plaintiff’s petition on Funk with the Court, so the Court cannot proceed with any hearings regarding this matter since proof of service is a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction.

The only authority that this Court has in administrative review is what it is given by 10 ILCS 5/10-10.1, which is limited to reviewing the decision of the electoral board at issue.

The Court does not have authority under 10 ILCS 5/10-10.1 to order injunctive or mandamus relief, so it simply cannot occur.


Comments

Algonquin Township Abolition Petitioners Suffer Court Loss — 9 Comments

  1. “The party seeking judicial review must file a petition with the clerk of the court and must serve a copy of the petition upon the electoral board and other parties to the proceeding by registered or certified mail within 5 days after service of the decision of the electoral board as provided in Section 10-10. “

  2. This reminds me of a similar error made by Wes Pribla in a township supervisor race for Nunda Township.

    He had the papers served by the Sheriff rather than use certified mail so that deprived the court of jurisdiction.

    Reviews of election board decisions require strict compliance with the statute or you are SOL.

    Here the Electoral Board is the party in interest, not the township.

    The Electoral Board is composed by statute of certain township officials but it is not the same as the Township.

    Theoretically, a different Electoral Board could be appointed, as was the case with Anderson vs McHenry Township Electoral Board.

    Here is the Caption for that case: https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-second-appellate-district/1997/2961259.html

  3. Patrick S.D. Kenneally couldn’t beat a class of First Graders academically or athletically.

    The S.D. stands for”Slap Dick”!

  4. Costello needs to be targeted for removal.

    Any judge who laughs at the law to please his patron needs to be booted.

  5. @Fort Drum MP

    Based on what I have seen, Judge Costello was applying the law not laughing at it.

    A law that requires you to both file your Complaint AND allow enough time for the Postal Service to serve all of the defendants by certfied mail within 5 days needs to be changed.

    However, other people have been able to navigate it over the years. Hanlon is not an electon lawyer and apparently didn’t consult with one.

    Next time the referendum proponents need to get 4 times the number of required signatures and check them themselves before filing.

  6. Judge Costello is appointed by the Circuit Court Judges, not elected.

  7. Fort Drum, you don’t even know what it is Judge Costello decided or why, and yet still seem to know that he “laughs at the law,” and has a “patron.”

    Those are not just wild assumptions, but also a willingness to accuse someone of pretty awful conduct without any basis whatsoever.

    Do better.

Leave a Reply

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