Order Dismissing Challenge to Algonquin Township Electoral Board’s Rejection of Petition for Abolition Referendum

From Associate Judge Kevin Costello:

Attorney for the petitioner was Robert Hanlon. James Kelly represented the Algonquin Township Electoral Board and Michael Cortina represented the man who filed the objection to the referendum’s being on the ballot, Republican candidate for Township Supervisor Randy Funk.

As with his decision against the challenge to the McHenry Township Board’s cutting of the McHenry Township Road District ‘s tax levy by 31%, if one was not in the courtroom, one has no idea of the Judge’s reasoning.

Representing County Clerk Joe Tirio were Assistant Attorneys from Lake County John Christensen and Joy Fitzgerald. Apparently McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally recused his office.


Order Dismissing Challenge to Algonquin Township Electoral Board’s Rejection of Petition for Abolition Referendum — 9 Comments

  1. So Hanlon listed the “Township Officers Electoral Board of Algonquin Township” rather than the “Electoral Board” and did not list each individual member of that Board.

    I don’t know if that was the problem or that they were not served by certified mail within 5 days of receipt of the decision.

    Compare this with the caption on Anderson:

    ROBERT G. ANDERSON, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
    ) of McHenry County.
    Petitioner-Appellant, )
    ) No. 96–MR–196
    v. )
    A. ADAMS, Chairman of the )
    McHenry Township Electoral )
    McHenry Township Clerk and )
    Member of the McHenry Township )
    Electoral Board; BRUCE NOVAK, )
    Member of the McHenry Township )
    Electoral Board; JOHN C. )
    HEIDLER, Objector; KATHERINE C. )
    SCHULTZ, McHenry County Clerk, ) Honorable
    ) Jack Hoogasian,
    Respondents-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding.

  2. See also the Don Brewer judicial candidate case:

    CYNTHIA PILZ, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
    ) of McHenry County.
    Petitioner-Appellant, )
    v. ) No. 20-MR-20
    Respondents ) Honorable
    ) Thomas A. Meyer,
    (Donald R. Brewer, Respondent-Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.

  3. Transcripts are only prepared if someone pays to prepare them.

    You’d have to look at the public record documents to understand the arguments, then deduce why the judge ruled as he did.

    Any claims of ill motives by Judge Costello (on the other thread on this topic) are nonsense.

    He is smart and honest.

  4. @ Martin Right. There was nobody here to serve.

    That was the problem.

    The “Township Officers Electoral Board” doesn’t exist after they have rendered a decision.

    They have nothing to do with the “Township”, so serving the township itself does not confer jurisdiction.

    Sometimes, such as where the statutorily mandated individuals are eliminated due to a conflict, you may not even have any township officials on the Electoral Board.

    This was the case in Anderson after it was remanded for a new hearing before another Electoral Board that was selected by the Chief Judge because the first one all had conflicts.

    There may not have been a conflict here like in Anderson because in that case the dissolution of the township, if approved by the voters, would have taken place immediately whereas here the new statute I believe specifies that it not take place until the next term of offices would have occured.

    So none of the current office holders are technically affected.

    You can also force recusals if you are dealing with a candidate petition and that candidate is running directly against one of the members of the Electoral Board. So the replacement might not even have anything to do with the township.

    Therefore, you have to name each member of the Electoral Board individually and serve each one by certified mail as individuals.

    This wasn’t done, so nobody was served.

    Because judicial review of a decision of an electoral board is a special statute and not part of the common law jurisdiction of the court, no jurisdiction was conferred.

    By that same token you can’t mandamus and enjoin people in an election petition case.

    Your only remedy is the judicial review provisions in the statute and you have to follow them to the letter.

    Obviously the Election Code needs to be changed.

    You shouldn’t have people who are current office holders of the same entity that is the subject of the petition sitting in judgement of ballot access, but that’s Illinois for you.

  5. After all the the loud talk and oafism is done Hanlon could up about anything.

    Way to go Bobby you messed up another one

Leave a Reply

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