[LPIL - Board of Directors] LP IL v Cook County Clerk - Ruling pending

[executivedirector at lpillinois.org]

Donny - A Zoom meeting would be great. Any idea how much lawyering is 
required and how much $$ that would cost us?

On 2022-02-24 09:02, Donny Henry wrote:
> Having gone through an in-depth petition challenge in 2020, I can be
> available for a Zoom meeting to give you an overview. It’s important
> that you validate signatures and know it may require hiring an
> attorney. The Peoria Election Commission would not allow me to defend
> our candidates signatures because I was not a lawyer.
> 
> On the validation note: Russ/Steve- is it possible that Lex’s
> brother’s software could be populated with current voter data soon?
> Cook County is too large to Ctrl+F the data and tbh Peoria’s
> spreadsheet is awfully large as well.
> 
> -Donny
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2022, at 8:23 AM, executivedirector--- via Lpil-bod 
>> <lpil-bod at lists.lpillinois.org> wrote:
>> 
>> For us in 2020, it was a gambit and it paid off. In 2022, it's a 
>> different story. Though we are stronger now than we were in 2020, we 
>> still will need help. Having no experience with defending petitions 
>> against challenges, is there a resource that walks us through the 
>> process? Are there resources, if needed, that we can utilize to defend 
>> petitions?
>> 
>>> On 2022-02-23 20:01, treasurer--- via Lpil-bod wrote:
>>> From our attorney, Andrew Finko.  There is a lot to cover here but 
>>> the
>>> cliff notes version is that Judge Gettlemen is appears to be inclined
>>> to rule in our favor.  Issue is that the Deputy States Attorney asked
>>> for more time for a brief to make some bs up describe how ILCS 7-2
>>> makes us not qualified as an "Established" party.    That is due on
>>> February 25.  Our response is due on February 28.  Ruling will be
>>> handed down on March 4.
>>> In the mean time, he says to expect the Clerk to be very aggressive
>>> against us on petitions when we turn them in.  He recommends having
>>> 10x the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot for
>>> countywide races. Her henchman, Jim Nally, has been messing with SEI
>>> forms so please note.  "[They] have been consistent about cutting off
>>> the rest of the SEI, and only submitting to portion of the SEI which
>>> contains the foregoing info only, and not submitting the answers to
>>> questions. The answers to questions do NOT need to be submitted.  The
>>> new form has the Receipt separate on the first page of the packet -
>>> and that's the only part Nally would submit, so he's revised the 
>>> form.
>>> Suggest that the LPI similarly submit only the Receipt portion of the
>>> (new) SEI form - attached."
>>> Russ Clark
>>> From Andrew Finko to Russ Clark
>>> The hearing lasted a bit over an hour, and I had a couple other
>>> matters set this afternoon, sorry for delay in sending this email.
>>> First topic was Green Party motion to intervene - and (of course) the
>>> Clerk objected, and requested time to file a response. Ruling TBD.
>>> Green Party to file an amended motion with proposed complaint by 
>>> 2/25,
>>> Clerk file response by 3/9 and reply by 3/14.
>>> Second topic was our motion for prelim injunction.  Judge Gettlemen
>>> started out by summarizing his understanding/position, which was
>>> basically our position.  He commented that Section 10-2 defined 5% 
>>> and
>>> that the Election Code generally, and that Sec. 7-2 and 7-4 confirmed
>>> that the LPI was authorized to nomination Commissioners and
>>> committeepersons within Cook County specifically.  He noted that
>>> Section 10-1 expressly prohibited an established party from 
>>> nominating
>>> its candidates under Article 10.  He said exactly what I intended to
>>> say.
>>> Judge Gettleman was totally on board with our arguments - his only
>>> criticism is that the motion was not for declaratory judgment but 
>>> only
>>> prelim injunction so he expressed concern over the relief that we
>>> requested.  He actually commented about what I wrote - that he was
>>> surprised the Clerk did not at all address the applicability of
>>> Article 7 of the Election Code.  I summarized the constitutional law,
>>> that there's strong first and fourteenth amendment rights, and the
>>> Clerk's position was well-defined, she refused to change her stance.
>>> Judge Gettleman during the hour argument, also brought up Colleen
>>> Gleason's email specifically saying that LPI was established for only
>>> county-wide county officer positions, but not established for all
>>> other listed offices on the ballot.
>>> In response, Jessica Scheller said, outright that Article 7 did not
>>> apply.  Her logic was totally off base when she argued that Article 7
>>> applied only to municipal elections, and LPI did not attain
>>> established party status or run candidates at the April 2021 
>>> election.
>>> She's been an attorney since 2004 so should know better than to make
>>> stuff up.  I pointed out that 10 ILCS 5/7-1 defined applicability of
>>> Art. 7, including nomination of partisan candidates for county
>>> elections.  Jessica Scheller then embarked upon utter BS 
>>> backpeddling,
>>> saying that the first sentence in Sec. 7-1(a) that said "unless
>>> otherwise prohibited in this Article . . . " meant that Art 7 did not
>>> apply and that Sec. 10-2 was the only part of Election Code
>>> applicable.  I pointed out that Sec. 7-1(b) actually defined the
>>> elections that were not governed by Article 7 (the exception
>>> referenced in 7-1(a)).  She then tried to argue that the word
>>> "Article" meant the Election Code . . .  but Judge Gettleman was 
>>> quick
>>> to note the use of Article as referring to the section/chapter, 
>>> rather
>>> than the entire Code.  I could not believe my ears - actually was
>>> shocked to hear what a licensed attorney was saying to a federal 
>>> court
>>> judge - nothing less than total lies and BS.
>>> Anyway, Jim Nally was on the line, but did not speak up.
>>> At the end of the hour, State's Attorney asked for a sur-reply to
>>> address the applicability of Article 7 and interplay with Section
>>> 10-2.  I objected, but Judge Gettleman said (more than once during
>>> hearing too) that Election Code was confusing, not easily understood,
>>> so allowed the further briefing (by Friday) and allowed me the last
>>> word (by Monday).
>>> Hearing continued to Friday March 4, 2022 at 11:30 AM before Judge
>>> Gettleman.
>>> Separately, I can also order the transcript if you wish, but that's
>>> about $250 or so based on ballpark estimate from court reporter.  It
>>> would be needed for an appeal, and could provide additional detail
>>> about the hearing today. Let me know if you're OK with the additional
>>> cost - if we prevail, I could ask for reimbursement from the Clerk.
>>> In addition, if we prevail, I would also ask the Clerk for payment of
>>> my hourly attorney fees, and reimburse to the LPI the amounts that
>>> were paid to me initially to get started.
>>> I requested to order the transcript and will pay for this from ballot
>>> access funds.  We will see what reimbursement we get from Cook County
>>> Clerk.
>>> I asked Andrew:
>>> Too bad we didn't go for declaratory judgement.  It sounds like we
>>> would get it.  Is there a possibility we could ask for it?  Our
>>> countywide slate petitioning is going well so we should pass the
>>> signature requirements.  Two of the three plaintiffs also have enough
>>> signatures to clear our calculated 47 valid signatures.  Our
>>> candidates are doing the work so this would just be icing on the cake
>>> for them.  If we got a declaratory judgement, would we be able to
>>> slate for Cook County Board seats without petitioning?.
>>> We did request a declaratory judgment - it's Count I of the 
>>> Complaint.
>>> However, at this juncture, the judge isn't ruling upon that request,
>>> since it's only a preliminary injunction request. However, we needed
>>> to address that argument, as likelihood of success on the merits is
>>> one element we need to establish to obtain a preliminary injunction
>>> (along with a direct conflict between the parties, monetary damages
>>> could not adequately compensate, urgent need for relief, etc.).
>>> Also, there's procedural rules that preclude the judge from deciding
>>> the complaint right now.  Defendant/Clerk has time to file a motion 
>>> to
>>> dismiss the complaint or an answer (until 2/24). Thereafter, we can
>>> file a FRCP Rule 56 "motion for summary judgment," or possibly, a 
>>> FRCP
>>> Rule 12 "motion for judgment on the pleadings" depending upon how the
>>> Clerk responds.  That's next. I made sure that the summons was
>>> personally served, rather than sending a waiver of service request,
>>> that would then have allowed +60 days to respond to the complaint.
>>> When personally served, the time to respond is +20 days from service
>>> on 2/4/2022.  Of course, the Clerk could ask for additional time, but
>>> that's up to the Judge to decide.
>>> At present, the preliminary injunction asks for ballot placement of
>>> only the three commissioner candidates directly on the ballot, due to
>>> denial of recognition/signature requirements from Clerk.  Rest of
>>> slate for countywide offices will need to file its nomination papers,
>>> since that wasn't included in the requested relief.  And, I'm not 
>>> sure
>>> Judge Gettleman has the confidence of Judge Pallmeyer to directly
>>> place candidates upon the ballot, that's a big request.
>>> For signatures, I would suggest obtaining AT LEAST 10 times the
>>> minimum - and you should expect to get multiple challenges
>>> nonetheless.  For purposes of filing, ALL LPI candidates should
>>> (strongly recommended) file on the LAST DAY to file, March 14, 2022
>>> rather than March 7, 2022.  Extra week to gather signatures, plus,
>>> there is NO advantage to filing on March 7, 2022 - with only one or
>>> two candidates for each office, there's no lottery for first 
>>> position,
>>> and really, first or second doesn't matter if there's only two
>>> candidates.  The reason to file last day is to prevent the machine
>>> from having an extra week to review signatures and then create
>>> objections - and you can bet Jim Nally will be orchestrating those
>>> objections.
>>> As for the MWRD, it was created within Cook County, and the 
>>> boundaries
>>> of the MWRD have not changed or been remapped, so that's not a 
>>> problem
>>> from my point of view - it's the same (internal) boundaries within
>>> Cook County. And its commissioners are elected countywide, not by
>>> district. So again, no change based on redistricting. LPI should
>>> similarly be authorized to run candidates for MWRD based upon Nov.
>>> 2020 electoral success.
>>> If we prevail upon the preliminary injunction, then it's smooth
>>> sailing going forward - a judgment on the complaint, and possibly, 
>>> the
>>> Clerk might even agree to entry of a consent judgment to save money 
>>> on
>>> attorney fees.  That's not likely right now, but if Judge Gettleman
>>> grants motion for preliminary injunction then maybe (to minimize
>>> exposure to attorney fees).
>>> If the LPI is recognized as established by the court for all offices,
>>> then the LPI would need to have candidates ready for township
>>> committeepersons - and suggest that you solicit names now, and 
>>> prepare
>>> to file nomination papers.  Township Committeepersons (and Ward
>>> Committeepersons in Chicago) would then vote to fill vacancies from
>>> the primary election and file nomination papers later - and remember
>>> that's also a signature gathering endeavor, have to gather as many
>>> signatures as would've been required for primary election, but during
>>> the summer (after primary election results are certified).
>>> Do you have statements of candidacy and statements of economic
>>> interests for all candidates?  The SEI form must be the Cook County
>>> Clerk's template/form, and filed with the Clerk's office.  The 
>>> Receipt
>>> is the portion with the name, address, office sought typed in, and 
>>> the
>>> round stamp or seal of the Clerk in the box. Jim Nally (and 
>>> Jaconetty)
>>> have been consistent about cutting off the rest of the SEI, and only
>>> submitting to portion of the SEI which contains the foregoing info
>>> only, and not submitting the answers to questions. The answers to
>>> questions do NOT need to be submitted.  The new form has the Receipt
>>> separate on the first page of the packet - and that's the only part
>>> Nally would submit, so he's revised the form.  Suggest that the LPI
>>> similarly submit only the Receipt portion of the (new) SEI form -
>>> attached.
>>> Also, must be bound with two hole (or three ring) punched 
>>> hole/binding
>>> system, or wire/string.  Pages numbered at the bottom consecutively.
>>> -------------------------
>>>         [1]
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> www.avast.com [1]
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> --
>> Lpil-bod mailing list
>> Lpil-bod at lists.lpillinois.org
>> http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpil-bod