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

[Donny Henry]

Let me know and I can make it work on an evening. 

Our Lawyer represented a countywide slate and I believe I paid a flat $2500 fee. I don’t know how much adding individual districts would cost. I would absolutely support a motion to have the state party pay for it out of our ballot access funds. IMO, local elections take precedence to statewide elections. Especially in a non- presidential year.

-Donny

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2022, at 9:09 AM, executivedirector at lpillinois.org wrote:
> 
> 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