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

[executivedirector at lpillinois.org]

Donny - Is there a night soon that works?

On 2022-02-24 09:34, Donny Henry wrote:
> 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