Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Brooks v. Board of Election Commissioners

Brooks v. Board of Election Commissioners

Case Date: 08/30/2002
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-01-2283 Rel

FIFTH DIVISION
August 30, 2002



No. 1-01-2283


TARA BROOKS, MARY STRIKLAND, EVIE CROSBY,
REGINA FIELDS, JOHNNY SOLOMON, CHERYL
WILSON, REVA PRICE, MICHAEL LYNCH,
ESMERALDA LOPEZ,BRYAN TUBBS, CHRISTINE
CLARK, CURTIS JEFFERS, JUANITA T. RANDLE,
DIANE RANDLE, WILLIE B. RANDLE JR.,
LAWRENCE TATE, EARNEST LEE,

                            Plaintiffs-Appellants,

          v.

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS OF
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,

                            Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 		Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County









Honorable
Raymond Jagielski,
Judge Presiding.


JUSTICE QUINN delivered the opinion of the court:

Two sets of plaintiffs, who included Tara Brooks, Mary Strikland,Evie Crosby, Regina Fields, Johnny Solomon, Cheryl Wilson, Reva Price,Michael Lynch, Esmeralda Lopez, Bryan Tubbs, Christine Clark, CurtisJeffers, Juanita T. Randle, Diane Randle, Willie B. Randle, Jr.,Lawrence Tate and Ernest Lee, each filed a complaint to contest thevalidity of a local option election conducted in the 28th and 34thprecincts of the 29th ward of the City of Chicago. In the election, twopropositions regarding whether the sale of retail alcoholic liquorshould be prohibited in the precincts were submitted to the voters. Plaintiffs' complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, allegedthat the defendant, Board of Election Commissioners of the City ofChicago (the Board), submitted a ballot that was both "inherently vagueand ambiguous" and "an illegal referendum and form of ballot." Following a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment,the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment anddenied plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs now appeal.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the ballot: (1) fails tosubstantially comply with the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (235 ILCS 5/1-1et seq. (West 1994); and (2) violates the Voting Rights LanguageAssistance Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.