Find Legal Information

No. 3--02--0743

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 2003

PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal challenges a ruling of the Will County electionboard that denied the petitioner, Austin Hough, a place on theballot in the November 2002 election. For the reasons thatfollow, we find we lack subject matter jurisdiction and dismissthe appeal.

Hough attempted to run for the state senate as a libertarianand submitted a petition to be placed on the ballot for theelection and to establish the Libertarian Party as a politicalparty for the 43rd senate district (43rd district). The petitionsubmitted by the plaintiff, which contained approximately 5000signatures, also purported to nominate Eric Ferguson for a placeon the ballot for the 85th representative district (85thdistrict) for Illinois, and to establish the Libertarian Party asa political party in the 85th district.

Respondents Richard Budde and Paul Buss objected to thepetition, claiming violations of the Illinois Election Code (10ILCS 5/1--1 et seq. (West 2000). The objectors asserted that (1)the nomination petition purported to create a new political partyin the 43rd district, but also nominated a candidate for the 85thdistrict; (2) if the petition purported to create a new party inthe 85th district, it was invalid because the 85th district is adifferent district from the 43rd district; and (3) if thepetition purported to create a new political party in the 43rddistrict, it was invalid for not containing a complete list ofcandidates from the new political party for all offices to befilled within the district.

On August 23, 2002, the Will County Board of Elections heardoral arguments and voted to sustain the objections. The boardreasoned that the petition was invalid because it bundled namesfor candidates from separate districts, the 43rd and 85th, on thesame petition, in violation of the Election Code.

On August 30, Hough filed a motion for expedited judicialreview with the circuit court. He served the attorney whorepresented the objectors before the board of elections to bringthem before the court. On the 23rd of September, the courtaffirmed the election board's decision. The petitioner nowappeals.

ANALYSIS

The parties do not dispute the relevant facts. Since thereare no factual issues and the case involves issues of law, wewill conduct a de novo review. Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512,516, 639 N.E.2d 333, 335 (1998); Bill v. Education OfficersElectoral Board of Community Consolidated School District No.181, 299 Ill. App. 3d 548, 551, 701 N.E.2d 262, 264 (1998).

The respondent's argue, as a preliminary matter, that thiscourt does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case,and urge us to dismiss. For the following reasons, we agree thatwe do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

Illinois courts do not have inherent authority to hearelection cases, but may only exercise jurisdiction over suchcases when provided for by statute. Allord v. Municipal OfficersElectoral Board, 288 Ill. App. 3d 897, 900, 682 N.E.2d 125, 128(1997). The jurisdictional prerequisites for election cases areset forth in section 10--10.1 of the Election Code, whichrequires that: (1) a challenging petition be filed with the clerkof the court within 10 days after the electoral board issues itsdecision; (2) the petition state briefly the reasons why theboard's decision should be reversed; (3) the petitioner servecopies of the petition on the electoral board and other partiesto the proceeding by registered or certified mail; and (4) thepetitioner file proof of service with the clerk of the court. 10ILCS 5/10--10.1 (West 2003). In this case, the defendants allegethat the plaintiff failed to meet the last two requirements, byfailing to serve the contestants with copies of the challengingpetition and by failing to file proof of service with the courtclerk.

The "[f]ailure of a party to comply with any of therequirements when appealing an electoral board decision invitesdismissal via section 2--619 (735 ILCS 2--619 (West 1996), forlack of subject matter jurisdiction." Bill v. Education OfficersElectoral Board of Community Consolidated District No. 181, 299Ill. App. 3d 548, 551-52, 701 N.E.2d 262, 264 (1998). PetitionerHough has not complied with the third and fourth jurisdictionalprerequisites. He failed to provide the contestants with copiesof his petition in the circuit court challenging the ruling ofthe election board. Although he was required to serve all of thecontestants personally, he instead served copies of his petitionon the attorney who represented the objectors at the electionboard hearing. Since the service was not on the objectorsthemselves, it does not comply with the statutory requirement.The petitioner's failure to provide the clerk of the court withproof of service also did not meet Code requirements. Theseomissions resulted in a failure of jurisdiction in the circuitcourt and, consequently, in this court. We must dismiss theappeal.

Dismissed.

LYTTON and HOLDRIDGE, JJ., concur.