In November 2024, an independent
candidate for Mayor (Candidate) filed his nomination papers for
the Consolidated Election with the Village Clerk. After a lottery was
held to determine the Candidate’s ballot position, the Clerk notified the
Candidate that his name would not be certified to the ballot, because the
Candidate’s papers were not in “apparent conformity” with the requirements of
the Election Code. Specifically, the Clerk informed the Candidate that he would
not be certified to the ballot because he was also running for the office of
Trustee of the South Suburban College Board, and the two offices e were incompatible.

The Candidate filed a lawsuit asking the court to order the Clerk to certify his name to the ballot. The Candidate claimed the Clerk had a “duty” to certify his
name to the ballot, because he properly filed his nomination papers. The Clerk
asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Candidate
failed to establish the 3 key elements of a claim for mandamus: (1) a
clear right to relief, (2) a clear duty of the Clerk to act, and (3) clear
authority for the Clerk to comply with the requested mandamus order.

At the court hearing, the Candidate claimed the Clerk exceeded his authority by
evaluating issues beyond the “apparent conformity” of his candidate papers (i.e., looked outside the candidate’s filing). Because the issue of office compatibility was not within the
Clerk’s power to evaluate, the Candidate argued the Clerk erred by refusing to certify
the Candidate’s name to the ballot. 

The trial court granted the Clerk’s motion to dismiss the case and the Candidate appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court noted that in
order state a viable claim for mandamus, the Candidate had to establish the 3 elements for
mandamus, which the Appellate Court determined he failed to do. For example, the Court held that the
Candidate failed to allege facts showing that he filed his nomination papers as
required by the Election Code, or that his papers were in “apparent conformity”
with the Election Code. Without these facts in his complaint to show he had a clear right to relief, the Appellate Court held that the Candidate
could not show that the Clerk had a duty to certify his name to the ballot.
As a result,
the Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss his complaint. The Appellate
Court did not assess the “apparent conformity” issue, or whether the offices
sought by the Candidate were incompatible. Solomon v. Wiseman. 

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink