Just weeks before the April 1, 2025 election, an Illinois Appellate Court decision resulted in the reinstatement of a local township candidate’s name on the ballot. In the case of Bass v. Township Officers Electoral Board for Rich Township, the First District Appellate Court considered an appeal from Antoine Bass, a candidate for Rich Township Supervisor, after the Township Election Board ordered that his name be removed from the ballot.
After Mr. Bass submitted 77 signature pages with his nomination papers for the position of Supervisor for Rich Township in November 2024, a resident filed an objection alleging that Bass engaged in a pattern of fraud and false swearing. Specifically, it was alleged that Bass had provided several signatures that were not genuine, that Bass did not witness every signature he obtained and then signed the circulator’s affidavit regarding the veracity of the signatures. The Township Electoral Board only heard testimony from Bass, who stated he witnessed all signatures on 76 of the 77 signature pages, and admitted he did not circulate the remaining signature page. The Township Election Board ordered Bass’ name be removed from the ballot, ruling that Bass engaged in a “pattern of fraud and false swearing” and that all petition sheets “should be stricken in their entirety,” citing the County Clerk’s decision to invalidate a number of Bass’ signatures for various reasons.
Bass initially appealed to the Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board’s written ruling. Bass then filed a notice of expedited appeal, which the Appellate Court granted due to the proximity of the April 1, 2025 election. In his appeal, Bass argued that the objector did not meet her burden of proof regarding allegations of a pattern of fraud and false swearing because she presented “no evidence whatsoever, except call(ing) the candidate for questioning,” and that Bass testified credibly that he circulated 76 of the 77 signature pages and witnessed those signatures. Ultimately, the Appellate Court found in Bass’ favor, ruling that Bass was not required to fill out his own attestation before signing it and that the objector presented no evidence, let alone the required “clear and convincing evidence” that any of the signatures on the 76 pages were fraudulent. The Appellate Court further ruled that “simply collecting and swearing to signatures that end up being invalid for one reason or another does not amount to a pattern of fraud or false swearing where it is equally possible that an innocent explanation exists.”
The ruling in Bass v. Township Officers Electoral Board for Rich Township reaffirms the principle that local officials should ensure that objectors meet their required burdens to not unnecessarily prevent eligible candidates from appearing on a ballot.
For more information about this article, please contact Tressler attorney
Jim Hess at jhess@tresslerllp.com.