A T T O R N E Y A T L A W

8 0 6 F A I R O A K S A V E N U E

O A K P A R K , I L L I N O I S 6 0 3 0 2

TE LE PHONE : (708) 386-1122_______________

FA CS I M I LE : (708) 383-2987CE LL ULA R : (312) 391-8808

E-MA I L : RM EA N S@RI CHA RDM EA NS .COM

HTTP://WWW.RI CHA RD M EA NS .COM

March 11, 2015

Hon. Langdon D. Neal, Chairman

Chicago Board of Election Commissioners

69 West Washington Street

Chicago, Illinois

DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE AND/OR EMAIL

Re: The appropriate standard for the

determination of whether a supplementary

election is required under §21-26 of the

Illinois Municipal Code. Request to address

the Board.

Dear Chairman Neal,

Introduction

Please be advised that I represent Tim Meegan who was a candidate for election to the office of

Alderman of the 33rd Ward of the City of Chicago in the February 24, 2015 Chicago Municipal General

Election. Board staff has disclosed the standard it intends to apply: that Board staff intends to determine

whether a candidate has received “a majority of the votes cast for alderman in (a particular) ward” by totaling

the number of votes cast and counted for all qualified candidates on the ballot, and then to determine whether

any of the candidates got 50% plus one of that sum. We believe that this standard is contrary to Illinois law.

We believe that the appropriate standard for the number of “votes cast” should be consistent with the

interpretation of the terms “votes cast” or “qualified electors … who cast votes” used throughout the Illinois

Election Code to determine, for example, how many petition signatures, at minimum, are required for a

particular office. See, for example, §§7-10 and 10-3; Merz v. Volberding, 94 Ill. App.3d 1111, 419 N.E.2d 628

March 11, 2015page 2

(1st Dist., 1981). That standard requires calculating the number of voters who applied for, who were issued, and

who voted ballots in the ward, regardless of whether those ballots were cast and counted for one of the

candidates whose names were printed on or qualified for the ballot. Specifically, this calculation would include

those votes which were not counted for a qualified aldermanic candidate because the votes were overcast,

undercast, or cast for an unqualified write-in candidate.

While we have not been given access to the Board’s determination of total votes cast in the 33rd Ward,

we are informed and do believe that it is in excess of double the number of votes reported for the leading

candidate, and therefore a supplementary election should be scheduled.

As we respectfully but most vehemently disagree with Board staff’s position, we seek an opportunity to

present our argument to the Board as it is the Board, and not its staff, who are charged with making this

determination. We have delivered this letter to Board General Counsel James M. Scanlon and attorney Michael

J. Kasper (who we understand represents the leading candidate), and we ask that all be invited to present their

views on this issue prior to the Board’s decision and proclamation of results.

The Purpose of Supplementary or Runoff Elections

It is not unusual for winner-take-all, single member district elections to elect officers in plurality

elections in which the winner receives far fewer than a majority of the votes cast but, of course, at least one vote

more than any of his individual competitors. That may make that candidate a clear winner but does not give

him much of a mandate. Election results in which far more votes were cast against the winner than for him

are frequently said to give the electorate little confidence in the electoral result and to provide a rather insecure

footing for a newly-elected public official. An entire legislative body composed of such officers - the least

small fish from each of multiple small ponds - is less likely to be accorded great respect by the electorate or by

other branches of government with whom they are intended to be co-equal.

Likewise, winner-take-all plurality elections tend to produce officers who represent more narrow,

parochial, single-ethnicity or narrow-issue constituencies. Officials elected by that methodology have fewer

incentives to build coalitions and consensus in order to better reflect the majority of their districts.

In Illinois, our established political parties compete and provide the candidates and the electorate with

the leavening effects of party caucuses and party primary elections for government officers above the local

level. For this reason, the Illinois General Assembly has made the policy choice that winner-take-all plurality

elections are appropriate state-wide, for offices in the General Assembly, for county offices and for some of our

other larger municipalities.

March 11, 2015page 3

For many of our general purpose local government - municipal - bodies in which the competing political

differences are less likely Democratic and Republican, the Illinois General Assembly has made the policy

choice that winner-take-all plurality partisan elections are not appropriate. This conscious policy choice is

designed to avoid inter-party squabbles and to encourage coalition-building. This alternative to winner-take-all

elections prescribes that general elections should be held, and, if no candidate gathers a majority of the votes

cast, a runoff or supplementary election should be held between the top two vote getters so that the candidate

finally elected will have a mandate from which to govern as the majority choice.

The relevant provision of the Illinois Municipal Code which guarantees Chicago aldermen a mandate of

majority support from which to govern is:

Sec. 21-26. Candidates receiving majority elected - Supplementary elections.

The candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast for alderman in each ward at any general or specialelection shall be declared elected. In the event that no candidate receives a majority of such votes in anyward or wards a supplementary election shall be held at the time prescribed in Section 21-25. At suchsupplementary election the names of the candidates in each of such wards receiving the highest and secondhighest number of votes at the preceding general or special election and no others shall be placed on theofficial ballot: Provided, however, that if there be any candidate who, under the provisions of this Sectionwould have been entitled to a place on the ballot at the supplementary election except for the fact that someother candidate received an equal number of votes, then all such candidates receiving such equal number ofvotes shall have their names printed on the ballot as candidates at such succeeding supplementary election.The candidate receiving the highest number of votes at such supplementary election shall be declaredelected. Such supplementary election shall be deemed a special election under the election and ballot laws inforce in the city of Chicago and shall be governed thereby except in so far as such laws are inconsistent withthe provisions of this article.

Precedent

It appears that this Board has not directly faced the question of the correct standard for determining

whether to hold a supplementary election under the circumstances which pertain here. It is, of course, fairly

rare that the choice between the competing standards would likely bring differing results.

In 2007, there was a contest for Alderman of the 25th Ward in which a convicted felon was initially on

the ballot and received a sizeable number of early, absentee and Grace Period votes. Delgado v. Medrano, 07-

EB-ALD-002, 07 COEL 0002, docket #104112 Illinois Supreme Court, supervisory order February 23, 2007.

In that case, the Supreme Court issued a stern directive that the Board must remove the convicted felon from the

ballot and “the Election Board shall disregard any votes cast for (Medrano) in determining the winner of the

election.” When determining whether a supplementary election should be held respecting the Municipal

General Election which occurred four days after the Supreme Court Order, this Board honored the words of the

Supreme Court Order although statutory interpretation might have required a different result.

March 11, 2015page 4

Conclusion

Because of the foregoing, we ask this Board to entertain argument from the first and second leading

candidates in the 33rd Ward election held on February 24, 2015 as to the appropriate standard for determining

prior to proclaiming the results and whether a supplementary election shall occur. We are available to

present such argument at the Board’s earliest convenience.

Kindest personal regards,

Richard K. Means

Cc: Richard A. Cowen Michael J. Kasper

Marisel A. Hernandez

James M. Scanlon