Corbin v. Schroeder ( 2021 )

2021 IL App (2d) 210090-UNo. 2-21-0090
Order filed March 8, 2021
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent
except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
MATTHEW CORBIN, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) of Du Page County.
)
Petitioner-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 21-MR-108
)
MARY SCHROEDER, )
SHARON SULLIVAN, )
JONATHON NUSGART, )
CHODRI MA KHOKHAR, )
JEAN KACZMAREK, as Du Page County )
Clerk, and THE GLENDALE HEIGHTS )
MUNICIPAL ELECTORAL BOARD, )
)
Respondents, ) Honorable
) Craig R. Belford,
(Chodri Ma Khokhar, Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Bridges and Justice Schostok concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We reverse the circuit court’s judgment and affirm the electoral board’s decision.
¶2 Respondent, Chodri Ma Khokhar, filed nominating papers to run in the upcoming April 6,
2021, consolidated election for the office of Glendale Heights Village President. Petitioner,
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-UMatthew Corbin, objected to Khokhar’s nominating papers on several bases, including that the
statutory minimum threshold for valid signatures was not satisfied. On February 4, 2021, after a
hearing, the Glendale Heights Municipal Officers Electoral Board (the Board), of which
respondents Mary Schroeder, Sharon Sullivan, and Jonathon Nusgart are members, overruled
Corbin’s objections.
¶3 Corbin petitioned the circuit court for judicial review. On February 11, 2021, the court
reversed the Board, struck certain signatures from Khokhar’s nominating papers, and ordered
Khokhar’s name removed from the ballot.1 On February 19, 2021, the court denied Khokhar’s
request to “vacate the default judgment.”
¶4 On February 23, 2021, Khokhar filed a pro se notice of appeal. On February 26, 2021,
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311 (eff. July 1, 2018), this court granted Khokhar’s
motion to place the case on this court’s accelerated docket. We denied, however, his request for a
stay pending appeal. For the following reasons, we reverse the court’s judgment and affirm the
Board.
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
1
We note that Corbin filed objections to the nominating papers filed by three candidates
for Glendale Heights Village President: Khokhar, Linda Jackson, and Edward Pope. On January
23, 2021, the Board held a hearing addressing all objections, and it issued written decisions on
January 28, 2021, (Khokhar) and February 4, 2021, (Jackson and Pope), rejecting Corbin’s
objections to all three candidates. Although related, we address each appeal separately, addressing
Jackson’s and Pope’s candidacies in appeal Nos. 2-21-0085 and 2-21-0086, respectively.
-2-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-U¶6 On January 23, 2021, the Board held a hearing to address Corbin’s objections to Khokhar’s
nominating papers. The Board adopted rules and procedures for the hearing. As relevant here,
Rule 4(l) notes: “The Board shall as a matter of procedure, not consider signatures that are filed in
excess of the statutory maximum for any elected office.” Further, Rule 22 provides: “at any
subsequent record check objection hearing before the Board, the ruling made by the clerks shall
be deemed valid, and the moving [p]arty shall have the burden of demonstrating that the ruling
was incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Emphasis added.)
¶7 In his objections, Corbin requested that the Board make a finding concerning which
election (2017 or 2018) applied under section 10-3 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-3 (West
2018))2 to form the basis of the signature requirements. At the hearing, he also argued that, if the
Board were to consider the statutory percentages as derived from 2017 election, such that 118
signatures was the minimum required (5%) and 188 the maximum (8%), it should strike any
signatures Khokhar had submitted beyond number 188. In discussion, the Board: recognized that
it had no specific rule for striking the signatures; noted that, although section 10-3 sets a cap at
2
Section 10-3 of the Election Code provides, in relevant part:
“Nominations of independent candidates for public office within any district or political
subdivision less than the State, may be made by nomination papers signed in the aggregate for
each candidate by qualified voters of such district, or political subdivision, equaling not less than
5%, nor more than 8% (or 50 more than the minimum, whichever is greater) of the number of
persons, who voted at the next preceding regular election in such district or political subdivision
in which such district or political subdivision voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve its
respective territorial area.” 10 ILCS 5/10-3 (West 2018).
-3-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-U8%, it provides no consequence for submitting signatures exceeding 8%; and it essentially
summarized its belief that, even without considering signatures beyond number 188, Khokhar
would have enough signatures. Thus, it declined Corbin’s request to strike the excess signatures.
¶8 Next, the Board was informed by its counsel that the Du Page County Clerk had deferred
ruling on Corbin’s objections to three signatures and, so, for those, the Board would need to “look
at the signature that appears on the petition sheet and match it with the signature clip that’s in the
records exam. And that’s pretty easily done.” The Board reviewed those three signatures,
including for line 7 on sheet 11, and overruled Corbin’s objections. 3 The Board determined that
Khokhar had presented 129 valid signatures (i.e., starting at 198 originally included on the petitions
and subtracting 69 signatures that were stricken after the clerk sustained Corbin’s objections).
¶9 Corbin next explained that, in his view, 45 rulings from the clerk’s signature-records check
remained incorrect. The Board’s counsel, however, stated that reviewing those signatures would
be very time consuming and, as the records exam had already rejected those challenges, “these
signatures are presumptively valid as a result of the records exam, and unless you can show us
something that clearly indicates that, one, the voter is not registered; two, it’s not their genuine
signature; three, they live out of the district, or some other objection that would lodge, I would
recommend that the Electoral Board not proceed on trying to overturn decisions that are
presumptively valid.” The Board agreed, with one member commenting that there was no need to
3
We note that, as to the signature for line 7 on sheet 11, Khokhar explained that he had
obtained an affidavit from the signatory. The Board’s counsel explained, “if the case gets to the
point where you have to present evidence, you can,” but that it was overruling Corbin’s objection
to that signature.
-4-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Urevisit objections that had already been ruled on. Corbin explained that he could demonstrate
facial defects, such as, for example, that one name appeared on the face of the petition, while a
different name was used on the record comparison. The Board’s counsel noted, however, that the
Board’s rules of procedure (Rule 22) required an objector to present evidence, such as an affidavit
(further noting again that Khokhar had, in fact, obtained affidavits, which could, only if necessary,
be discussed) or registration records that would defeat or negate the findings of the records exam.
Corbin disagreed that there was a specific evidence requirement beyond mere comparison of the
petition and record signatures, while the Board’s counsel reiterated that, absent a third component
of evidence beyond the two signatures, “you’re just asking us to do this two-step process *** it’s
a lot of time and effort; and if there is no evidence presented, all you’re asking us to do is second
guess someone else.” The Board ended the hearing in agreement that Corbin had not presented a
“scintilla” of evidence to overturn the presumptively-valid decisions of the county clerk, and that
Khokhar had presented 129 valid signatures on his petition sheets.
¶ 10 On January 28, 2021, the Board issued a written decision, concluding, in sum, that: (1)
pursuant to section 10-3 of the Election Code, the April 2017 consolidated election was the most
recent election in which Glendale Heights voters had voted for a Village-wide office holder and,
therefore, 118 valid signatures on the nominating papers were required; (2) Khokhar had obtained
126 presumptively-valid signatures; 4 and (3) Corbin failed to produce evidence, such as from a
handwriting expert, affidavits, or voter-registration records, demonstrating that any of the
signatures previously reviewed and validated by the records clerk, thus now considered
4
The body of the decision discusses that Khokhar provided 129 valid signatures; the
conclusion held that he provided 126 valid signatures. The reason for the discrepancy is unclear.
-5-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Upresumptively-valid, were more likely than not invalid. The Board noted that it had declined, in
the absence of Corbin’s presentation of affirmative evidence, to “undertake a second look or guess”
over those presumptively-valid signatures. Moreover, it explained its decision not to strike
signatures beyond the 188 maximum contained in Khokhar’s petition. It noted that its rules did
not direct or require the Board to strike excess signatures, and while decisions such as Richards v.
Lavelle, 620 F.2d 144, 147-48 (7th Cir. 1980), and Wilson v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board
for City of Calumet City, 2013 IL App (1st) 130957, ¶¶ 12-14, reflect that an electoral board may
elect to promulgate rules to deal with excess signatures, the operative word was “may.” Here, the
Board had not adopted such a rule and, therefore, it had voted unanimously to deny Corbin’s
request to strike the excess signatures. The Board ordered that Khokhar’s name be placed on the
ballot as a candidate in the upcoming election.
¶ 11 Corbin petitioned the circuit court for judicial review. 5 On February 19, 2021, the circuit
court issued an 11-page written memorandum decision. As relevant to this appeal, the court
determined that the Board correctly ascertained, pursuant to section 10-3 of the Election Code, that
Khokhar’s petitions required 118 valid signatures. However, the court determined that the Board
erred, as a matter of law, where it did not ignore or strike 12 signatures that exceeded the statutory
5
If the court held a hearing, we do not have a transcript from it in the record. As we review
the Board’s decision, not the court’s, the absence of a hearing transcript is not ultimately fatal to
our ability to address the issues. We note, however, that Khokhar asserts in his notice of appeal
and opening brief that he tried to attend a hearing in person, was told that in-person hearings were
not being conducted due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, that he
should connect for a Zoom hearing, but, when he tried to do so, the Zoom platform did not work.
-6-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Umaximum allowed for submission. Relying on Ghiles v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 2019
IL App (1st) 190117, ¶ 18, the court noted that section 10-3 of the Election Code “limits” the
number of signatures that a candidate may submit and, thus, whether by ignoring or striking them,
the Board should not have considered or counted any signatures Khokhar had submitted beyond
number 188. In a footnote, the court noted that its conclusion that the Board should have ignored
or stricken those signatures was not dispositive, as the Board had found that, even without counting
those contained in the superfluous 12, Khokhar had produced at least 118 valid signatures.
Moreover, the court stated that, by its own count, “even without signatures 189-200, the Board’s
analysis below would still leave [Khokhar] with 121 valid signatures.”
¶ 12 The court also found erroneous the Board’s decision to overrule Corbin’s objections to
certain signatures previously reviewed by the county clerk in its records check. Specifically, the
court noted that the Board refused to undertake review of Corbin’s objections on the basis that the
clerk’s decisions rendered the challenged signatures presumptively valid, and Corbin had not
presented evidence to rebut their validity. However, the court determined, while some of Corbin’s
objections might have required affirmative evidence to rebut the signature validity, some of them
did not. Based upon its own review of the signatures, the court found that at least 10 required
nothing more than a cursory comparison of the signature on the petition with the signature from
the records check to reflect that, on their face, Corbin’s objections to those signatures were
meritorious. With respect to those 10 signatures, including that on line 7 of sheet 11, “[Corbin]
met his burden of proof simply by drawing the Board’s attention to the manifest discrepancy
between the signature on the petition and the signature from the records check. To this court’s
eye, it appears not just ‘more likely than not’ but rather altogether certain that *** the signature on
the petition and the signature on the records exam do not match and were rendered by entirely
-7-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Udifferent people. The only evidence the Board needed to make this determination was the evidence
it already possessed[.]” The court determined that the Board’s decision not to undertake review
of those 10 objections was, therefore, clearly erroneous, and its resulting decision that Corbin
failed to meet his burden of proof as to those 10 objections was contrary to the manifest weight of
the evidence. Accordingly, the court determined that Khokhar’s 121 presumptively-valid
signatures (again, the court reached that number after setting aside signatures beyond number 188)
must be reduced by 10, leaving 111 signatures in total. Thus, because Khokhar’s nominating
petition lacked 118 valid signatures, the court reversed the Board’s decision and ordered
Khokhar’s name stricken from the April 6, 2021, consolidated election ballot. Khokhar appeals.
¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 Where a circuit court has reviewed an electoral board’s decision, we review the decision
of the board, not the court. Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228
Ill. 2d 200, 212 (2008). An electoral board is viewed as an administrative agency; thus, our
standard of review is determined by the type of question being reviewed. Id. at 209-10. The
board’s findings and conclusions on questions of fact are deemed prima facie true and correct and
will not be overturned unless they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, while we
review de novo its decision on a question of law. Id. at 210. The board’s determination on a mixed
question of law and fact will not be disturbed on review unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. at 211.
A decision is “clearly erroneous” when the reviewing court is left with the “ ‘definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Id. at 211 (quoting AFM Messenger Service, Inc.
v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395 (2001)). We are mindful that, “[b]y
use of the phrase ‘judicial review,’ the legislature did not intend to vest a circuit court with
jurisdiction to conduct a de novo hearing into the validity of a candidate’s nomination papers.” Id.-8-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Uat 209. Further, electoral boards may adopt their own rules of procedure and rules of evidence.
See 10 ILCS 5/10-10 (West 2018). A reviewing court must give deference to the election board’s
application of its rules unless its decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Wiesner v. Brennan, 2016
IL App (2d) 160115, ¶ 34. In his pro se brief, Khokhar argues that the court erred in striking his
signatures and that the Board’s decision was correct. For the following reasons, we agree.
¶ 15 Preliminarily, we note that Khokhar does not, as appellant, challenge the court’s
determination that, using the 2017 election, his petitions required at least 118 valid signatures. Of
course, he would not be inclined to challenge this, as it provides a lower threshold than would be
required by using the 2018 election, as championed by Corbin. Corbin is not the appellant, nor
even a cross-appellant, and, therefore, there is no pending valid challenge before us to the finding
that 118 signatures were needed for the petition. However, as seen below, we ultimately hold that
the Board correctly found that Khokhar met the threshold signature requirement, and to do so we
must at least inherently agree with the Board’s and circuit court’s decision that using the 2017
election or 118-minimum-signature threshold was correct. We agree with the circuit court’s
statutory analysis on this issue, and we quote it at length to adopt it as our own.
¶ 16 After summarizing section 10-3 of the Election Code, noting that the dispute centered upon
whether the 2017 or 2018 election constituted “the next preceding regular election in such district
or political subdivision in which such district or political subdivision voted as a unit for the election
of officers to serve its respective territorial area,” (10 ILCS 5/10-3 (West 2018)), and summarizing
well-established rules for statutory interpretation, the court held:
“Here, the plain and ordinary language of section 10-3 is clear. For purposes of
determining the minimum signature requirement for an independent candidate for public
office within any district or political subdivision less than the State, the relevant election is
-9-
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Uthat in which ‘the next preceding regular election in such district or political subdivision in
which such district or political subdivision voted as a unit for the election of officers to
serve its respective territorial area.’ 10 ILCS 5/10-3 (West 2018). The key language here
is ‘voted as a unit’ and ‘to serve its respective territorial area.’ The phrase ‘voted as a unit’
is clearly meant to identify those elections in which the outcome is determined solely and
uniquely by the voters in question. Otherwise, how can it possibly be said they are acting
‘as a unit’? To illustrate, though the voters of Glendale Heights certainly participate in the
election of this State’s governor, they do not do so ‘as a unit’ because they are not reaching
a collective decision on that question. By contrast, when the voters of Glendale Heights
vote to elect a village president, they are unquestionably acting ‘as a unit’ because the
collective decision they reach is what determines the outcome. To the extent there is any
doubt about this, all of it vanishes with the phrase ‘to serve its respective territorial area.’
It goes without saying that, in this phrase, the antecedent for the pronoun ‘its’ is the ‘district
or political subdivision’ in question, which in this case is the Village of Glendale Heights.
And according to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, ‘respective’ means ‘particular,
separate.’ Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/respective (last visited on Feb. 11, 2021). Thus, as used in section 10-3, the
phrase ‘to serve its respective territorial area’ means ‘to serve the Village of Glendale
Heights’ particular and separate territorial area.’ And just as with the phrase ‘as a unit,’
this phrase can only be referring [to] Village office holders. To again illustrate, although
Governor Pritzker unquestionably serves the ‘territorial area’ known as the Village of
Glendale Heights, he does not do so ‘particularly’ or ‘separately.’ By contrast, this is
exactly how the village president serves the Village of Glendale Heights. Taking all of this
- 10 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Utogether, this court concludes that, for purposes of this case, the relevant election for
determining the minimum signature requirement for the office of village president is the
April 2017 Consolidated Election, as this is the most recent election in which the voters of
the Village of Glendale Heights voted ‘as a unit’ for the election of officers to serve
separately and particularly the Village of Glendale Heights.
In opposition to this result, [Corbin] cites to the First District Appellate Court’s
decision in Ramirez v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, 2020 IL App (1st)
200240. Ramirez is easily distinguished. In Ramirez, the court was asked to determine
which preceding election would serve to determine the minimum signature requirement for
a candidate seeking to run for ward committeeperson in Chicago’s First Ward. The answer
to that question was found not in section 10-3 of the Election Code but[,] rather[,] in section
7-10, which reads very differently. See 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 2018). In relevant part,
section 7-10 first provides that ‘[i]f a candidate seeks to run for ward committeeperson,
then the candidate’s petition for nomination must contain no less than the number of
signatures equal to 10% of the primary electors of his or her party of the ward.’ 10 ILCS
5/7-10(i) (West 2018). Section 7-10 then goes on to state that ‘[f]or wards or districts of
political subdivisions, the number of primary electors shall be determined by taking the
total vote cast for the candidate for that political party who received the highest number of
votes in the ward or district at the last regular election at which an officer was regularly
scheduled to be elected from that ward or district.’ 10 ILCS 5/7-10(k) (West 2018). The
petitioner in Ramirez argued that, based on this language, the relevant election was the
March 2016 primary because that was the last election in which the voters of the First Ward
elected someone to an office that serves only the First Ward, namely, ward committee
- 11 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Uperson. The Ramirez court rejected this argument and affirmed the Board of Elections’
determination that the relevant election was the November 2018 general election. In
reaching this result, the Ramirez court explained:
‘Petitioner asks this court to read section 7-10(k) as though it stated that the board
should use “the last regular election at which an officer was regularly scheduled to
be elected” exclusively “from that ward” or for that ward. See 10 ILCS 5/7-10(k)
(West 2018). However, as petitioner readily acknowledges, neither the words
“exclusively” or “for” are actually in the statute. Thus, he is asking us to read into
the statute words which are not there. (Emphasis in original.) 2020 IL App (1st)
200240, ¶ 26.’
In the end, the Ramirez court stated that it agreed with the Board’s conclusion that ‘an
officer is elected “from” a ward when the voters are entitled to cast votes for an officer,
even if the officer is not elected exclusively from that ward.’ Id. ¶ 27.
To restate, the key factor for the Ramirez court was the fact that section 7-10(k)
contains no language indicating that the relevant election is the most recent one in which a
candidate was elected to an office that serves the local territorial unit in question
exclusively. This is significant because, as discussed above, section 10-3 does contain
precisely such language—specifically, that the relevant election is ‘the next preceding
regular election in such district or political subdivision in which such district or political
subdivision voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve its respective territorial
area.’ (Emphasis added.) 10 ILCS 5/10-3 (West 2018). Given this, there is no question
that the Board was correct to conclude that, for purposes of calculating the minimum
- 12 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Usignature requirement for the election at issue in this case, the relevant election is the April
2017 Consolidated Election and the resulting number is 118.”
¶ 17 Next, with respect to signatures exceeding the statutory “cap” of 8%; Khokhar does not
specifically object to the circuit court’s analysis on that point, although he is pro se and argues,
generally, that he provided sufficient signatures and that the Board’s decision should be upheld.
Ultimately, we need not address the propriety of the court’s decision that the Board erred as a
matter of law when it did not strike the signatures in accord with its Rule 4(l). We again agree
with the court that the Board did not actually count any of those signatures, instead finding that
Khokhar had submitted more than the required minimum without considering the excess
signatures.
¶ 18 Thus, the decisive issue here is whether the Board’s finding that the 10 signatures
(identified by the circuit court) were valid was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, or
whether the circuit court correctly reversed those findings, such that the number of signatures on
Khokhar’s petition dropped below the 118-signature threshold. The court found clearly erroneous
the Board’s decision, on the basis that its rule required additional evidence, not to undertake review
of those signatures, where the court did not find additional evidence necessary for an assessment
of those signatures’ validity. Accordingly, it found contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence
the Board’s finding that Corbin failed to meet his burden of proof.
¶ 19 We respectfully disagree. The Board’s finding that the signatures were valid was
ultimately premised on its interpretation of its own rule. As previously noted, electoral boards
may adopt their own rules of procedure and rules of evidence (see 10 ILCS 5/10-10 (West 2018)),
and, unless its decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, we defer to the board’s application of its
rules (Wiesner, 2016 IL App (2d) 160115, ¶ 34). However, we note that, even if viewed under the
- 13 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Uclearly-erroneous standard, we are not left with a “definite and firm conviction” that the Board
made a mistake in finding valid the 10 signatures at issue. See Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211.
¶ 20 The record reflects that the county clerk had already entertained Corbin’s objections to
various signatures. The clerk compared the signatures on Khokhar’s petition with signatures in
the clerk’s records, and while some of Corbin’s objections were sustained, the clerk ultimately
overruled others and found some of the challenged signatures remained valid. The Board’s rules
of procedures state: “at any subsequent record check objection hearing before the Board, the ruling
made by the clerks shall be deemed valid, and the moving [p]arty shall have the burden of
demonstrating that the ruling was incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Emphasis
added.) Thus, Corbin’s request that the Board again review those signatures, in the absence of any
additional probative evidence, merely amounted to a request that the Board simply repeat the
process. Yet Corbin did not offer a basis for challenging the clerk’s assessment of the signatures’
validity, other than his disagreement with the clerk’s findings based on the already-performed
handwriting comparison. Where the rule placed upon the moving party the burden to demonstrate
that a presumptively-valid signature was more likely than not invalid, it was not unreasonable for
the Board to require some evidence or persuasive argument that would rebut the handwriting
analysis performed by the clerk.
¶ 21 Indeed, under its rules, the Board had decided, for purposes of running an efficient hearing,
that, without more, it would not simply second guess the handwriting comparison performed by
the clerk. It adopted the clerk’s decisions and found those signatures valid. That the circuit court
performed the same comparison as the clerk, but came to different conclusions, might support the
Board’s interpretation of its rule as requiring some additional evidence to establish that the
signatures were more likely than not invalid, before undertaking the time-consuming process of
- 14 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Ulooking at them yet again without the benefit of affidavits from handwriting experts, affidavits
from alleged signatories reflecting that the signature was not theirs, and/or voter-registration
records reflecting the signature could not be counted. By performing its own handwriting
comparison, the circuit court effectively conducted de novo review of the Board’s factual findings,
when, in the absence of anything offered by Corbin to suggest otherwise, the manifest weight of
the evidence reflected only that those signatures were valid.
¶ 22 We also note that, although not his burden, Khokhar did apparently obtain affidavits to
establish validity for some of the challenged signatures. In addition, although the court struck the
signature appearing on line 7 of sheet 11, the Board had earlier discussed that signature and
reviewed it, upholding its validity, and, so, it did not fall purely into the category of signatures not
considered. Accordingly, we are not left with a definite conviction that the Board made a mistake;
we conclude that the Board’s interpretation of its rule was not unreasonable, and its findings were
not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We reverse the circuit court’s decision to
strike the 10 signatures, and we affirm the Board’s decision that the signatures were valid, that
Khokhar’s petition contained the statutorily-required minimum number of signatures, and that his
name appear on the April 6, 2021, consolidated election ballot.
¶ 23 We separately conclude that Khokhar’s name must appear on the ballot in the interests of
justice. Unlike the circuit court, the Board here collectively faced Corbin’s objections to three
candidates for Village President, as we do now, albeit in separate, but related, appeals. As
previously noted, in appeal Nos. 2-21-0085 and 2-21-0086, two candidates for Village President
appear on the ballot, despite having submitted far fewer signatures than those obtained by
candidate Khokhar. Our analysis with respect to the estoppel arguments raised by those candidates
need not be repeated here, except to say that we have affirmed the Board’s findings, such that those
- 15 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Ucandidates should be allowed to remain on the ballot, despite not satisfying the statutory-minimum
threshold.
¶ 24 In our view, and in light of our decisions (affirming the Board’s decisions) in those cases,
the interests of justice will best be served by allowing Khokhar’s name to also appear on the ballot.
Unlike the two other candidates, we concluded above that the Board correctly found that Khokhar
did, in fact, satisfy the statutory-minimum requirement in his submitted signatures. However, even
if he had not, his submission was just short of the 118 signatures required, while the two other
candidates remain on the ballot having submitted 50 and 32 signatures, respectively. In Merz v.
Volberding, 94 Ill. App. 3d 1111, only one of three candidates whose candidacies were before the
court testified to relying on a clerk’s misinformation, such that only he could invoke estoppel.
Nevertheless, the court decided that, in the “interests of justice,” the two other candidates (also
lacking sufficient signatures, but not having available to them an estoppel claim) should also
remain on the ballot, because they had demonstrated at least a minimal appeal to voters and their
removal would, therefore, also penalize those voters. Merz, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 1118. Indeed, the
goal of the signature requirement is that candidates establish a minimal appeal to voters. See, id.(citing Briscoe v. Kusper, 435 F.3d 1046, 1054 (7th Cir. 1970)). Khokhar’s signature submissions
here established a minimal appeal to voters more closely than either candidate in the related
appeals and, thus, keeping his name off the ballot, while leaving them on, would penalize not only
him, but also the Glendale Heights voters. See id.; see also, Atkinson, 2013 IL App (2d) 130140,
¶ 21.
¶ 25 As explained in our related decisions, the supreme court has expressed skepticism of the
Merz decision, although not on the basis for which we rely upon it here. See Jackson-Hicks v.
East St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, 2015 IL 118929, ¶¶ 38-40. We also recognize
- 16 -
2021 IL App (2d) 210090-Uthat Merz: limited its holding to the facts before it; noted that the statutory signature requirements
are mandatory and should be strictly followed; yet concluded that the integrity of the electoral
process would be upheld by allowing, in that case, the candidates to appear on the ballot despite
their failures. Merz, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 1118. Similarly, we strongly emphasize here that this aspect
of our decision should not be read broadly or construed as minimizing the importance of strict
compliance with statutory requirements. Rather, we are in the unique position of considering the
viability of Khokhar’s candidacy, in light of decisions made with respect to his opponents, as well
as the ramifications of those decisions upon the integrity of this electoral process, should he not be
allowed on the ballot. We would expect such circumstances to arise infrequently, if ever again.
¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 27 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is reversed,
the decision of the electoral board is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the circuit court of
Du Page County with instructions to enter judgment: (1) declaring that Khokhar’s nominating
petitions contain the minimum number of valid signatures required by law; (2) holding that
Khokhar qualifies to have his name appear on the ballot as a candidate for the office of president
in the April 6, 2021, consolidated election; and (3) ordering that Khokhar’s name be immediately
placed on the ballot for that election. Our mandate shall issue forthwith.
¶ 28 Circuit court judgment reversed; Electoral Board decision affirmed.
¶ 29 Mandate issued forthwith.
- 17 -