United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
March 8, 1984
ED. H. SMITH, MICHAEL REMBERT, DANNY K. DAVIS, HERBERT PAYNE, ALLAN STREETER, JULIUS HAMMOND, DOROTHY TILLMAN, LOVIE COPELAND, GEORGE H. EDDINGS AND JOHN DAVIS, PLAINTIFFS,
THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND MICHAEL E. LAVELLE, JAMES R. NOLAN AND CORNEAL A. DAVIS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO, DEFENDANTS. EDWARD W. GJERTSEN, STUART SCHULMAN, JOSEPH W. SMITH, KENNETH A. LAVAND, HERMAN A. SCHELL, JR., PATRICIA A. HANS, WILLIAM T. MARGALUS AND DOMINIC COSTANZO, PLAINTIFFS, V. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND MICHAEL E. LAVELLE, JAMES R. NOLAN AND CORNEAL A. DAVIS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO, MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, RICHARD A. COWEN, CAROLYN R. EYRE, J. PHIL GILBERT, MICHAEL J. HAMBLET, JOSHUA JOHNSON, JOHN J. LANIGAN, THERESA M. PETRONE AND NORMA J. SHAPIRO, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, AND STANLEY T. KUSPER, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COUNTY CLERK OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aspen, District Judge:
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in 84 C 0148 is
granted. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in 84 C
0560 is granted in part and denied in part. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 46,
§ 7-10(i), which requires candidates to submit signatures
representing ten percent of the primary electors of their party
of their wards, is unconstitutional for reasons which will be
fully explained. Accordingly, defendants are enjoined to certify
for placement on the ballot, and to place on the ballot,
plaintiffs Dorothy Tillman, George H. Eddings and Joseph W.
Smith. In the event that the number of valid signatures plaintiff
William T. Margalus has submitted exceeds five percent,
defendants are enjoined to certify his name for placement on the
ballot and to place his name on the ballot. We are not unmindful
of the expense and administrative difficulties that such relief
might engender. For this reason, if defendants cannot feasibly
grant the above relief for the March 20, 1984 election, they are
ordered to postpone the March 20, 1984 election for Ward
Committeeman in these plaintiffs' wards for a reasonable period
of time. On or before March 9, 1984, at 5:00 p.m., defendants are
to notify the Court and plaintiffs as to which alternative they
have selected to comply with this order. Final judgment is
entered at this time in order to afford the parties the maximum
notice prior to the March 20, 1984 election in which to
implement, or make preparations to appeal from, this order. A
full opinion detailing the reasons for this ruling will be issued
later this week. It is so ordered.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.