Guerrero v. Parker

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, considers an election dispute concerning Cesar Guerrero’s placement on the April 1, 2025, ballot for Joliet Township Supervisor after payment of campaign-finance penalties. The court addresses mootness, the public interest exception, and the interpretation of Illinois Election Code sections 9-30 and 7-61, as well as Guerrero’s claim for damages under section 29-17. The court affirms the circuit court’s rulings, including ballot placement and summary judgment for the County Clerk on the damages claim.

Holdings

1. The conclusion of the election cycle and Guerrero's election and service as Township Supervisor rendered the County Clerk's appeal moot because the court could no longer grant effectual relief concerning ballot placement.
2. The public-interest exception applied because the ballot-eligibility question was public in nature, an authoritative determination was desirable for future guidance of election officials, and the issue was likely to recur.
3. Section 9-30 does not impose an election-cycle-wide bar on a candidate who pays the civil penalty after ballot certification. The prohibition applies only while the penalty remains unpaid; once Guerrero paid the penalties, section 9-30 no longer supplied a basis to exclude him from the ballot, assuming no other statutory barrier existed.
4. The County Clerk could not reject Guerrero's vacancy-in-nomination papers based on information outside the face of the filings. The papers were in apparent conformity with the Election Code, and the February 4 nomination occurred within eight days of the January 29 or January 30 event identified as creating the vacancy.
5. Summary judgment for the County Clerk was proper because the record contained no genuine issue of material fact establishing that her conduct was willful and wanton. Her incorrect interpretation of section 9-30 did not, without more, constitute willful and wanton conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the County Clerk's appeal concerning Guerrero's placement on the April 1, 2025, ballot was moot after the election ended and Guerrero won and assumed office.
2. Whether the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine permitted review of the otherwise moot ballot-eligibility issues.
3. Whether section 9-30 of the Election Code barred Guerrero from ballot placement for the election cycle after he paid his civil penalties after the ballot-certification date.
4. Whether the County Clerk could reject Guerrero's vacancy-in-nomination papers based on an alleged violation of section 7-61's eight-day deadline by looking beyond the face of the filings.
5. Whether summary judgment was proper on Guerrero's section 29-17 claim where the record did not establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning willful and wanton conduct.

Disposition

affirmed