meroni v il sboe (judicial review) - response to defense and opposing the administrative decisions...

8/8/2019 MERONI v IL SBoE (JUDICIAL REVIEW) - RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS - 9

1/27

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OFILLINOIS SANGAMON COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

SHARON ANN MERONI - ))OBJECTOR AND PETITIONER )

)vs. )

) 2010 MR 501ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS )SITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED )STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD )

BRYAN A. SCHEIDER )WANDA L. REDNOUR )ALBERT S. PORTER )

JOHN R. KEITH )WILLIAM F. MCGRUFFAGE ) JESSE R. SMART )PATRICK A. BRADY )ROBERT J. WALTERS )

)CANDIDATES )

CONSTITUTION PARTY ) JEFF TREXLER ) 10 SOEB GE 524MICHAEL L. WHITE ) 10 SOEB GE 532GARY DUNLAP ) 10 SOEB GE 533LOUIS COTTON ) 10 SOEB GE 534

TIMOTHY BECKER ) 10 SOEB GE 535DAWN CZARNY ) 10 SOEB GE 541)

LIBETERIAN PARTY )BILL MALAN ) 10 SOEB GE 526

JAMES PAULY ) 10 SOEB GE 527 JOSH HANSON ) 10 SOEB GE 528 JUILE FOX ) 10 SOEB GE 529MIKE LABNO ) 10 SOEB GE 530ED RUTLEDGE ) 10 SOEB GE 543LEX GREEN ) 10 SOEB GE 544

)

GREGG MOORE ) 10 SOEB GE 525CARL E. OFFICER ) 10 SOEB GE 537WILLIE BOYD, JR. ) 10 SOEB GE 553COREY DABNEY ) 10 SOEB GE 539EDWARD J. SCANLON ) 10 SOEB GE 540CHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN ) 10 SOEB GE 542, 545, 546,547,548,551, 552

1 | P a g eAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments areinstituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of laws. (Il Constitution Ar1Sec 1 AND 11 Bill of rights


2/27

)RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONSRESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

I - Introduction Personal Statements

I, Sharon Ann Meroni (One Surrey Lane, Barrington Hills, Illinois,60010) testifies to these statements contained in this introduction:

I have been seeking resolution to what is a profound question related to the most

basic right of our Constitution. The Right to be represented by constitutionally

eligible representatives, regardless at what party they are from, the level they

preside, or specifically in what capacity they govern.

Constitutionally qualified to govern.According to the US and Illinois

Constitutions means to be a USA Citizen. Age restrictions apply. Other

specifications include voter registration, address and license requirements, etc.Courts have long held states can place specifications on candidates for participation

in the election process. It is in these specifications that many ballot access issues

arise for the courts to review. It is how the game is shaped. Still, age and

citizenship requirements are mandated by both Constitutions. Thus as an

undisputed FACT; the laws must support the fulfillment of these requirements.

Before I briefly outline the journey that got me here, let me explain what I

learned has stunned me. Nowhere in the election process in Illinois does the law

support the constitutional mandates such that the Administrators of the electioncan certify that candidates for office meet the constitutional mandates.

Furthermore, the law is so eschewed such that even when a citizen seeks to discern

the same, there is no ability to do so. There is a luck of the draw approach to

citizenship requirements for ballot placement with no remedy or relief in the law

available.

I began the journey into this controversy at hand about a year ago Seeking

to determine how the ISBE assured the constitutional integrity of the ballot in

February 2010; I sought relief twice in McHenry County Court. The first time seeking to speak to the Local Grand Jury to testify to how there

was no integrity in the ballot served to me in the 2008 election. (Patriots Heart V

McHenry County Grand Jury ) I learned, after the 5 day qualifying period, it is the

discretion of the States Attorney and the Attorney General to investigate if a2 | P a g e

All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments areinstituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of laws. (Il Constitution Ar1Sec 1 AND 11 Bill of rights


3/27

candidate was eligible to serve and they could only bring a cause of action if there

were facts in the record from which they could apply the Law. Assistant States

Attorney Bianchi, both in court and in meetings between the interested parties,

communicated that this was a bar he needed to see in order to use his discretion to

bring this matter before the Grand Jury. He stated that the County Grand Jury is notfinanced specifically as an investigative body. Summarizing, that generally the

County Grand Jury hears evidence investigated by other bodies. I discerned that

this case had fatal flaws as filed and determined my next step was to go to the body

legally empowered by the General Assembly to administer the election statutes.

February 2010, the timing was such in my growing evolution of

understanding of election law and procedures - that the Primary for 2010 was in its

final phase. I elected to file a TRO in the McHenry County Court asking to prevent

the certification of the Primary results until after the candidates had establishedthey were constitutionally eligible. (Meroni v ISBE McHenry County) McHenry

County Judge Caldwell ruled that I had timeliness issues, that I had not exhausted

procedures of the ISBE, and that the correct jurisdiction was either Sangamon

County or Cook County. He ruled the flaws were fatal in his court.

While the case was never tried on the merits, In this case, McHenry County

Clerk Katherine Schultz and Lake County Clerk Willard Helander provided certified

statements as evidence that affirmed nowhere in the election process is there

verification that voters are US Citizens, nor is there any posting of factual

documents affirming citizenship or age of candidates for office. Furthermore, there

is no authority for, nor resources allocated for the Clerks to check that candidates

are constitutionally eligible. In addition, Mark Sheldon, Champaign County Clerk

answered in writing, questions specifically addressing the fact that in Illinois

apparent conformity standards are not equal and that the Illinois State Board of

Elections had permitted Alan Keyes ballot placement even though he had not

personally applied for it, and did not sign a Statement of Candidacy (Exhibits page

03-05 SHELDON )

In Meroni v ISBE McHenry County the Assistant Attorney General argued

and prevailed in their argument, that I had not gone through the Administrative

processes of the Illinois Board of Elections.



4/27

I was disappointed because once again, I was denied access to redress for my

legitimate grievance, (as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America and

of the grand State of Illinois, and a qualified legal voter who had participated in both

the 2008 and 2010 Primary and General elections) to know if the ballot I was given

contained only candidates that were l egally qualified or if indeed the law isdeficient in ascertaining in the public record as fact, that they were. Still, for a

variety of reasons all unrelated to the merits of the controversy, and based on the

Judges ruling, I concurred that the case was likely fatal, now understanding the

need to go through the Administrative process, (10 ILCS 5/10-8) before this could

come to its natural remedy as questions of law.

Ill Election Code sets out a 5 day period for which a candidates application

for ballot placement can be contested by other candidates and qualified voters in

the respective districts or simply for any candidate that applies for my ballot, I can

contest during time periods set out in 10 ILCS 5/10-8.

This is the only place I can contest a candidate placement on my ballot.

In good faith, I contacted the Assistant Attorney General Mark Ishu, seeking

to testify before the Illinois State Board of Elections about this controversy. (R 133)

I was never asked to testify.

The ISBE of duties are defined 10 ILCS 5/1A-8) (from Ch. 46, par. 1A-8)

Section 1A -8 defines the duties and include

Review and inspect procedures and records relating to conduct of

elections and registration as may be deemed necessary and to

report violations of election laws to the appropriate State's

Attorney or the Attorney General;(8) Recommend to the General

Assembly legislation to improve the administration of elections

and registration;

When a controversy over the very constitutional integrity of the ballot was

filed against the ISBE in a court of law, even while procedurally they prevailed, they

had to argue I should go through procedure, they have should have provided anopportunity to hear about the vulnerability of the ballot as it relates to this

controversy. They did not respond to my request to testify before them.



5/27

This controversy cannot be resolved through facts because it is the lack of

facts that is this controversy. The Law (10 ILCS 5/10-5) does not support the

constitutional mandates of Citizenship.

Nowhere has the State argued that the candidates are constitutionally

eligible. They have failed to affirm that in the record. The State has only arguedtheir own deficiency and then Demonstrating the sheer arrogance of this process,

stated I needed to go the Legislature, when in fact the Code specifically mandates

that that is the job of the Illinois State Board of Elections. ( (10 ILCS 5/Art.1A)

Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358, 137 L. Ed. 2d at 598, 117 S. Ct. 1369 affirms that states

must enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce

election-and campaign-related disorder. The State and the ISBE have failed

to enact reasonable regulations that secure in the public record facts

asserting constitutional eligibility, thereby denying the petitioner equal

protection rights.

Indeed the law as currently practiced, provides for politicians to be a special

class. The federal government routinely requires proof of citizenship for many

federal jobs, including joining the Military and various other federal jobs posted on

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov , USAJOBS is the Federal Government's official one-

stop source for Federal jobs and employment information. Most positions require a

background check, which includes proof of citizenship.Indeed this is not a political question, it is a judiciable question.

Lastly, the reason that I chose all of the candidates on my ballot is because it

really is a question that affects all of them. I believe candidates from the major

parties should be held to the same standard of proof. The issue is how and where.

That question is part of the issue needing resolution. I do not attempt to answer it

for myself except to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander

and by-golly if our men and women in arms must provide a raised seal birth

certificate to serve then why cant candidates for office? Perhaps passports willwork.

I believe the how and where is part of the solution needing to be ascertained

through judicial inquiry.

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/


6/27

II - Response to Defenses Brief in support of administration decision

Response: BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION -This section is a

direct response to the brief filed by the Illinois State Board of election through the

Assistant States Attorney, Jessica L. Reeves.

Comments related to Defenses Introduction1) Defense Introduction and Background stipulates Illinois Election Code

Requires that these prospective candidates file, among other things, a

Statement of Candidacy. (10ILCS 5/10-5.)

2) The Board admits its own legal deficiency in the follow up sentence With

the exception of one candidate Christopher Pederson, (discussed later),

.legal qualifications of office

a. According to Druck V ISBE the board is required to use apparent

conformity standardsb. Accordingly, they do this at the time the petitions are accepted.

c. It is a question of ignoring the law and Judicial decisions that the Illinois

State Board of Elections (SBOE) is violating in refusing to impose

apparent conformity standards

d. It is a due process violation when the state refuses to make available

to the public apparent conformity standards or the lack there of.

e. Meronis pleadings from the ISBE Hearing process consistently affirm

that the Illinois State Board of Election (SBOE) refuses to do its job in

not using apparent conformity standards

f. This refusal has prejudiced Meronis ballot choices at least in the 2008

and 2010 Primary (Alan Keyes ) and influenced the current objection

process by causing for an inordinate number of unqualified candidates

application to be placed for ballot position for the petitioner and others

to object to, causing for disarray in the election process. (Especially

Pedersen, but not exclusively Many candidates did not fulfill apparent

conformity standards -)

g. Just prior to testimony before the SBOE Meroni called Mr. Steve

Sandvoss in his capacity as Counsel for the ISBE (SBOE) and asked at

what point does the ISBE assert apparent conformity standards. Mr



7/27

Sandvoss stated that the ISBE (SBOE) does not apply any standards of

apparent conformity.

3) The Board asserts there is no evidence presented to rebut these Statements

of Candidacy.

a. This statement argues against the States later assertion that thecorrect Standard of Judicial Review is Law and Fact.

b. State stipulates there are no facts in dispute.

c. State stipulates there were never any facts in question

4) The Petitioners original petition makes 4 points.

a. Asserting Meronis standing and clearly stating her interest as a

Citizen desirous of seeing to it that the Illinois and Us Constitutions

are upheld, laws governing the filing of nomination papers for a

candidate for election to the office of ____ are properly complied withand/or that only a qualified candidate would appear on the ballot as a

candidate for said office.

The Defense provides no challenge to Plaintiffs standing or

interest

b. Meronis second point defines the challenge in an affirmative

statement of Law, not a statement of fact. All candidates for office

must meet certain Constitutional requirements to be qualified for

office. She then affirms the constitutional requirements in question in

the objection petition All candidates must be a specific age and be a

Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois

At no point during this process has the Hearing Office, the ISBE

(SBOE) nor in Ms. Reeves Response do they

i. Dispute this point of Law

ii. Claim any deficiency whatsoever in this statement.

iii. Indeed the State ignores this statement entirely because it

disputes their claim that the petition lacks specificity. This



8/27

second point on the objectors petition affirms with exact

specificity what the question is about.

c. Meroni identifies who the candidate she is objecting to is and the office

sought.

d. Meroni affirms: That the papers are insufficient because they fail to

demonstrate or provide documentation (fact or evidence) the

candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office.

i. This is not disputed by any fact.

e. The remedy is that the papers be declared insufficient and not in

compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois. Meroni affirms, shedid not ask that the candidates be removed from the ballot because

the law stipulates that if the papers are not in compliance the

ministerial obligation of the Board is to not award the candidate the

desired ballot position.

i. The Defense offers no fact to substantiate its claim of deficiency.

Indeed it cannot, because to do so would argue its own

deficiency. The current practice of the ISBE is to permit

candidates ballot access whose papers are not in apparent

conformity on the ballot

ii. This deficiency is both according to statute and to legal rulings

mandating otherwise. (Druck )

iii. The petitioner seeks permission to write a Mandamus to compel

the ISBE (SOEB) and the General Assembly to do their jobs!

The States errs in its pleading that what was insufficient about Meronis

statement, claiming no further detail to what was insufficient about the candidate

papers (Defense motion - page two line 7-9) as if closing its eyes to the 2 nd

statement on the petition defining the requirement means it does not exist.

Indeed on the flip perspective, what fact could the Plaintiff have affirmed was

missing? If the Plaintiff, in the Objection, had stated a lack of factual evidence



9/27

specifically itemizing a birth certificate, or naturalization papers, she would have

ended up in the same place; the ISBE (SBOE) would have affirmed Meroni was

asking for something not required, and this would fatally prejudice through

erroneous fact , proceedings in a strike and dismiss motion filed by candidates. Her

claim by necessity is strictly a question of law.

R Page 128-130

The Defense incorrectly states Meronis position that potential

candidates are constitutionally required to prove to the Board that they are

citizens of the United Sates and eludes to the fact that this procedure

somehow caused harm during the 2008 elections (R 128-130 and 121)

(Defense motion p3 line 1-4) The discussion on these pages (R 128-130 specifically points 81-116)

involve the absence of public document to establish constitutional

qualifications. This defect of law eviscerates the election process,

undermining and destroying the natural and intended effect of her right to

object during the 5 day qualifying period and that this presents a due

process issue.

Indeed these lapses also violate 1 st and 14 th amendment rights

because it treats one party favorably during the contest period, and forever

prejudices against the voter as objector or the voter in her ballot access; and

through painful violations of the most grievous sort of her equal protections

afforded under the law. The only party that has factual evidence of

compliance with Constitutional mandates is the candidates.

In addition, these points argue that through apparent conformity and

other statute provisions various other constitutional requirements are proven

in the public record, ( for instance: statement of economic interest, voterregistration) and as such can then be used as evidence for factual challenges

to the candidates applications.



10/27

In addition the points on these pages prove that the Statement of

Candidacy (herein SOC) is too general and therefore imposes deficiencies in

the uniformity of elections. The SOC violates 14 th Amendment, equal

protection rights and 1 st Amendment rights because the SOC does not

specifically identify conformity with US and IL Constitutional mandatory

requirements to be a USA Citizen. The SOC therefore eviscerates the

petitioners right to assess candidates subjective and self certifying

statement of being legally qualified .

The Plaintiff makes the point there is no definition of legally qualified

from which she can find as reference to assess the candidates applications.

Again, affirming that while evidence of eligibility exists in the public record

for other qualifications required for legally qualified , it does not for

citizenship. (R p129 point 104)

On page 130, Meroni states the fact that this problem will re-occur in

the 2012 election. (point 108) Specifically reporting that there is no

definition in the Illinois Statues (or in Federal Statues) that define n atural

born citizen . Without a definition, the voter who has a right to object, cannot

asses the veracity of the candidates self certifying and self defining

statement according to a standard of law, especially as required in legally qualified.

Big time due process problem!

Furthermore, the requirement for being legally qualified for any office

specifically as relates to citizenship status (natural born citizen, US citizen, or

naturalized citizen ) or age, is never moot; yet without public record that

information cannot be accessed nor can it be prosecuted. This refers back to

lessons learned from States Attorney Louis Bianchi in McHenry County

Court. (Meroni v ISBE February 2010)



11/27

It is this very question that originally brought the petitioner to this

controversy of law surrounding the most profound right in a Republic; the

veracity of the vote, and the integrity of the ballot.

It is a question of law that there is no definition of n atural born citizen

and also no posting of proof establishing fact or evidence of legally

qualified .

These questions of law will re-occur. They already have. (Separate

issues in 2008 Alan Keyes placed on ballot without signing a Statement of

Candidacy and Obama) While these cases are not part of this review, they

are germane as examples. This question of law requires judicial intervention

and resolution because fundamentally this is not a political question that

should be resolved by negotiations in the legislature.

These questions of law will re-occur when the petitioner returns during

the next cycle of candidate qualification for ballot to discern if the candidates

are legally qualified. If the petitioner adjusts her wordage in some fashion,

the Board will still refuse her, not because the merit of the claim is deficient,

but because the ISBE will hide behind similar procedures designed to

frustrate the petitioners lawful access to the election process.

The harm done to the public confidence in its government isindisputable.

Just a month ago, CNN a Liberal Cable News Media posted the following shocking

poll. Poll numbers for those questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama continue

to rise. It is shocking to have such a basic question unanswered considering it is the core to our

Republic (Exhibits pages 01-02 CNN)

Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in

the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another

country? July 16-21, 2010

Americans Democrats Independents Republicans

Definitely born in U.S. 42% 64% 37%

23%

Probably born in the U.S. 29% 21% 31% 34%



12/27

Probably born in another country 16% 7% 17%

27%

Definitely born in another country 11% 8% 12%

14%

No opinion 2% 1% 2% 3%Other polls reflect similar or even larger percentages of Americans

(around 1/3) who question the very validity of this government, which if not

constitutionally eligible, is reducing Americans to mere slaves, (15

Amendment violation) as unwilling recipients of the Executive Offices

contrived governance that is not constitutionally based.

Is Mr. Obama a natural born citizen? The truth is he subjectively self

certified to legally qualified; he is the only one with proof of his affirmation,

and he has refused to enter that proof into the public record. Despite

obvious political realities of the situation, the reason this large public

question is germane to this discussion is because of this unconstitutional law

(10 ILSC 10) and a lack of governance from the ISBE (SOEB) and the General

Assembly. There is no ability for the public to look for resolution of that

question. Thus, the question lingers in the public arena, now nearly 1/3 of

the electorate are concerned with this same profound question, demoralizing

the voting public and undermining the authority of the office Mr. Obama (orany other candidate or elected official) holds.

It is beyond the absurd, it is tragic.

Just like there is no record in a legal format establishing that Mr.

Obama is a natural born citizen, so too there is no evidence of citizenship of

any candidate in office in Illinois; with the exception of the 11 or so that

produced proof to the petitioner.

Subjective self certification of legally qualified is not legally sufficientfor proof for constitutional mandates, especially when the description of

legally qualified is subjective to the opinion of the signer and no fact is in the

public domain to assess it.



13/27

While the initial scope of this petition of Judicial Review of an

Administrative decision, does not factually address the issue of natural born

citizen; this is included here as a case in point affirming the Plaintiffs

testimony, especially since the Defense mischaracterized Plaintiffs

responses on these pages of testimony in question.

It is incredibly demoralizing to struggle so intensely for such a

simple answer

Yes, but. Are they legally qualified.?

Lastly these pages (R 128-130) the Defense referenced, address the fact that

the ISBE is not doing its job because it refuses to enforce standards of

apparent conformity.

Meroni asserts in arguments on these pages that the obligation shifts

on a SOC for the signatory to prove with evidence their qualifications when

challenged. (by affirming they are in possession of licenses required and

because they are the only one who has access to the information)

Meroni also asserts that apparent conformity standards that do not

include proof of constitutional eligibility deprive the objector of due processbecause she cannot challenge what is not provided in the factual record.

R Page 121

Defense also erroneously references Plaintiffs testimony in R- 121,

claiming the Plaintiff affirmed candidates had to prove citizenship to the

Board. This section includes the Oath of office of the Board of Election

members. This Oath was renewed on July 6 th 2010

The pleadings then progress to establishing responsibility of the

various players in the game. There are many important points in those

pleadings, none of which include a statement to the effect that the

petitioner believes candidates are constitutionally required to prove13 | P a g e



14/27

to the Board they are citizens. This is a misstatement of Meronis

position .

However, to address that point specifically. This is a question of Law.

The candidates must be US citizens (and of certain ages, no less then 18).

There is no public posting of proof such that only one party in the contest

has proof of eligibility, and therefore the election that they administer over is

not fair and equal as required by the Illinois constitution (3 rd Amendment).

The ISBE (SBOE) eviscerates the voters rights when they fail to assure the

fairness of the election process. While they cannot make law, they are

required to report to the General Assembly. They have broad powers which

include that they are bound by oath to uphold the Illinois and US

Constitution. Yet, they fail to do so. Who ultimately is responsible for

holding the proof of US Citizenship, that question the petitioner deliberately

does not address. Her point is that proof of citizenship should be part of the

public record and available for examination during the application for ballot

and subsequent objection period. A subjectively derived and self certifying

statement is not legally sufficient to establish fact of citizenship in the public

record.

Lastly page 121 addresses the fact that barriers to contest citizenshipas currently framed are an extreme barrier on the electorate. And that a

constitutionally unstable or false ballot undermines the American electoral

process with implications at all level of the government.

Standard of Review

The Defense is fundamentally wrong in arguing that this is a mixed question

of fact and law.

The Defense admits in its own pleadings there are no facts in dispute and

that no facts were ever in dispute. Clearly there are only questions of law

involved because there is no evidence available, and therefore the question

of law arises in this controversy.14 | P a g e



15/27

The correct standard of Review in this case is a Question of Law.

Questions of Law are reviewed de nova. (Bill v Education Officers Electoral

Board of Community Consolidated School District NO. 181, 299 Ill. App.3d

548 701 N.E.2d 262 233 Ill. Dec. 619 (1 st Dist. 1998)

Mixed questions of law and fact require the following (1) where

historical facts are admitted, (2) where rule of law is undisputed, and (3)

where the only remaining issue is whether the facts satisfy a statutory

standard. Meronis petition involves no facts. The Defense and Plaintiff

agree that there are no admitted facts. The Defense refuses to prove what

facts are admitted because there were none.

Clearly there is a rule of law in dispute.

Speaking of facts: There are no facts to judge because no facts are

given, so what are we to argue? We are to argue questions of law! Thus Ms.

Reeses brief is in error. To be a mixed question the rule of law must be

undisputed. In this case the rule of law is what the dispute is about.

The offending laws do not require any public fact to establish proof of

eligibility There are no facts regarding eligibility. The Defense correctly

argues there is no dispute as the fact presented. This is because no facts

are available in the public record to prove or not, eligibility. (Defense motionpage 6 line 4)

If the question of Law to be considered is whether the objections meet the

statutory requirement, then Defense has failed to provide any fact to prove that the

objections were too vague. No evidence is presented affirming that the candidates

objected to were confused or somehow prejudiced against because of confusion,

nor that they did not understand what was asked of them. 11 of the candidates

challenged produced proof of citizenship.

The Defense deliberately ignores Plaintiffs 2 nd statement. Her Objectorpetition must be read in its entirety to be understood.

Objections Insufficient as a Matter of Law:



16/27

The State does not claim any case in point nor identify anyone who was

unsure of what the Petitioner was seeking, conveniently ignoring the definition of

constitutional requirements in question all candidates for office must meet

certain Constitutional requirements for office. All candidates must be a specific age

and be a Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois. (R 1 #2 ) The Legal Question here is: Does the Rule 4 allow broad based denial of the

petitioners 1 st and 14 th Amendment Rights, as well as Illinois Constitutional Rights(Article L Sec 1 and 2; and Article III Sec 3)

When reviewing challenges to a state's election laws, courts must weigh

the character and to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments against the precise interests put forward by the State as

justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. Burdick v. Takushi, 504

U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 2063, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) (quoting Anderson v.

Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1570, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983)).In applying this flexible standard, courts must also consider the extent to

which those interests make it necessary to burden the Plaintiff's rights. Id.

(quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. at 1570). If the state subjects

these rights to severe restrictions, the regulations must be narrowly drawn

to advance a state interest of compelling importance, Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S.

279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 705, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992); see Socialist Workers

Party, 440 U.S. at 184, 99 S.Ct. at 990. If the state imposes reasonable,

nondiscriminatory restrictions on these rights, however, the state's important

regulatory interests will generally be sufficient to justify the regulations.

Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. at 2063-64. Libertarian Party v. Rednour

10 ILCS 5/10-8 permits any voter having objections to any certificate of

nomination or nomination papers the right to file objections within the 5 day

qualifying period. In this case the objection is based on insufficiency of the

candidates papers, not because of proof that the candidate is specifically lacking in

constitutional sufficiency but because there is no fact in the public realm to discern

the constitutional qualifications of the candidate. This is a question of Law.

Motion to Strike and Dismiss



17/27

Please enter these exhibits as testimony provided during the SOEB hearings.

Exhibit: Meroni Responds Constitution Party (R-120-146)

Exhibit: Meroni Responds Boyd (R-147-162)

Exhibit: Meroni Responds Libertarian Party ( R 163 190)

Exhibit Meroni Responds Gregg Moore (R 190- 108)Exhibit Meroni Responds Stephen Estill (R- 209 -223)

Exhibit Meroni Responds Carl Officer (R 224- 239)

Exhibit: Exception to the Hearing Officers and General Counsels

Recommendation to Grant Motions to Strike and Dismiss. (Meroni Exhibits p

014-019)

Exhibit : Estill Responds (Meroni Exhibits 033)

The SOEB decision granting a motion to Strike and Dismiss to Carl

Officer again reflects the Board over stepping its authority in order to avoid

the question at hand. Meroni did not receive Mr. Officers motions, and she

alerted the Board and Mr. Officer of this (Meroni Exhibits 06-07- Officer

Email). In addition even after complaint was made about not receiving the

motion, none were produced in the record. To Meronis knowledge, Mr.

Officer never made a motion to Strike and Dismiss, thus the Board, acting

like the lawyer for Mr. Officer, pleading for him. Essentially sua sponte,making motion for Mr. Office.

The same is true of Mr. Stephen Estill. The Plaintiff is not aware of any

Motion to Strike and Dismiss from Mr. Estill. The motion Mr. Estill did file

provided no response to Meronis objection. Clearly it was insufficient. By

taking on the role of Mr. Estills counsel, the Board violated Meronis rights to

equal protection, the Hearing Officer obviously biased against her interests

with no fair arbitrator at the Board.

Ironically and incredibly, the Hearing Officer Menzels ruling affirmed

by ISBE (SBOE) effectively stepping in to protect Mr. Estills insufficient

pleading, while arguing the right to do so against Ms. Meronis petitions on



18/27

grounds her pleadings were insufficient. Essentially sua sponte, making

motion for Mr. Estill

I know huh?

Mr. Moore failed to file a Strike and Dismiss Motion. His motion to

dismiss was inaccurate because it stated that the age and citizenship proof

was in the filed papers. Had this claim been held in a Hearing under the

weight of evidence standards, it would have been proven clearly as false.

Therefore the Board erred in granting essentially sua sponte a motion that

essentially assumed Mr. Moores role as counsel, while arguing Ms. Meronis

deficiency in her part 3 of her petition.

Mr. Moore makes an interesting example for the Defense to use. First,

the ISBE (SOEB) assumes a motion for Mr. Moore. (No Strike motion was

submitted) secondly they decided to grant a motion he did not make

depriving Meroni the natural effect of her right to object to candidates legal

qualifications to be on her ballot.

Importantly - Thirdly, the petitioner had the opportunity to meet with

and to speak with Mr. Moore on a couple of occasions. A black man, he

clearly has a strong foreign accent. Mr. Moore expressed some offense to the

petitioners objection to his candidacy saying anyone should be able to runfor office, regardless of citizenship status. Still, he proudly affirmed he is

proud to be a Naturalized Citizen. Meroni assured Mr. Moore that her

objection was not prejudicial to him, and that she had objected to all of the

candidates. Mr. Moore promised to send Meroni a copy of his naturalization

papers, but to her knowledge, he has thus far failed to do so.

If the Petitioner had access to Mr. Moore during the 5 day period, or

earlier, and had objected strictly based on his accent, then the Constitutional

Rights (1 st and 14 th ) of both the candidate and the objector would be

infringed upon. Further the objector at that point could only assert a reason

based on profiling and thus is forced by the insufficiency of the Statue, to

issues related to 1983 and civil rights infractions.18 | P a g e



19/27

Shon-Tijan Santiago Horton makes a different case. During the 5 day

objection period, the only information the Petitioner had about Horton was

his name. Shon Tijan Santiago Horton Unfamiliar, with the ethnic

background of Mr. Hortons name, on the face of his application, Meroni was

unable to discern if he was a man or woman, let alone his citizenship status.

As it works out, Mr. Horton provided his birth certificate. Thus while he is not

a Defendant in this case, his case is germane because the Petitioners

objection to his candidacy was rejected in the Boards erroneous sua sponte

Rule 4 decision.

To the point of civil rights, if either of these candidates had been

challenged and argument in support of that objection was based on accents

or ethnicity of the name, the Petitioner could be held in violation of civil

rights profiling. Thusly, affording rights unequally between candidates and

the voters is costly in many regards, not the least of which is creating an

unnatural civil rights tension between voters and candidates; which are

easily resolved be it not for this restrictive and unconstitutional law. (10 ILCS

5/10) The petitioner is denied her right to assess candidates except through

profiling as a consequence of this deficient statute.

The Luck of the Draw Worksheets filed out for each candidatesuccinctly illustrates the difficulty of the problem. (R 145-146, 161,177-183,

206-207, 223, and 225). There is no rational legal basis to use to discern

constitutional mandates establishing legally qualifications in the public

record. Related to Standing and Remedy (R- 136)

Invoking Rule 4 Sua Sponte and to Strike Objections

Please review Exceptions to Hearing Officers Recommendation to Invoke

Rule 4 Sua Sponte and to Strike Objections in their entirety (Meroni Exhibits pages

08-013)

In addition, Plaintiff assets - Christopher Pederson: This candidate brings a

unique challenge to this Legal question. In the first instance, the ISBE (SBOE) erred



20/27

in accepting his candidate filings because on the surface they were clearly

insufficient. This shows complete disregard for its duties as required by Law

( Election Code 10 ILCS 5/10) and judicial rulings (Druck).

Incredibly the ISBE later attempts to shift the responsibility for its lack of

governance to the Plaintiff stating without any legal authority that this is an issue

she should have with the Legislature, effectively eviscerating the election process,

especially since the election code 10 LICS 5/10 8 allows objectors a 5 day time to

assess candidates for ballot placement according to being legally qualified and it is

the ISBE (SOEB) ministerial mandate to advice the Legislature and make policy, not

the petitioners. (10 ILCS 5-1a)

Druck is particularly interesting because it rules against candidate access.

The candidate, Druck was denied ballot access because of the number of voter

signatures in his nomination papers. (Druck thought his attorney Spiegel) argued

that the Apparent Conformity standards were randomly enforced through the

objection process. (2) whether Drucks first and fourteenth amendment rightsare violated if the signature requirements for ballot access in section 10-2

of the election code are only enforced when the objections are filed pursuant

to section 10-8 of the election code (Druck v . Illinois State Board of Elections

[1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26, 2008 pg 2)

The court decided 1) the nomination papers have to be filed as required by

the Code and (2) the nomination papers have to be in apparent conformity with theprovisions the election code 10 ICLS 5/10 -8 (West 2006) ( Druck v . Illinois State

Board of Elections [1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26, 2008 Pg 14)

The Defense does not argue or present evidence that any candidate was

confused by the objection. It assumed the deficiency, standing in as counsel and

making argument for the candidates , prejudicially in their favor, and denying her

any right to a hearing on the question of merits.

The 4 th rule needs to be struck as providing the Illinois Board of Elections

assumed powers. This is a first impression case on this rule. The Defense provides

no legal justification for the right to impose this Rule 4. Petitioner would like to brief

specifically about it.



21/27

Amending Illinois Code

The petitioner believes it is well within the wisdom, mandates and

abilities for the General Assembly and the ISBE (SBOE) to fulfill their

mandated responsibilities, and surely that role should not be given to a mere

voter.

The Defense mischaracterizes the petitioner by refusing to admit that

the petitioner attempted to resolve this issue of law within the processes of

the board along with her right to object, the core of the disagreement is over

the law.

I would ask the Board, what would you like me to state and to

prove that my ballot is constitutional and that my candidates are

eligible (Pg 90 Line 16-18 )One of the options that I made for all, because I recognize the

difficulty of this problem. The Illinois General Assembly has not done

their job. The ISBE has not done their job. You have not recommended

that we have a security issue related to our ballot that anybody

basically right now, Mickey Mouse could sign up and get on there as

long as nobody objects to it.

Nobody has done their job in that regard. And I recognize that.Im sympathetic to it. But what I dont understand is what were going

to do ABOUT MY BALLOT IN November. Because when you guys turn

down and I fully understand that my options of winning here, my

chances of winning in this board is very small. Okay but when you

turn it down, the consequences are going to be that Im going to court.

And I am here to say our country right now is in a huge problem.

Chicago is too. Is there any way that we can avoid court? I would like

to try to do that as part of our conversation today.

And I also want to go to some of these candidates and say, if

you. If the Board makes this decision today, and you decide that,

yes, you are going to you are going to hold these objections up21 | P a g e



22/27

(meaning deny the Objector her Hearing on the merits clarification in

words added) then youve now got all of these candidates that all they

had to do was show me a birth certificate and I would withdraw my

objection to them and they would not have to go on to the next level of

civil court.

And I know you may not be able to forcibly say present your

certifications but you can recommend it. Theres nothing in the

policies and procedures that would prohibit that.(Pg 92-93)

Second: Response to Defense quoting -The full transcripts state.

And the arguments dont say that Im not entitled to the information.

They just say procedurally that theres no process. But if you dont provideme the process, how can I be in conformity under my five-day objection

period?

I know you guys are a ministerial body. I know you dont set laws. I

know youre not going to address constitutional issues. Thats not your role

potentially. But this is an issue of process. I want to have a ballot that I

know is valid. I cant do that going to the General Assembly (R 95) In this

context by process, Meroni affirms she was referring to the fact that the lawdoes not provide for a process that the ISBE enforces assuring constitutional

eligibility The ISBE (SBOE) doesnt enforce any apparent conformity

standards.

The comment in relation to the General Assembly refers to the fact

that save extraordinary legislative action, nothing can be done in the

General Assembly to assure candidates on Meronis upcoming 2010 ballot

are constitutionally (legally ) qualified.

This is clearly a question of law.



23/27

If Plaintiff wishes to see the Statement of Candidacy provision changed, then her

recourse is with the legislature and not with the Board.( Defense motion P 9 lines 6-9)

Defense fails to establish legal sufficiency or legal precedence imposing this limitation on her

right to vote and is clearly wrong.

Delay V Board of Elections is important because the Court affirms in Delay

that the Board cannot take an interested role in the proceedings, thus Meroni

asserts in fact this ruling does apply to her point that the Board exceeded its

authority when devising motions for candidates and then deciding on that motion,

sua sponte . Defense has not presented case law to substantiate the usage of sua

sponte .

The Defense complains about Plaintiffs lack of case law to prove her

position in opposition of the Boards erroneous usage of sua sponte , yet refuses to

cite any legal cause for their extraordinary usage of power and in support of their

Rule 4, Rules of Procedure as adopted by the Board at its July 6, 2010 meeting.

(Defense motion p 12 Line 15-19); or of their usage of sua sponte motions - both as

Motions to Strike and Dismiss and in the Rule 4 usage.

III Additional Issues - Apparent Conformity

In relation to apparent conformity, besides constitutional requirement,

having consistent standards holds considerable weight from judicial viewpoints.

[A]s a practical matter, there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair

and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process

quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S.724, 730, 39 L. Ed. 2d 714, 723, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 1279 (1974),

When the word shall appears in a legislative provision, courts have

generally interpreted the provision to be mandatory Watson v. Howard , 322 Ill. App.

3d 562, 565, 749 N.E.2d 427, 429 (2001); Niziolek v. Chicago Transit Authority, 251

Ill.App.3d 537, 541, 189 Ill.Dec. 780, 620 N.E.2d 1097 (1993) .

In Druck V ISBE the Court states We find, based upon our reading of the ElectionCode, (1) that section 10-2 of the Election Code imposes signature requirements; (2) that section

10-8 imposes conditions precedent for nomination papers to be valid before a candidate's name

is placed on the ballot; (3) that section 10-14 requires the SBOE, the election authority with



24/27

whom the nomination papers are filed, to certify the papers; and (4) that, if the nomination

papers are valid on their face and the election official does not remove the candidate's name

from the ballot, section 10-8 provides a vehicle for an objector to challenge the nomination

papers. 10 ILCS 5/10-2, 10-8 (West 2006).

This Judicial opinion supports the ministerial (not discretionary) requirement of the ISBE

to enforce apparent conformity standards. It also affirms that 10-8 rightfully provides a vehicle

for the objector to challenge nomination papers. However, in the instance of constitutional

mandates of age and citizenship, the subject at hand, that vehicle is denied its intended effect for

the petitioner because of a lack of fact in the public record.

To avoid questions of fact from entering into this dispute, Meroni agreed to

remove all objections from candidates who produce proof of citizenship. This was

the only option available to her in light of the deficiency of the Statute. (10 ILSC5/10-8)

Candidates potential claims of privacy issues when the constitutional

mandates for public office is citizenship would not sustain a judicial review,

based on the merits. Surely, the Publics right to know would prevail.

IV Conclusion

That this matter is exclusively a matter of law, and that the Judge examines

the Law questions, de nova. These cases do raise a judiciable controversy under theConstitution and cannot be relegated to the political arena.

That the Primary question of law involved : Is the public entitled to a public

record affirming that US and Illinois Constitutional mandates are met, especially as

relates to age and citizenship?

That the court will allow the petitioner to amend her remedies to be as

follows:

To rule as a point of law denying the Board the right to act as a movant in the

proceedings for motions of Strike and Dismiss.

To rule that Rule 4 restricts the due process rights of the Petitioner and is

unconstitutional.



25/27

That the Court will answer - Is there a fundamental due process, and 1 st and

14 t h Amendment controversy, especially equal protection violations caused by the

insufficiency of 10-5/10-5 and 1- 5/10-8.

There is a National Security issue to assure only elected officials are holding

office. The petitioner seeks leave to write a brief on this. To find that 10 ILSC 5/10-8 is unconstitutional because it fails to assure a

process whereby proof of citizenship and age is included in the public record,

especially during the 5 day contest period.

That Constitutional mandates are never moot, that the Court, in its judicial

wisdoms, assure proof of citizenship is kept available in the public record for as long

as required.

That the Court find that in order to affirm an application of legally qualified ,

evidentiary proof of meeting all milestones of legal compliance with thespecifications of legally qualified becomes part of the public record.

That the Court would rule on the problem of the term for legally qualified on

the Statements of Candidacy being too general and leaving the term to the

subjective interpretation of the self interested politician. Therefor definitions of

legally qualified must be made public.

That the Court rule it is unconstitutional to keep from the public apparent

conformity standards and that these should be kept in the public view.

That the court rule the Board acted outside of its authorities in granting the

motion to Strike and Dismiss and the Rule 4 sua sponte, depriving the petitioner of

her various constitutional rights, especially 1 st and 14 th .

The Court permits the petitioner time to prepare a Writ of Mandamus

to seeking testimony from the Board about how it secures the constitutional

integrity of the ballot, and to account for its willful disregard of the Courts

and Law requiring them to practice and enforce apparent conformity

standards.In lieu of a Writ, that the Court rule as judicially empowered on the

issue of the Boards failure to perform its ministerial duties.



26/27

Meroni seeks the Court to bring grant other reliefs she is entitled to.

Sharon Ann Meroni

____________________________ Plaintiff: Sharon Ann MeroniAddress: One Surrey LaneBarrington Hills, IL 60010



27/27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify I have served, through email and through the US Postal Service, the defendants

were served via their attorney of record, Jessica Reeves. At the address know for her at theIllinois State Board of Elections in Springfield

CANDIDATES:

JEFF TREXLER MICHAEL L. WHITEGARY DUNLAP

LOUIS COTTONTIMOTHY BECKER DAWN CZARNY

BILL MALANJAMES PAULYJOSH HANSONJUILE FOXMIKE LABNOED RUTLEDGELEX GREEN

GREGG MOORECARL E. OFFICER WILLIE BOYD, JR.COREY DABNEYEDMUND J. SCANLONCHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN

on September 20, 2010

SHARON MERONI

27 | P a g eAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are

meroni v il sboe (judicial review) - response to defense and opposing the administrative decisions...

Documents