Municipal Election Held On February 24,2015,: Byron Sigcho, Petitioner

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS
BYRON SIGCHO,
Petitioner,
Court No.
CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION
COMMISSIONERS as the election authority

and the canvass authority for the Chicago
Municipal Election held on February 24,2015,

LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,
MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, Commissioner,
RICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner, and
DANIEL "DANNY" SOLIS, Candidate,
ED HERSHEY, Candidate, JORGE MUJICA,
Candidate, ROBERTO "BETO" MONTANO,
Candidate,
20i5C0EL000036
CALENDAR/ROQH 8
TIHE OOsOO
EiecL CojTteslred
Respondents.
:r'.
'
' r
VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION
.-A
Petitioner, BYRON SIGCHO, individually and by his attorneys, Andrew Finko P.C. and
VemorMoran, LLC, and herebyfiles his verified election contest petitionpursuant to 65 ILCS
20/21-27 and Article 23 of the Illinois Election Code, contesting the results of the Chicago
Municipal General Election held onFebruary 24, 2015, for the office of alderman in the 25th Ward
in Chicago, as follows.
Preface
1.
This election contest is filed before the Respondent, Board of Election
Commissioners, has proclaimed the results ofthe election for alderman ofthe 25th Ward in
Chicago, based upon information available as of thedate of filing, and without thebenefit of a
petition fordiscovery or a recount. Necessarily, in thesituation presented herein, where 65 ILCS
20/21-27 requires an election contest petition be filed within five days of the election, theparties
must plead with generalities subject to later amendment after further discovery or a court-ordered
recount. See, Evans v. Preckwinkle, 259 Ill.App.3d 187, 636 N.E.2d 730 (25th Dist. 1994), and
O'Neal V. Shaw, 248 Ill.App.3d 632, 618 N.E.2d 780 (25th Dist. 1993).
Parties &, Background
2.
Petitioner, BYRON SIGCHO ("Sigcho"), is a duly qualified elector in the 25th
Ward in Chicago, and a candidate for election to the office ofalderman for the 25th Ward in the
City ofChicago, with his name printed upon the ballot for said office and voted upon in the 25th
Ward Chicago municipal general election held on February 24, 2015.
3.
Respondent, City ofChicago Board ofElection Commissioners ("Board"), is the

%
election authority that conducted the Chicago municipal general election held on February 24,
2015, and is the canvassing board that will perform the official count ofthe ballots and render a
final proclamation ofresults ofthe election for the office ofalderman for the 25th Ward in
Chicago, Illinois.
4.
Respondents, Langdon Neal, Marisel A. Hernandez and Richard Cowen, are each
Commissioners and members of the Board, and are named in theirofficial capacities as
Commissioners of the Board.
5.
Respondents, DANIEL "DANNY" SOLIS ("Solis") ED HERSHEY, ("Hershey"),
JORGE MUJICA, ("Mujica"), and, ROBERTO "BETO" MONTANO, ("Montano"), were
candidates competing for election to the office ofalderman for the 25th Ward in the City of
Chicago, and their name was printed upon the ballot said office and voted upon in the 25th Ward
Chicago municipal general election held onFebruary 24,2015.
6.
Initially, on election day, February 24, 2015, and then on February 27,2015, the
Board posted at its website updated unofficial results that stated that Sigcho garnered 1,382 votes,
or 18.60% ofthe total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election, that Solis garnered 3,785
votes, or 50.95% ofthe total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election, that Hershey
garnered 612 votes, or8.24% ofthe total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election, that
Mujica garnered 904 votes, or 12.17% ofthe total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election,
and that Montano garnered 746 votes, or 10.04% of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward
aldermanic election, suchthat a runoffelection would not occur between Sigcho and Solis. Copy
ofthe February 24, 2015 unofficial election results (by precinct) for the office ofalderman in the
25th Ward in Chicago are attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
7.
The Board's unofficial revised results posted on or about March 1, 2015, report
Respondent, Solis, purportedly at three votes above 50% ofall votes cast in the 25th Ward election
held on February 24, 2015.
8.
The Board continues counting additional ballots, and will issue a final proclamation
of results fourteen days after the February 24, 2015 Election, on March 12,2015.
AT LEGATIONS OF ERRORS
9.
Petitioner, Sigcho, voted inthe election for alderman ofthe 25th Ward and his
campaign had volunteers observing election day procedures at precincts throughout the 25th Ward.
As set forth more fully and specifically below, in good faith and based upon reasonable inquiry
which continues, Sigcho alleges that, and believes that, mistakes and fraud have been committed
in the casting and counting ofballots for the office ofalderman ofthe 25th Ward in the City of
Chicago at the electionon February 24,2015.
10.
When the results of the full recount and other discovery become available, further
information will come to the attention of the Petitioner, Sigcho, that there were mistakes, errors or
frauds in the counting ofthe ballots for the subject election, and/or fraud committed regarding the
election, such that the count of votes must be revised in the favor ofthe petitioner, Sigcho.
11.
As setforth more fully and specifically below, the Board's count of the election
totals for the election of alderman in the 25th Ward for the City of Chicago was performed in
derogation ofthat Board's statutory duties in that their determination and anticipated proclamation
ofresults embody results inwhich numerous invalid ballots were wrongly counted, numerous
valid ballots were wrongly not counted, numerous duly qualified voters ofthe 25th Ward inthe
City ofChicago were wrongly denied their right to vote inthe election, and numerous persons
who were (on the election day) not duly qualified votCTS ofthe 25th Ward in the City ofChicago
were wrongly permitted to vote in the election. Based on the facts alleged herein developed
through investigation, and as will be more fiilly developed, acorrect and lawfixl count ofthe votes
which were properly cast, and which should have been properly cast, in the 25th Ward in the City
ofChicago shows aresult different from that reported by the Judges ofElection and proclaimed by
the Board; and should show that Solis was NOT elected as alderman ofthe 25th Ward ofthe City
ofChicago by over 50% ofall votes cast in the February 24,2015 Chicago municipal general
election and that a supplemental or runoff election is required on April 7,2015 to determine the
true, correctand lawful successfulcandidate.
Proportional Reduction
13.
All allegations ofstreet address below refer to street addresses within the corporate
limits of the Cityof Chicago unless otherwise noted.
14.
Sigcho requests that, except as otherwise specified, any such votes found invalid by
virtue ofthis petition be remedied by proportional reduction or (as the case may be) addition. The
effect ofthe proportional reductions and other changes invotes necessitated by the allegations in
this petition is that Sigcho's vote total should be increased, and Solis's should be decreased, as
required bythe methodology ofproportional reduction and addition.
15.
Voters Living Outside the 25th Ward. Numerous voters have moved their legal
residence to outside the25th Ward, or never lived within the 25th Ward, but voted in the subject
election by virtue ofan application for ballot which bore an address in the 25th Ward. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th
Ward ofthe City of Chicago. Ineach case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative
of 10 ILCS 5/5-2 and other applicable law.
16.
Voters Voting FromAddresses Which Are Commercial Establishments And/Or
Do NotContain Residential Living Units. Numerous voters were registered at addresses within
die 25th Ward oftheCity of Chicago butthese addresses were not their true residence addresses,
the purported residence address being a commercial establishment and/or not containing
residential living units thereon. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe
race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Wardofthe City of Chicago. In each case, this Court
shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/3-2 and 5-2, and otherapplicable
provisions.
17.
Voters Voting from a Different Address in the 25thWard of the Cityof
Chicago. Numerous voters have voted in the election by virtue ofan application for ballot which
bore aparticular address in the 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago in Cook County. However, these
voters actually resided at a different address inthe 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago in Cook
County. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast avote in the race for the office of
Alderman forthe 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the
vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/5-2 and other applicable law.
18.
Voters Not Registered to Vote. Numerous voters were illegally permitted to vote
fi-om theaddresses in theprecincts stated, notwithstanding their notbeing registered to vote at any
address in the 25thWard of the Cityof Chicago. Further, on information andbelief, these persons
cast a vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each
case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/5-2,17-9, and other
applicable law.
19.
Voters Who Voted From An Address At Which They Were Not Registered.
NumCTOus voters were registered ataddresses within the 25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago but
voted from a different address in 25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago, the votingaddress being one
from which they were notregistered. Further, oninformation and belief, these persons cast a vote
in the race for the office of Alderman for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case,this
Court shoulddeclarethe vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/5-2 and otherapplicable law.
20.
Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified. Numerous voters
voted byabsentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were not duly certified.
Nonetheless, the voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot asanabsent voter. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th
Ward ofthe City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative
of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballot areso numerous
in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters withthis deficiency can, withcertainty, be separated andidentified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reducedby a whole vote.
21.
Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters
voted byabsentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified, and not true.
Nonetheless, such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as anabsent voter. Further, on
of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballot are so numerous
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with thisdeficiency can, withcertainty, be separated andidentified, the
his or her total for the precinctreduced by a whole vote.
22.
Absentee Ballot Carrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters voted by absentee
ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope inwhich the absentee ballot was
mailed. Further, oninformation and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe race for the office of
Alderman for the 25th Ward of theCity of Chicago. In each case, thisCourt should declare the
vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/19-5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee
ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with
certainty, beseparated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be
separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
23.
Signature onApplication forAbsent Voter's Ballot Different from Signature on
Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, butthe
signature on the application for absentee ballot, on information and belief, was executed bya
different person than the person who executed the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope.
Further, oninformation and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for theoffice ofAlderman
for the25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid
as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee
ballots are sonumerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with
certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to theextent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be
from such ballot shouldhave her total for the precinctreduced by a wholevote.
24.
AbsenteeVoters Who FaUed To SignThe Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous
voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee
ballot mailing envelope. Further, on information and belief, these pCTSons cast a vote in the race
for the office of Alderman for the 25thWard of the Cityof Chicago. In each case, this Court
should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In
thecase in which absentee ballots are sonumerous intheparticular precinct that the ballot relating
to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate
reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency
can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the
party herein benefiting from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a
whole vote.
25.
Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify Their Address On the Absentee Ballot
Envelope. Num^ous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to indicate their
residence/registration address on the affidavit on the absentee ballot earner ^velope. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast avote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th
of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. Inthe case in which absentee ballots are so
numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be
separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the
extent that ballots from voters with thisdeficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should
have his or her total for the precinctreduced by a wholevote.
26.
Absentee BallotsNot Properly Delivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee
ballot, but, by mistake and/or fraud, their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the
Chicago Board ofElection Commissioners, thus invalidating the ballots. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe
City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of10ILCS
5/19-6,19-8, and other applicable law. In the case inwhich absentee ballots are so numerous inthe
particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated from
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, withcertainty, be separated and identified, the
his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote.
27.
Voters Who Voted In A Precinct In Which They were Not Registered.
Numerous voters were registered to vote from a particular address and precinct, but actually voted
at another precinct in which they neither resided nor were registered. Further, on information and
belief, these persons cast avote in the race for the ofiSce ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City
ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of10 ILCS 5/17-9
and other applicable law.
28.
No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted byabsentee ballot but
apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further, on
of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In thecase in which absentee ballots are so
numerous inthe particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be
extent thatballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
29.
No Record ofVoter Voting Absentee. Numerous voters purportedly voted by
absentee ballot, but the records ofthe Respondent Chicago Board ofElection Commissioners do
not show that the absentee ballot was processed bythat office. Further, on information and belief,
these persons cast avote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of10ILCS 5/19-3,
19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous inthe
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
30.
VoterFailed to SignApplication for AbsentVoter'sBallot. Numerous voters
purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.
Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe race for the office ofAlderman
for the 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid
as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In the casein which absentee
ballots are so numerous inthe particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with
However, tothe extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be
from suchballot shouldhave his or her total for the precinctreduced by a whole vote.
10
31.
Legal Voters Denied The Right To Vote. Numerous registered and qualified voters
inthe 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago were illegally denied their right and opportunity to vote by
mistake orfiraud, including but not limited to errors in Board documents, late opening, equipment
failure, locked doors, election judge errors, etal. Further, on information and belief, these persons
would have casta vote in the race for theoffice of Alderman for the 25th Ward of theCity of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should proportionately add such votes.
32.
Voters Improperly Permitted to Vote. Numerous registered and qualified voters
inthe 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago were illegally permitted to vote inthe precinct polling
place on Election Day even though such voters' names appeared on listings as having been issued
agrace period, absentee, or early ballot, without submitting their absentee ballots for cancellation,
orotherwise compljdng with 10 ILCS 5/17-9 and other provisions ofthe Election Code in this
regard. In the case in which these ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot
relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated from other ballots, proportionate
reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that ballots fi-om voters with this deficiency
can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the
party herein benefiting firom such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a
whole vote.
33.
Improper Handling, Altering and/or Removal ofBallots from Precincts.
Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled, altered and/or removed by
persons in precinct locations who were not duly credentialed and authorized to so handle, alter or
remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices, and, for example, at least three ballots that
were cast by voters and/or at least one electronic vote counting device, were illegally and
improperly removed from precinct locations without being counted in the Board's vote totals. Such
actions ofunauthorized persons so tainted the counting ofthe votes in numerous precincts, as to
11
render all such results in theprecinct unreliable and subject to full review bytheCourt, and the
party herein benefiting fi-om such actions should have her total for the precinct reduced by awhole
vote for each such tampered ballot.
Allegations Requiring Modification of Whole Votes
34.
Applications For Ballots Which Do NotBearInitials OfAny Election Judge.
Numerous votes were cast whichshouldnot have been counted since the application for ballot did
not bear on its face the initials of an election judge. Further, on information and belief, ballots
were issued for such applications and votes were cast inthe race for the office ofAlderman for the
25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago. Ineach case, this Court should declare the particular ballot
invalid as lacking the requisite integrity and assurances that applications for ballots were issued in
accordance with the ElectionCode and the Board's requiredprocedures as documented in the
Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling Place Administrator Handbook."

35.
BaUots Which Do Not Bear Initials OfAny Election Judge. Numerous votes
were cast which shouldnot havebeen coimted since the ballot did not bear on its face the initials
ofan election judge. Further, on information and belief, such votes were cast inthe race for the
office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should
declare the particular ballot invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/17-9 and 10 ILCS 5/17-11, and the
Board's required procedures as documented inthe Board's 2015 "Judge ofElection / Polling Place
Administrator Handbook."
36.
Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified. Numerous voters
voted byabsentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were not duly certified.
Nonetheless, the voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on
Ward ofthe City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative
12
of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots areso numerous
his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote.
37.
Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters
voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified, and not true.
Nonetheless, such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot asan absent voter. Further, on
of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots areso numerous
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
38.
Absentee Ballot Carrier Envelope Missing.Numerous voters votedby absentee
ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope inwhich the absentee ballot was
mailed. Further, oninformation and belief, these persons cast a vote inthe race for the office of
Alderman forthe 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the
vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-5 and otherapplicable law. In the casein which absentee
13
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
39.
Signature onApplication forAbsent Voter's BallotDifferent from Signature on
Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, butthe
signature on the application for absentee ballot, on information and belief, was executed bya
different person than the person who executed the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope,
and was not genuine. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote for the office of
Alderman forthe 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the
vote invalid as violativeof 10ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in
which absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such
voter cannot, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction
should be applied. However, tothe extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with
certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein
benefiting from such ballot should have his orher total for the precinct reduced bya whole vote.
40.
Absentee Voters Who FaUed To Sign The Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous
voters purportedly voted byabsentee ballot, but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee
ballot mailing envelope. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote for the office
of Alderman for the 25thWard of the Cityof Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the
vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in
which absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballotrelating to such
voter cannot, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction
should beapplied. However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with
certainty, beseparated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein
14
benefiting fi*om such ballot should have his orher total for the precinct reduced bya whole vote.
41.
Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify Their Address On the Absentee Ballot
Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to indicate their
residence/registration address on the affidavit on the absentee ballot earner envelope. Further, on
of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee ballots are so
separated fi-om other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the
extent that ballots firom voters with thisdeficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
have his or her total for the precinctreduced by a wholevote.
42.
Absentee Ballots Not ProperlyDelivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee
ballot, but, by mistake and/or fraud, their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the
Chicago Board ofElection Commissioners, thus invalidating the ballots. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast avote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe
City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of10 ILCS
5/19-6 and 19-8, and other applicable laws. Inthecase in which absentee ballots are so numerous
fi-om other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that
ballots firom voters with thisdeficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting fi-om such ballot should have
15
43.
Voters Who Voted In A Precinct In Which They were Not Registered.
Numerous voters were registered to vote jfrom a particular address and precinct, but actually voted
at another precinct inwhich they neither resided nor were registered. Further, on information and
belief, these persons cast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/17-9
and other applicable law.
44.
No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted byabsentee ballot but
apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further, on
of 10ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. Inthe case in which absentee ballots areso
extent that ballots from voters with thisdeficiency can, withcertainty, be separated and identified,
have his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote.
45.
NoRecord ofVoter Voting Absentee. Numerous voters purportedly voted by
absentee ballot, but the records ofthe Respondent Chicago Board ofElection Commissioners do
not show that theabsentee ballot was processed bythat office. Further, oninformation and belief,
these persons cast avote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of10 ILCS 5/19-3,
19-5, and other applicable law. In the case inwhich absentee ballots are so numerous inthe
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should beapplied. However, to the extent that
16
ballots from voters withthis deficiency can, with certainty, be separated andidentified, the
46.
Voter Failed to Sign Application for Absent Voter's Ballot. Numerous voters
purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.
Further, oninformation and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman
for the 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid
as violative of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and otherapplicable laws. In the casein which absentee
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
47.
Election Judges Issued BaUots Without Comparing Signatures on Ballot
Application. Numerous voters were issued ballots and allowed to cast ballots, but were not the
named duly registered voters, because such signatures were not genuine and proper signatures of
the respective voters, and no such signatures or corresponding ballots should be counted as valid
in all similar Precincts in which signatures were not validated as being genuine byelection judges.
48.
Ballots Mistakenly NotCounted. Numerous voters voted on ballots which,
through mistake, error or fraud were not counted by the judges ofelection. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe
City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should, to the extent that ballots with this deficiency can,
with certainty, beseparated and identified, validate such ballots and the party herein benefiting
from suchballot should havehis or her total for the precinct increased by each corresponding
17
whole vote. Specifically, but not limited to:
a) Provisional ballots were improperly issued byelection judges to persons who were registered
in a different precinct of 25th Ward, and voters were erroneously issued a provisional ballot
instead ofbeing directed to travel to their correct precinct by an election official and/or were
bymistake, error orfi-aud deposited inthe ballot box counting device for the wrong precinct
and therefore were not counted, and the Board should be estopped firom striking (or not
counting votes) provisional ballots that were cast in reliance upon the statements of election
officials and/or election judges;
b) Votes on touchscreen machines assigned to a different precinct which may have been located
in the same room for which a ballot authorization card was properly issued and the votes cast
byregistered and qualified voters which were therefore not counted bymistake, error or
fraud because theywere caston a touchscreen device for a different precinct;
c) Ballots which were properly issued and cast byregistered and qualified voters which were
bymistake, error orfraud deposited inthe spoiled ballot envelope and not d^osited inthe
ballotbox counting device, and therefore were not counted;
d) Ballots which were properly issued and cast byregistered and qualified voters which were
by mistake, error orfraud wrongly determined tohave identifying (or "distinguishing")
marks and therefore were not counted;
e) Ballots which were properly issued and cast byregistered and qualified voters which were
bymistake, error orfraud determined not to clearly display the intent ofthe voter, but were,
in fact, clearly intended to vote forPetitioner Sigcho, but was notcounted;
f) Ballots which were properly issued and cast byregistered and qualified voters which were
bymistake or error of a counting device not counted, including butnot limited to
"calibration" errors on touchscreenvoting machines, wherein a vote cast for Petitioner
Sigcho was erroneously counted as a vote for Respondent, Solis, and was not counted for
Petitioner, Sigcho.
50.
Ballots Mistakenly, Erroneously or Fraudulently Counted. Numerous voters
cast ballots which, through mistake, error or fraud were on information and belief, counted bythe
judges ofelection, but which were issued and cast contrary to the provisions ofthe Election Code.
These persons cast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City ofChicago. In
each case, this Court should, tothe extent that ballots with this deficiency can, with certainty, be
separated and identified, validate such ballots and the party herein benefiting from such ballot
should have his or her total for the precinct decreased by eachcorresponding whole vote.
18
51. Voters Were Impermissibly and Pervasively Electioneered at the Polling Places
By the Soils Campaign. Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered tovote for
Respondent Solis at numerous polling places. Further, oninformation and belief, these persons
cast a vote in the race for Alderman for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. Because the
electioneering was specifically for Respondent, Solis's, benefit, and no other candidate, the
appropriate legal remedy isto deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary ofthe
misbehavior. Respondent Solis. In the altemative, such votes were impermissibly tainted and
should be subject to proportionate reduction. Specifically, butnot limited to:
a) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Solis atthe
polling places, bythe distribution and placement ofpalm cards inthe voting booths,
electioneering and promoting voters to cast ballots in favor ofRespondent, Solis;
b) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Solis atthe
polling place by the placement ofpalm cards advocating votes for Solis inthe protective
envelopes in which Ae ballots were enclosed upon issuance;
c) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Solis at the
polling place, for example, in the 25th Ward, by walking and talking with voters within the
100 foot protective line specifically inpromotion ofCandidate, Solis, and/or standing ator
near the inner door to the polling location, all the while, urging voters to support and vote for
Solis;
d) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Solis at the
polling place, for example, inthe 25th Ward by the placement ofcampaign signs urging a
vote for Solis and the distribution of campaign literature urging a vote for Solis from within
the 100 footprotective line to the doorof the polling place;
e) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Solis atthe
polling place, for example, by poll watchers and Respondent candidate Solis, himself, and
others, many ofwhom entered polling locations without presenting credentials and/or
exceeded the number of poll watchers permitted in a precinct, and acted improperly and
urged voters to support and vote for Respondent Solis inside ofthe polling place.
52.
Improper Handling, Altering, Abandonment and/orRemoval ofBallots from
Precincts. Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled, altered,
abandoned and/or removed bypersons in precinct locations who were notduly credentialed and
authorized to so handle, alter or remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices, and, for
19
example, aballot application spindle was handled and altered inthe 25th Ward and 18th Precinct,
and, on information and belief, ballot-application sized paper was observed being placed into a
purse. Similarly, oninformation and belief, atleast one electronic vote counting device (memory
card) was not counted in the Board's vote totals, and election materials in atleast one precinct
were abandoned byelection judges and not promptly delivered to the receiving station. Such
unauthorized access toballots bypersons without authority to do so, tainted and altered the total
number ofvotes that were reported by theBoard, and therefore the appropriate legal remedy is to
deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary of the misbehavior. Respondent Solis. In the
alternative, such votes were imperrmssibly tainted and should be subject to proportionate
correction.
53.
Equipment Errors, or Failures. Equipment atnumerous locations used for
purposes ofvoting and tabulating votes was defective, erroneous and/or not properly working for
periods oftime on February 24,2015, including but not limited to failing to get a"zero reading
before comm^cing voting, recording and displaying erroneous ballot total results, "calibration
errors ontouch screen voting, failing to consolidate all ballots cast, failing toprint out sufficient
number ofpaper receipts for consolidated Precinct results, failing to count all votes cast, failing to
have equipment delivered at polling locations, failure to secure and lock ballot boxes, ballot
scanners not working, electronic poll book errors, no working touch screen machines, and other
equipment failures, which caused polling locations to either not open on time, to be closed during
Election Day, and/or otherwise prevented voters from casting their votes and having their votes
counted by the Board. Such votes should be reviewed and corrected by this Court in its the final
count.
54.
Polling Places Not Staffed by Duly Qualified Judges. Numerous polling
locations in the 25th Ward were notstaffed by duly qualified elections judges, who had read and
20
become familiar with the Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling Place Administrator
Handbook," causing polling locations to either not open on time, to run inefficiently with lines out
the door (and turned away voters), and/or otherwise preventing voters from casting their votes and
having their votes counted by the Board.
55.
Polling Place Relocated and/or Closed Without Adequate Notice to Voters. On
information and belief, some polling location forthe 25th Ward were moved to different locations,
than they had been at, for many years, without adequately and appropriately notifying all voters of
the changed location, due to lack ofassistance from the Board. All such votes should be located
and counted, or the total shouldbe adjusted proportionately.
56.
Election Judges Who Were NotProperly Trained Erred In Consolidating And
Reporting Ballots That Were Cast. Numerous election judges inprecincts throughout 25th Ward
deviated from the Election Code and the Board's required procedures as documentedin the
Board's 2015 "Judge ofElection / Polling Place Administrator Handbook," and erroneously and
inconsistently reported the total ballots cast invarious precincts, failed to consolidate votes, and/or
failed to print paper printouts ofconsolidated results from numerous precincts, raising many
questions regarding the credibility and reliability ofthe election results in the 25th Ward, and
requiring a recount of all ballots cast onElection Day inthe 25th Ward.
Praver For Relief
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, BYRON SIGCHO, respectfully requests entryof an orderas

follows:
(a)
entering anexpedited schedule for discovery and anevidentiary hearing inthis
matter, prior to April 7, 2015;
(b)
directing a full and complete recount of all ballots cast in the 25th Ward, to
determine the validity ofthe City of Chicago Board ofElection Commissioner's counting of
21
ballots and proclamation, such recount to include, but not be limited to, an examination ofthe
relevant electronic poll books (and corresponding electronic data and logs), voting devices, paper
ballots, voters' applications for ballots, precinct binder cards (and their computerized equivalent),
affidavits, and all other materials from said ward;
(c)
changing and correcting the results ofthe election as required by the allegations and
proofs of this petition; and
(d)
granting such other and further reliefin favor ofPetitioner, as may be just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted:
BYRON SIGCHO
'(lyUC"
By:
One of his attomey
Andrew Finko P.C.
79 W. Monroe St. / Suite 1213
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel (773) 480-0616
Fax (773) 453-3266
Attomey No. 30263
-and-
Vemor Moran, LLC

27 North Wacker Drive
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60606-2800
Tel (312) 264-4460
Fax (312) 264-4461
Attomey No. 43022
22
State ofIllinois )
) ss
County ofCook )
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, having been first duly sworn, under oath deposes and affirms, that the
facts stated in the foregoing Verified Petition for Election Contest are true and correct tothe best
ofhis knowledge and belief, as ofthe date signed, and as to statements made on information and
belief, theundersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
Byron Sigcho
Subscribed and sworn to before
me thisSro day ofMarch 2015

by Byron Sigcho.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
NICHOLAS C. KEFALOS
OFFICIAL SEAL
Notary Public, State of Illinois

My Commission Expires
December 12, 2015
23
http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/pctleveI3.asp?Ward=25&elec_code.
On
2015 Municipal General - 2/24/15 ->Alderman 25th Ward

Pet Votes CastED HERSHEY
DANIEL "DANNY" SOUS
23
1
232
243
189
5.35%
181
239
104
4.97%
5.77%
11
261
261
274
24
20
16
10
165
11
270
12
244
16
7.79%
30
13
274
14
180
15
13
35
16
158
17
289
22.15%
132
25
18
17
19
268
20
186
6.34%
29
102
29
22
248
23
292
11.69%
4.11%
4.58%
262
25
252
26
263
8.33%
27
157
28
269
16.56%
5.58%
16
29
6.67%
240
30
236
31
171
14
32
234
7429
Total
Pet Votes CastED HERSHEY
3785
8.24%
DANIEL "DANNY" SOUS
36
11.86%
7.02%
14.62%
45
12
5.13%
19.23%
1382
746
10.04%
12.17%
15.25%
25
12
7.26%
JORGE MUJICA
5.42%
9.17%
28
904
13
22
2.34%
50.95%
22.30%
13.38%
13.98%
62.39%
5.98%
12.10%
60
36
17
146
612
7.01%
3.75%
64.33%
11.70%
19
11
110
20
20.15%
11.03%
33
ROBERTO "BETO" MONTANO
18.60%
BYRON SIGCHO
2015 Municipal General - 2/24/15 - Alderman 25th Ward

EXHIBIT A
1 of 2
5.95%
S3
29
20.07%
49.15%
27.48%
15
6.75%
8.28%
75.00%
9.75%
8.78%
116
23
27.40%
72
17
54
180
80
23
14.83%
38.66%
19.76%
9.59%
3.97%
56.05%
104
15
28
13
88
26
7.20%
49
10.08%
20.99%
41.44%
12.55%
9.75%
25
39
109
33
4.66%
10
75.00%
2.15%
17
23
19.52%
38.17%
25.37%
10.75%
55
189
21
68
20
57
39.38%
100
12
10.07%
18.66%
17.34%
41.13%
13.75%
4.12%
43
115
12
24
66.10%
12.29%
236
11
156
40
27
1.08%
76.88%
9.14%
12
143
17
21
39.55%
18.69%
13.49%
2.75%
50
18.99%
54
39
13.49%
8
106
30
9.49%
0.00%
75.26%
4.12%
291
13.85%
5.77%
15
39
219
12
36
15
14.23%
45.67%
8.65%
6.11%
10.56%
0
49.37%
28.83%
11
19
37
78
25.00%
79
6.93%
4.44%
61.15%
5.00%
260
27.04%
61
19
159
73
13.52%
9.49%
72.22%
6.67%
12.22%
33
26
130
12
33
15.98%
43.80%
15.76%
7.88%
39
120
24.09%
26
13
22.96%
37.70%
10.95%
13.14%
62
92
19
18.39%
66
36
5.45%
31.85%
48
16.86%
86
5.93%
44
10.95%
61.21%
26.44%
10.73%
30
101
13.46%
69
28
13.79%
44.53%
9.70%
2.88%
36
122
20.08%
14
22.22%
41.76%
7.30%
12.55%
58
109
9.20%
27.07%
48
30
0.96%
36.40%
4.21%
16.40%
49
5.52%
95
31
10
16.74%
76.92%
19.34%
7.41%
2.76%
41.84%
80
14
40
100
18.97%
47
15.64%
10.58%
59.67%
8.79%
13.79%
22.63%
44
38
108
21
14.66%
53.44%
BYRON SIGCHO
32
20
101
ROBERTO "BETO" MONTANO
55
37.04%
12.17%
34
90
23
JORGE MUJICA
42.67%
9.91%
13
99
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS

BYRON SIGCHO,
Petitioner,
Court No.
CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS as the election authority
and the canvass authority for the Chicago
Municipal Election held on February 24, 2015,

LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,
MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, Commissioner,
RICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner, and
DANIEL "DANNY" SOLIS, Candidate,
ED HERSHEY, Candidate, JORGE MUJICA,
Candidate, ROBERTO "BETO" MONTANO,

Candidate,
Respondents.
NOTfrE OF FILING
To:
See attached Service List.
Please take notice that on March 3,201S, the undersigned caused to be filed wiA the Clerk ofthe
Circuit Court ofCook County, 50 W. Washington St. Chicago, IL the attached Verified Election Contest Petition,
a copy ofwhich is attached and served upon you.
By:
Attorney for Petitioner

Andrew Finko P.C.
79 W. Monroe St. / Suite 1213
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel (773)480-0616
Attorney No. 30263
Nicholas Kefalos
Vemor Moran LLC
27 N. Wacker Dr. Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60606
Attorney No. 43022
rertificate of Service
The undersigned, an attomey certifies that he caused acopy of the foregoing Notice of
referenced pleadings to be served upon the Board ofElection Commissioners and each ofits
^
DELIVERY and upon every party on the attached Service List, by placing copies o sa
p p y
addressed, postage pre-paid CERTIFEID MAIL envelopes and placing same into the US Postal Service mat
receptacle in Chicago, Illinois at or before 5:00 pm on March 3,2015.
Andrew Finko
Service List
To:
CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS
69 W. Washington St. / 8'" Floor

Chicago, IL 60602
LANGDON D. NEAL, Chairman
69 W. Washington St. /
Chicago, IL 60602
Floor
RICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner
69 W. Washington St. / 8* Floor

Chicago, IL 60602
MARISEL A. HERNANDEZ, Commissioner

69 W. Washington St. / 8"^ Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Jorge Mujica
1322 W 18th PI, Apt IF
Chicago, IL 60608
Roberto Montano
1914 S Throop, Unit #2

Chicago, IL 60608
Daniel S Solis
1531 W I8thPlApt IE
Chicago, IL 60608
Edward F Hershey
1701 W2Ist St Apt 2R
Chicago, IL 60608
cc:
James Scanlon, General Counsel for Chicago Board of Election Commissioners

69 W. Washington St. / 8"^ Floor
Chicago, IL 60602

Municipal Election Held On February 24,2015,: Byron Sigcho, Petitioner

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Municipal Election Held On February 24,2015,: Byron Sigcho, Petitioner

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS

CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS as the election authority