You are on page 1of 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS SANGAMON

COUNTY, SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF: )


SHARON ANN MERONI - )
)
OBJECTOR AND PETITIONER )
)
vs. )
)
ILLINOIS 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 524
MICHAEL L. WHITE ) 10 SOEB GE 532
GARY DUNLAP ) 10 SOEB GE 533
LOUIS COTTON ) 10 SOEB GE 534
TIMOTHY BECKER ) 10 SOEB GE 535
DAWN 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 529
MIKE LABNO ) 10 SOEB GE 530
ED RUTLEDGE ) 10 SOEB GE 543
LEX GREEN ) 10 SOEB GE 544
)
GREGG MOORE ) 10 SOEB GE 525
CARL E. OFFICER ) 10 SOEB GE 537
WILLIE BOYD, JR. ) 10 SOEB GE 553
COREY DABNEY ) 10 SOEB GE 539
EDWARD J. SCANLON ) 10 SOEB GE 540
CHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN ) 10 SOEB GE 542, 545, 546, 547,548,551, 552

1
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
)
RESPONDENTS

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND COMMON LAW WRIT OF CERTIORARI

NOW COMES the Petitioner U.S. Citizen, Sharon Ann Meroni and pursuant to the Illinois Election Code, bringing
this petition at the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court of Sangamon County for Judicial Review of the August 6 th, 2010
decisions by the Illinois State Board of Elections,(ISBE) sitting as the duly constituted State Officers Electoral
Board (SOEB). The Petitioner‟s original Objections were legally filed on June 28th 2010 as required by Illinois
Election Code Article 10.

1. The Petitioner resides at One Surrey Lane Barrington Hills, 60010, in the County of McHenry in the
State of Illinois. The Petitioner affirms; that she is duly qualified, registered and a legal voter at such
address; that she is aggrieved by the decision of the ISBE in that the Board‟s decision (as SOEB) on
her Objector‟s Petition was adverse to her interest of a citizen desirous of seeing to it that the Illinois
and US Constitutions are upheld, laws governing the filing of nomination papers for ballot placement
certified through the ISBE (SOEB) are properly complied with and/or that only a qualified candidate
would appear upon the Petitioner‟s ballot.
2. The Respondent Board and its respective members, is a statutory entity with the authority, power, and
obligation to determine the validity of nominating papers pursuant to the objection procedures set forth
in Article 10 of the election code.
3. The Respondent Candidates filed Candidate Nomination Papers for various Federal and State elected
positions and for placement on the Petitioner‟s November 2010 ballot.
4. The Illinois State Board of Elections (convened as SOEB) through the Board members, have a duty to
certify the names of the candidates for ballot placement in the November 2010 general election and is
named herein for relief only.
5. The ISBE is statutorily required to certify and print the ballot for the election of candidates who wish
to appear on Sharon Meroni‟s ballot in the November 2010 election and is named herein for relief
only.
6. The Respondent Candidates wish to have ballot placement on the Petitioner‟s ballot for the November
2010 General election are named herein for relief only.
7. Under the code of civil procedures, 735 ILCS 5/1-101, the order of the ISBE (SOEB) sought to be
reviewed is the basis of the petition for Judicial Review and Writ of Certiorari and is included as
attachments to this petition. .
8. Exhibit 1: The Board‟s decision entered August 6th, 2010, the Board overruled the objections granting
the Motion to Strike and Dismiss

2
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
9. Exhibit 2: The Board‟s decision to invoke the Rule 4, overruling the objections.
10. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of due process, equal protection, and her first amendment
rights; and her various other US and Illinois Constitutional rights.
11. The Petitioner‟s “Interests” (defined in the Objection Petition filed on June 28th) were not challenged.
12. In a timely fashion, the Petitioner filed her Objections challenging all candidates who wish ballot
placement on her ballot, according to various election codes, especially Article 10.
13. The Illinois State Board of Elections is bound by their Oath to uphold the US and Illinois Constitution.
They currently fail to do so when they do not require proof of age or citizenship before certifying for
placement any candidate.
14. All candidates for office must meet certain constitutional requirements to be qualified for office. All
candidates must be of a specific age and be a citizen of the United States of America to hold office in
Illinois.
15. Illinois Election Code violates the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Illinois
Constitutions. As a result, direct and immediate action is necessary to ensure that the Election Board
adheres to the Constitutional mandates.
16. As objector, the Petitioner stated that the candidates‟ nomination papers are insufficient because they
failed to demonstrate and/or provide documentation that the candidates meet the constitutional
requirement for office.
17. The State has inherent interest in the administration and “preservation of the integrity of (its) electoral
process.” American Party of Texas V. White.
18. “It is the function of the legislature to prescribe the conditions of the elective process and it is the
obligation of the courts to see that they are complied with.”
19. “States may not add any substantive qualifications beyond those specifically set forth in the U.S.
Constitution.” U.S. Term Limits, inc.vthornton (1995).
20. The nomination papers consist of 1) Statement of Candidacy, 2) the optional Loyalty Oath, 3)
Signature Petition Sheets from voters and 4) Receipt of filing statement of Economic Interest.
21. Implicit throughout the election code is the assumption that a candidate must be a registered voter, a
qualified elector, qualified voter, or a legal voter. The nomination papers that must be filed must
contain a candidate‟s affirmation of legally qualified. (10 Ilcs 5/7-10) (Also 10 ILCS 5/8-8, 5/10-4)
22. The various election codes do not define “Legally Qualified” leaving affirmations of qualifications up
to the interpretation of the candidate without any evidence one way or the other available for the
Petitioner as Objector to discern the candidates affirmation as true or not.
23. If the legal burden of proof needed is „a fair preponderance of the evidence‟, but there is no legally
sufficient evidence available to establish the legal burden of proof, it is a due process violation.
24. The lack of evidence available for the Objector/Petitioner proving Constitutional requirements are met,
eviscerates the election process, undermining and destroying the natural and intended effect of each
3
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
person‟s right for their vote to fully serve its purpose, breaching the Petitioner‟s various US and
Illinois Constitutional rights.
25. The lack of evidence available for the Objector/Petitioner proving “Must and Shall” Constitutional
requirements are met, eviscerates the election process, leaving ballot placement, of only US Citizens
who are also qualified by age, to the Luck of the Draw.
26. Through any public record available during the 5 day period, no one except the Candidate can access
evidence proving their age or citizenship. This is a due process violation.
27. The lack of evidence available for the Objector/Petitioner proving Constitutional requirements are
met, eviscerates the election process, undermining and destroying the natural and intended effect of
her right to object during the 5 day qualification period, and presents a due process issue for the
Objector.
28. The lack of evidence available to the Petitioner during the 5 day qualifying period presents a serious
due process issue because the Objector has the right to Object, even while there is no evidence
available one way or the other affirming the US and Illinois Constitutional requirements of age and
citizenship are met.
29. The lack of evidence available for the Objector/Petitioner proving Constitutional requirements are met,
present serious Civil Rights issues when the Objector is left to make Objections based on insufficient
evidence such as (but not exclusively) name, ethnicity, and spoken language.
30. To prevent civil rights issues, the Petitioner had no choice but to challenge all candidates seeking
placement on her ballot.
31. The Objector is expected to provide a specific reason for her Objection of a specific candidate, but she
is denied that opportunity when there is no evidence in the public record for which she can use to
support her Objection.
32. There is confusion over the terms of registered voter, legal voter, qualified voter, voter, elector,
qualified elector, and qualified primary elector. But as a basic premise of all of these terms, they mean
a registered voter. 10 ILCS 5/3-1.2.
33. In Illinois, Voter Registration processes do not require verification of US Citizenship or age so the
Petitioner cannot use voter registration as prima facia evidence of Citizenship.
34. Voter registration records do not contain any evidence to prove citizenship or age.
35. “The apparent purpose of the requirement that a statement of candidacy be included as part of a
candidate‟s nomination papers is to obtain a sworn statement from the candidate establishing his
qualifications to enter the primary election for the office he seeks.” Louis V. Dunne (1976). It is “a pre-
election requirement and…content related” that the actual signing of the statement, under oath, is a
mandatory requirement to establish legal eligibility. Serwinski V. The Board of Elections
Commissioners of the city of Chicago (1987).

4
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
36. The candidates‟ failure to properly file a statement of candidacy is a fatal defect (Summerville v
McGrath).
37. Electoral Boards generally void a candidacy when there is conflict or confusion within the statement of
candidacy because the filing is not legally sufficient.
38. Various Illinois Elections Code (especially, but not exclusively Article 10) require the ISBE to use
standards of “Apparent Conformity” in determining sufficiency of a candidates nomination papers.
39. Contrary to Illinois Election Code (especially, but not exclusively, Article 10)The ISBE (SOEB)
applies no standards or process of Apparent Conformity‟ as they certify candidates for placement on
her ballot. The ISBE (SOEB) applies no Apparent Conformity standards.
40. The Illinois State Board of Election refuses to publically post any “Apparent Conformity” standards,
causing for due process issues because the Petitioner cannot asses the candidates according to these
standards.
41. In the case of Pederson, he failed to file an appearance or present any evidence at the hearing, but the
Electoral Board proceeded to make an adverse hearing anyway.
42. If a candidate refuses to sign their Statement of Candidacy (Especially Christopher Pedersen -10 SOEB
GE 542, 545, 546, 547,548,551, 552) their nomination papers are not in “apparent conformity” and
thus are insufficient and the candidate should not be available for ballot placement, prima facia, and
not dependent on Objection process. The SOEB erred in denying the Petitioner Objection, effectively
ruling that Mr. Pedersen‟s papers were sufficient.
43. Rule 4 is a violation of the Objector‟s rights because it allows the Board to make a motion to strike
without providing a Hearing of the Objections set forth according to 10 ILCS 5/10-8. The electoral
board has no power to raise its own objections (Delay v Board of Election Commissioners of City of
Chicago) In addition, the state “may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally
protected liberty.” Kusper v. Pontikes.
44. Restrictions that severely burden the exercise of constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn to
advance a state interest of compelling importance. Rule 4 is too broad and it restricts the petitioner‟s
various constitutional rights.
45. Rule 4 is a violation of the ISBE‟s (SOEB) authority. The Electoral Board has no power to raise its
own objections. (Delay V. Board of Election Comissioners of city of Chicago) (First district of 2000)
46. Rule 4 violates Petitioner‟s right to challenge Objectors, with a subsequent hearing on the merits.
Corey Dabney, Edward Scanlan and Christopher Pedersen failed to file a response affirming their legal
sufficiency.
47. The signature on the Statement of Candidacy form is not legally sufficient as evidence to establish
legally qualified.

5
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
48. The ISBE (SOEB) Decision requires that pleadings afford adequate specificity or present some
credible evidence to sustain a minimum burden of proof. The petitioner is denied due process because
the only one able to access “credible evidence‟ is the candidate.
49. Due process under the 10-8 of the election code compel that the petition must “state fully the nature”
of the objections, demanding enough specificity so that a candidate is adequately apprised of the
complaint against him so as to be able to defend himself.
50. In the cases of the second “Decision” , (Relating to Strike and Dismiss Motion – Exhibit 2)
apparently the candidates Trexler, White, Dunlap, Cotton, Becker, Czarney, Malan, Pauly, Hanson,
Fox, Labno, Rutledge, Green and Boyd did understand the objections because they responded to the
exact questions of Constitutional eligibility.
51. In all Objections, the Petitioner cannot specify what is not available for her publically.
52. In the motions from Gregg Moore and Carl Officer, neither moved to Strike and Dismiss. The Board
erred in granting a motion of which neither party actually made motion. In addition to a procedural
issue, a due process issue, once again the ISBE (SOEB) essentially used its own „assumed‟ power to
raise its own objections. This is contrary to established law.
53. While Carl Officer said he would send a copy of his response, the Petitioner never received this
response and alerted Mr. Officer and the Hearing Officer several times of that fact. Therefor the
Objector had to make a blind response to Mr. Officer, fully compromising her various rights,
especially due process. Thus a Board decision was made despite the Petitioner/Objector never
receiving the “response.” The Board erred in allowing “Strike and Dismiss” motions in the cases of
Carl Officer. To the Petitioners knowledge no such motion was made by Mr. Officer.
54. The Board erred in allowing “Strike and Dismiss” motions in the cases of Gregg Moore. Mr. Moore
obviously understood the Objection against him as he responded that the information was in his papers
when clearly it is not. Regardless, Mr. Moore did not file a motion to Strike and Dismiss.
55. The Board erred in its Decision that the Petitioner did not specify a remedy. The remedy when a paper
is not sufficient is clearly not to be placed on the ballot.
56. The Electoral Board has not been given the statutory jurisdiction to inquire into the truth and accuracy
of the Nomination Papers affirming they are legally qualified. Yet they deny the Petitioner her right to
do so.
57. A reviewing court must ascertain whether findings of the Electoral Board are against the manifest
weight of the evidence. The Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari because the Illinois Election Code
provides no statute requiring the posting of proof of Age or US Citizenship. Thus, failing to secure the
Petitioner‟s various constitutional rights. The Petitioner cannot cite evidence or a statue to prove the
qualifications of the candidates or not. This also apples to evaluations of legally qualified.
58. SECTION 24. RIGHTS RETAINED The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State. (Source: Illinois
6
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Constitution.) If the State and its agents refuse to enforce constitutional mandates, the Petitioner
claims her rights to do so.

Relief:
A. The decisions of the Board should be reversed in total or in parts, because the decisions are
contrary to both the United States and the Illinois constitutions and is a denial of the petitioner‟s
various constitutional rights.
B. That this petition be granted and that this court enter its judgment reversing the Board‟s Decisions
as written in Exhibit 1 and 2.
C. A Writ of Certiorari should be granted as relief
D. Various other reliefs as this Court deems necessary and proper

____________________________
Plaintiff: Sharon Ann Meroni
Address: One Surrey Lane
Barrington Hills, IL 60010
SharMeroni@aol.com

Telephone 847-778-3495 (Cell)

7
SECTION 23. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES : A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of civil
government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure
unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)