Three Cook County judicial candidates removed from the March ballot

Updated 1/19/24 to add additional authorities

As if we didn't have a dearth of contests already....

At yesterday's meeting of the Cook County Officers Electoral Board, two Appellate Court candidates, Circuit Court Judges Carolyn Gallagher and Leonard Murray, were removed from the March primary ballot.

For now, subject to any possible court challenge, the Electoral Board's action leaves four remaining candidates, all slated by the Cook County Democratic Party, unopposed in the March primary. These four candidates are Mary Lane Mikva, Cynthia Y. Cobbs, Carl Anthony Walker (all currently serving as justices of the Appellate Court pursuant to Supreme Court appointment), and Circuit Court Judge Celia Louise Gamrath. No Republicans filed for any of these vacancies.

At that same meeting, the Electoral Board also voted to remove Ashonta C. Rice as a candidate for the countywide Sullivan vacancy. Again, subject to any possible court challenge, the Board's action yesterday leaves Judge James S. Murphy-Aguilú unopposed in that race. No Republicans filed for any countywide Circuit Court vacancies either.

The Electoral Board did overrule a challenge to the nominating petitions of Steve Demitro, who is running, and who now can continue to run, against Griselda Vega Samuel. The Board also entered orders disposing of challenges to three other candidates as moot, specifically regarding Michael O'Malley (8th Subcircuit), Michael B. Kilgallon, Jr. (10th Subcircuit), and Hector J. Rodriguez (16th Subcircuit). Each of these candidates withdrew from the primary after the challenges to their nominating papers were filed.

O'Malley's departure leaves Loveleen Ahuja unopposed in her bid for the Collin-Dole vacancy in the 8th Subcircuit. Rodriguez's withrdrawal leaves Pedro Fregoso, Jr. unopposed in his bid for the 16th Subcircuit judgeship converted from the associate judgeship of Lawrence E. Flood. A contest still remains in the Democratic Primary for the Wojkowski vacancy in the 10th Subcircuit, however. While Kilgallon has been removed from the ballot, James V. Murphy and Liam Kelly remain.

Many cases before the Cook County Officers Electoral Board come down to counting or contesting signatures. The question is more mathematical than legal: Does Candidate X have the requisite number of valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot... or not? Of course, all manner of legal arguments are deployed in challenging or defending individual signatures, or sheets of signatures, in these cases... but when the legal smoke clears, Candidate X has the requisite Y signatures... or Candidate X is ruled off the ballot.

The Rice and Gallagher/Murray cases were different. Both turned on legal interpretations of different provisions of the Election Code, and the issues presented in these cases will be taken up, separately, in future posts here. Stay tuned.

For the moment, however, suffice it to say that, in the Rice case, the Electoral Board chose to accept the recommendation of its duly appointed hearing officer; in the Gallagher/Murray case, the Electoral Board chose to reject the recommendation of the hearing officer assigned in that case.

This is a point of administrative law that some FWIW readers (meaning those who do not regularly practice in the field of administrative law) may find counterintuitive... at the very least: The Electoral Board, like virtually any administrative agency, can appoint hearing officers to be its 'eyes and ears' in a given case, but, inasmuch as these hearing officers are its own creatures, an agency or board is typically free to accept or reject the findings made by the hearing officer, or perhaps disregard them entirely, even though the hearing officer, and not the agency or board, saw or heard the witnesses.

It is a little easier to accept this principle when, as in the Rice and Gallagher/Murray cases here under discussion, only questions of law are presented.

It is the Electoral Board's decision that is the paramount focus on review. Even in the Appellate Court, where the Circuit Court has offered its evaluation of the Electoral Board's action, "the appellate court reviews the decision of the electoral board, rather than the decision of the circuit court." Zurek v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 2014 IL App (1st) 140446, ¶10.

And, moreover, under Illinois law, there is nothing per se illegal, immoral, or fattening in an agency (or, specifically, the Cook County Officers Electoral Board) choosing to follow its hearing officer's recommendation in one case and refusing to follow it in another, even where, as here, the choices made result in a clear benefit to the slate chosen by the Cook County Democratic Party.

We'll pause here for a couple of other posts in the pipeline, and then return to a merits discussion of the Rice and Gallagher/Murray decisions.