Case: Whitten v. Rochester Township Republican Central Committee

This is a case concerning proper candidate nomination and caucus procedures in Illinois.

An unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination for Rochester Township’s Road Commissioner (“Candidate”), as well as four caucus-goers of the December 1, 2020 Rochester Township Republican caucus, filed this suit represented by private attorneys in the Central District of Illinois on January 15, 2021. Plaintiffs had previously filed suit in state court, but their case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for the voiding of the caucus results and the ordering of a new caucus under both 42 U.S.C. Sec 1983, as well as Illinois state law ILCS 5/29-1. Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit against the Rochester Township Republican Central Committee (“Committee”), the Clerks of Rochester Township and Sangamon County, Illinois, and the Republican nominee for Rochester Township Road Commissioner.

Candidate sought the Republican nomination for the Road Commissioner position of Rochester Township, Illinois, and appeared at the party’s caucus organized by the Committee.  Candidate was one of two individuals seeking the Road Commissioner position at the caucus, held on December 1, 2020.  Plaintiffs alleged that the caucus’s ballots were improperly printed with only Candidate’s opponent’s name on them sometime before the caucus, and that Candidate’s supporters were forced to write his name on the ballots.  Plaintiffs also alleged that approximately 20% of the ballots (22 of 115) were completed by caucus-goers outside of the facility before the caucus officially begun.  Plaintiffs argued that these circumstances hampered Candidate’s chances of success, because the 20% of caucus-goers completing their ballots before the caucus began may not have even known that Candidate was running, and that Candidate was unfairly disadvantaged by being a write-in candidate.  They also alleged the Committee acted in violation of the Illinois State Board of Elections guidance.  Plaintiffs contended these actions deprived Candidate and his supporters of their due process and freedom of association rights.  

Plaintiffs initially brought a case in Illinois state court for the same claims that was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which Plaintiffs appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.  During the pendency of that appeal, Plaintiffs initiated this suit in the Central District of Illinois on January 15, 2021.  Plaintiffs alleged that these actions constituted violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Illinois state law ILCS 5/29-1.  Plaintiffs sought under both counts (i) a declaration that the December 1, 2020 caucus results were invalid; (ii) an injunction to prevent the winner from being certified as the Republican candidate for Road Commissioner in the April 6, 2021 general election; (iii) an order for the Committee to either hold a new caucus or re-vote for the nomination; and (iv) attorney’s fees and other costs.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on January 19, 2021.  In their accompanying memorandum, Plaintiffs argued they were likely to succeed on the merits because the caucus’s procedures deprived Candidate of his ability to meaningfully participate in the Road Commissioner election, violating his right to due process and his supporters’ right to freedom of association.  Plaintiffs also alleged all Defendants acted under color of law by organizing a party caucus and/or certifying the caucus results. They similarly argued that they suffered irreparable harm from these actions, and that there was a limited burden by granted their relief for a new caucus.

One defendant, the Rochester Township Clerk, filed an objection to the motion for a temporary restraining order, which was later joined by another defendant, the victorious candidate.  In their objection, the defendants argued that the pending state court appeal meant the Central District lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.  Citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ relief essentially sough reversal of the state court judgment, which held that Illinois statute provides an administrative remedy for challenging party nomination procedures, and that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust that administrative remedy. Defendants also argued that the Central District should not hear the case under Colorado River abstention, because the state court proceeding was parallel to the federal case, the state case was further along, and that the state law ultimately determined the outcome of both cases. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because party committee members do not act under color of law under Illinois law.

The Court dismissed the case on February 1, 2021, agreeing with the defendants by finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  The Court found that the relief Plaintiffs sought was “obviously” seeking to overturn the state court judgment that they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, which the Court lacked the authority to do.  The Court determined that the decision was properly reviewable by the Illinois Appellate Court, not the Central District of Illinois, and that it therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue.  The Court dismissed the case and terminated Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on February 4, 2021, arguing that the Court misinterpreted certain precedential caselaw cited in its decision and that there was proper subject matter jurisdiction because the underlying state court case was never decided on the merits.  The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on February 12, 2021, reiterating that Plaintiffs’ relief inherently required the Court to reverse the state court decision.

The case remains closed.