Filed Date: Feb. 2, 2016
Closed Date: Sept. 13, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case involved allegations that procedures undertaken by the local statutory entity in relation to the plaintiff's nomination application and objections levied against the validity of such application violated the plaintiff's substantive and procedural due-process rights.
In pursuit of her candidacy in the March 15, 2016 election to the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiff ("candidate plaintiff") filed a Petition for Nomination containing 13,430 signatures by registered voters of Cook County, which was above the statutorily-mandated number of 5,365 signatures. Following an objection by Audrey Jacox (who is not party to this lawsuit), the Cook County Officers Electoral Board ("CCOEB") conducted a "Rule 6 records examination," which concluded that a substantially large number of signatures were invalid and thus disallowed. After unsuccessful motions to extend deadlines and motions to reconsider denials, the candidate plaintiff was removed from the Primary Ballot. The candidate plaintiff pursued judicial review of CCOEB's decision in the Circuit Court of Cook County, which upheld CCOEB's decision that the candidate plaintiff's nomination papers were invalid, a decision which was upheld by the Illinois Appellate Court (First Judicial District) (Kowalski v. Cook Cnty. Officers Electoral Bd., et al., 2016 IL App (1st) 160217-U).
In parallel to her state court actions, the candidate plaintiff filed a complaint on 2 February 2016 against the CCOEB and certain named individuals (together with CCOEB, the "Defendants") alleging violations of her rights under (i) the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ii) § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, et seq., and (iii) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. The complaint was later amended on 16 February 2016 to add a new plaintiff, an African-American voter who signed the candidate plaintiff's petition and whose signature was disallowed because his signature was not found in the computerized voting records maintained by Cook County, although the plaintiffs argued they were found in the voting records maintained by the City of Chicago's board of election.
The plaintiffs alleged that (i) CCOEB invalidated 8,600 signatures, of which 95% were by African-American voters, thereby disenfranchising a large number of voters; (ii) the failure by CCOEB to maintain updated and synchronized voters' registration data resulted in racial minorities being denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process; and (iii) the conduct by CCOEB in repeatedly violating sections of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. and Illinois constitutions constituted racketeering activity.
The plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief and Mandamus on 3 February 2016 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81, which were each denied on 1 March 2016 (2016 WL 792333). The candidate plaintiff argued that (i) she submitted a nomination petition with the required number of signatures and so placing her name on the ballot was a purely ministerial act; and (ii) the CCOEB was improperly convened as only designees but no members of the CCOEB were physically present.
On March 1, 2016, the court held that candidate plaintiff was not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring CCOEB to reverse its decision and place her name on the ballot because (i) the CCOEB was tasked with determining whether the signatures obtained were in fact valid (implying that it was not merely whether the requisite number of signatures had been obtained that determined if a name was placed on the ballot); and (ii) the Illinois Election Code permitted designees to represent the members of the board. The court also found that while candidate plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law, would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted, and there was no indication the injunction would harm the public interest, candidate plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated likelihood of success on her motion to justify a mandatory injunction, and hence this motion too was denied. Finally, the court agreed with the defendants' argument that candidate plaintiff's motions were barred by res judicata on the basis that candidate plaintiff had included petitions for mandamus and injunctive relief in her state complaint, which the state court dismissed (Id.).
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that (i) the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata; (ii) the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing; and (iii) the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
On September 13, 2016, the court held in favor of the defendants and granted their motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that (i) while the plaintiffs had shown sufficient "but-for" causation for their injury, they did not show a concrete and particularized injury, and did not respond to the defendants' arguments about redressability, thereby failing to allege Article III standing; (ii) the plaintiffs' suit, to the extent it was alleged that the defendants were violating federal statues, was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because, although the defendants are state officials and entities created by state constitution and state statute, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against such state officials/entities that have allegedly violated the federal constitution; and (iii) the doctrine of res judicata was upheld in this case because the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed federal claims from the state lawsuit without expressly reserving them (2016 WL 4765711).
No further action has been taken since the court issued its ruling in favor of the defendants' motion to dismiss on 13 September 2016.
Summary Authors
Taarika Sridhar (9/16/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5631996/parties/kowalski-v-cook-county-officers-electoral-board/
Darrah, John W. (Illinois)
Kowalski, Robert Michael (Illinois)
Sistrunk, Ziff (Illinois)
Madden, Daniel Patrick (Illinois)
Spicuzza, Marie D (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5631996/kowalski-v-cook-county-officers-electoral-board/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:13 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 2, 2016
Closing Date: Sept. 13, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
(1) a female resident and registered voter in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and a candidate in the primary election of March 15, 2016 for the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Cook County, Illinois. (2) a resident in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and one of the individuals whose signature on a candidate nomination petition form was disallowed.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Cook County Officers' Electoral Board (Chicago, Cook), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Amount Defendant Pays: $0
Issues
Voting: