Attorney Tom Devore has filed his response to the Normal Electoral Board on behalf of Amy Conklin, Charles Sila and Robert Shoraga. The three filed to run as candidates for office in Normal’s spring elections. Devore’s filing is in response to objections filed against the petitions by Patrick Dullard and Jeffrey Fritzen.
In his filing DeVore notes, “On or about December 02, 2022, counsel for the Town of Normal sent written notices to each Candidate stating the Town of Normal would not recognize the nominating papers of the Candidates.”
The town of Normal hired Michael Kasper to help them make that decision. The objectors in this case later filed their objections on December 5th. Then the Normal Electoral Board hired Casper to represent them in this case.
Given this apparent conflict of interest, DeVore considered asking for a change of venue. But instead he decided to address this as part of his summary in response to the objector’s filings.
DeVore wrote, “Before addressing this issue, the Candidates question the ability of this Board to be fair and impartial given their attorney, Mr. Michael Kasper, has already stated the Town of Normal has concluded their nominating papers to be invalid due to their opinion that local law controls.”
DeVore’s argument is that state law preempts local law. In his response DeVore wrote, “The state law is plain and unambiguous. The state law commands the current town clerk to certify for the ballot the Candidates names for these offices.”
Devore continued, “In front of this Board is a state statute which commands the nominating papers of the Candidates be certified. Any local election provisions adopted only by an act of its council, which might contradict or are inconsistent with, the state statute are void.”
“The nominating papers of the three Candidates are in conformity with the controlling law, of which this Board is bound, and as such their names must be certified by the current town clerk and their names placed on the ballot. Any other decision would be reversible error,” DeVore wrote.
A Normal Hire, Mike Madigan Defense Attorney Throws Three People Off April Ballot
Todd Greenburg, the attorney for Dullard and Fritzen, told us that that the state statute in question only applies to the Town of Cicero.
In his response DeVore wrote, “Suggesting statutory construction results in a conclusion that somehow the relevant state law only applies to the Town of Cicero would also be reversible error as the statute is crystal clear that it applies to every incorporated town over 25,000.”
DeVore continued, “There are only two of such towns and the legislature assuredly understood that. If the legislature had intended the relevant statute to apply only to the Town of Cicero, they would have clearly said so.”
Another of Greenburg’s arguments that he told us is, “The laws of interpreting statutes are the laws won’t be interpreted in a way that is absurd. There are already people in the townships, in Normal Township in Dry Grove Township and in Towanda Township which are all in the city limits of Normal that have Supervisors and have Collectors and have Town Clerks.”
Devore told us Greenburg’s use of the word absurd has no legal standing in this case.
Devore said, “Sometimes when you are interpreting a statute that is ambiguous and you’re not sure of what the interpretation of it is, sometimes if someone is arguing an interpretation that would lead to absurd results that can be a factor that a court considers when it is deciding whether or not to accept that interpretation.
DeVore continued, “But absurdity is irrelevant when you are dealing with a statute that is clear and not otherwise ambiguous. It doesn’t matter. So this statute is absolutely crystal clear. It says you shall have these. So absurdity to the extent you are interpreting a non ambiguous statute is not even a relevant legal analysis. So absurdity doesn’t matter in this case.”
