This is a countdown of the top 10 stories of 2022 written by Cat Petersen and/or Kevin Woodard. These are stories in the sense of “stories we followed.” Each of these “stories” had multiple stories written about them and published on our web site.
Number 1. District Normal
In August a group calling itself Citizens for a Better Normal circulated and turned in petitions to the Normal Town Clerk’s office asking that the town put a referendum on the ballot that would result in the town determining six districts and electing a trustee from each district as opposed to electing its six trustees at large.
The group issued a press release explaining why it was taking this action. The press release read in part, “We are a diverse group covering the political spectrum who care deeply for Normal. We are filing this petition because we believe it is time for voters to decide whether districting is best for the future of our town.”
An advocate for more bike and pedestrian travel in Bloomington-Normal and president of Friends of the Constitution Trail Patrick Dullard filed an objection to prevent the item from appearing on the ballot. If allowed on the ballot the question would read, “Shall the Town be divided into six districts and have one elected official representing each district?”
Bike Blono’s Patrick Dullard files an Objection Against The Normal Districting Petition
A meeting of the Normal Electoral Board was scheduled for a hearing of the objection in the Town of Normal Council Chambers. Board members were Mayor Chris Koos, Kevin McCarthy as the senior trustee, and Town Clerk Angie Huonker.
At that hearing Koos appointed town attorney Brian Day to the Board. They then adopted rules. Patrick Dullard was recognized as the objector and provided with information. And Kathy Siracuse was recognized as the respondent and provided information.
The board assigned a case management call to be held. The call involved Day, Dullard and Siracuse. Koos announced a deadline for any briefs or motions to be filed. It was stated that if necessary a records check would be made. Koos then scheduled a date for the hearing to reconvene. After that the hearing was recessed and the public was allowed to comment.
Siracuse told Cities 92.9 how she became the respondent saying she delivered the signatures for the petition to the town clerk to file and “because I delivered them to the desk they needed someone to file a piece of paper as a contact person. I signed that not knowing that I would be the one that got the summons for the hearing, that I would be the one that got the registered letters in the mail, that I would be the one that had to stand up and speak on behalf of the group.”
Normal Electoral Board Acts on Districting Amendment Challenge Process
Koos decided a records check was necessary and scheduled it. By the time it was held Siracuse had an attorney, David Shestokas. Shestokas, a Constitutional Attorney, ran for Illinois State Attorney general and is a renowned lawyer. Shestokas made a motion to dismiss the records check, a combing through of signatures. But the records check went on as scheduled that day and continued for hours.
When the hearing convened Koos attempted to focus the hearing on four subjects.
- Whether Normal is a Town or a Village,
- The Objector’s General Objection to Signatures,
- If Signature Gatherers Must Be Normal Residents and
- If the Town Clerk Can Strike Petition Signatures For Cause.
Shestokas objected saying a motion he had made to dismiss or strike should be handled first.
In his original objection to the petition signatures Dullard had argued that because Normal is a town petitioners had no right to petition. Dullard’s argument was that petitions for ballot referendums can only be circulated in villages.
Shestokas argued that Supreme Court Cases since 1877 have ruled the terms are interchangeable. He also stated the last time this was argued before the Illinois Supreme Court was 1910 and that therefore it is now settled law.
The second matter Shestokas decided should be addressed was Dullard’s claim that there were not enough signatures.
Shestokas stated that statutes require the objector to state his opposition to particular signatures or sheets of signatures and state the reason for the objection to each signature or sheet of signatures at the time the objection is filed. General or “Shotgun” objections are not acceptable.
The Normal Election Board took everything under advisement, set a date to reconvene and adjourned the hearing a second time.
When the hearing reconvened the Normal Elecoral Board found that Normal is a Town and not a Village. Shestokas maintained it was a Village. Consequently, Shestokas announced he would be filing an appeal in McLean County Circuit Court. The appeal will be handled by an elected judge. Shestokas said, “That’s the first order of business.”
In addition to his argument that the terms city, town and village were interchangeable, Shestokas also continued to refine a counter argument.
Kathy Siracuse Versus Town of Normal Electoral Board and Patrick Dullard to be Filed Soon.
According to Shestokas, Normal clearly is not a city. There are a number of things that have to be done to be a city. Normal has not done these things. And no one was arguing Normal was a city. The rub was between the terms town and village.
Shestokas noted that since 1985 Illinois Towns have been required to elect a President, Supervisor, Assessor, Collector, Treasurer and Clerk. Normal has never elected those particular officers and if it is a town it has been operating illegally since 1985, he claimed. Therefore, Shestokas deducted, since Normal is not a City or a Town the only option left in Illinois is a village.
Shestokas did gain a split at the hearing though. Part of Patrick Dullard’s objection didn’t fly with the board. That was the part regarding the validity of petition signatures. The objection did not point to specific signatures or petition sheets that were faulty in some way. The law says you have to do that.
Shestokas said the courts would not take fresh evidence or testimony. They will be presented with everything the board was presented with.
If it Looks like a Village and quacks like a Village….it’s a Village!
“That’s why we worked really hard to put together a complete record of everything that happened,” said Shestokas. “We put together four-five pages explaining the history, ‘town’ versus ‘village,’ and the Illinois Supreme Court definitions of those and in the end there are only three possible municipal organizations in the Illinois Municipal Code.
Shestokas said Normal also conducts all their elections according to ‘village’ standards. “If it looks like a village, quacks like a village, it’s a village.” said Shestokas.
In September Shestokas filed “Kathy Siracuse, Petitioner, v. Patrick Dullard, Respondent-Objector, Kathy Michael, in her official capacity as McLean County Clerk, Respondents.”
Shestokas requested a judicial review arguing that ” the decision of the (Normal) Electoral Board should be reversed because regardless how the “Town of Normal” chooses to present itself to the world, under the Municipal Code of Illinois it is a Village,”
Shestokas asked the “court enter its judgment reversing the decision of the Electoral Board, and order that the Petitioner’s Referendum to divide the town into six districts with one trustee elected from each district” be printed on the November 8, 2022, General Election ballot.”
“Town of Normal”, is the equivalent of a DBA rather than a statement of legal status,” Shestokas wrote. “There is no other option. The board erred, as a matter of law, in assuming that Normal is an “incorporated town”. It is of note that the board provided no legal authority for its conclusions and should be overruled by this honorable court, conducting a de novo review,” he said.
Shestokas also filed a supplemental Memorandum of Law in support of his petitition for Judicial Review in Siracuse versus Dullard. It regarded what Shestokas called the 1970 Precedent.
The issue of whether the petition process for converting to a city manager form of government applied to towns arose prior to the March 2, 1970 election. Normal argued it was a town through it’s electoral board when it ruled against a petition that was presented to the town by citizens to change Normal’s government to a City Manager form of government.
Shestokas Files Supplemental Memorandum in Siracuse versus Dullard
That decision was also appealed through the judicial review process. A Pantagraph article dated January 30, 1970, quoted Associate Judge Wayne C. Townley rendering his decisions in which he said “to deny Normal the right to such an election would be unconstitutional when other municipalities generally are granted that privilege by statute.”
According to Shestokas, “In 1970, the referendum by which the “Town of Normal” adopted the Managerial Form of Government was conducted pursuant to the law of Villages.”
12th Associate Circuit Judge Scott Kording was assigned to handle the case. Kording filed a Case Management Order that set out how the case would proceed.
The order required the Normal Electoral Board file its Record of Proceedings. A deadline was set for any formal written response from a respondent regarding the petitioners judicial review petition. The order set a deadline for the petitioner to submit any further supplemental papers or responses to respondents submittals. And a hearing date was set.
Judge Scott Kording Sets Schedule for District Normal Appeal
The next day Michael filed a Motion for an Expedited Hearing. The request was filed by Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Spanos representing McLean County government. Michael was concerned about timing as she needed to have ballots ready for early voting. A hearing was set via Zoom to hear her request with all parties present.
At the hearing held via Zoom on a Friday, Kording ruled he would expedite the hearing and moved the case hearing up a week to the following Monday.
Michael argued she was bound by federal law to mail ballots to service members 45 days before the election. Michael needed the case to be decided as soon as possible so she she could print the ballots accurately one time and not have to reprint them.
After the hearing Michael told Cities 92.9, “When I heard the date for the hearing was Sept 23, I was concerned. I knew we were up against some crucial deadlines for preparing our ballots.”
Michael continued, “I asked my attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Spanos, to file a motion to hear our case that waiting this long would put the County Clerk’s office at risk of violating state and federal elections laws.”
At the beginning of the hearing there was discussion regarding the appropriateness of a ‘de novo’ review. The phrase is from the Latin and means ‘from the new.’ According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, “When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case.”
According to Kording, in this case the court is acting as an appellate court in lieu of its typical behavior as a trial court. “An appellate court hearing a case de novo may refer to the lower court’s record to determine the facts, but will rule on the evidence and matters of law without deferring to that court’s findings,” according to the Legal Information Institute.
Kording and the attorneys agreed that a de novo review was appropriate and that Kording would be constrained to make his decision based on evidence presented at the board hearing. Outside of that, the only additional information he could consider when coming to his decision would be the law.
Kording Constrained by Presentations to Normal Electoral Board
Kording heard each sides arguments, took everything shared under advisement and scheduled another Zoom meeting for the next day when he planned to announce his decision.
At that Zoom hearing Kording ruled in favor of Dullard. In doing so the court agreed with the lower tribunal of law which in this case was the Normal Election Board. That board ruled that Normal is a town and residents of a town have no legal basis to petition for an amendment of this type to be put on a ballot.
Kording based his decision on the fact that in 1867 the legislature passed, “An Act to Incorporate the Town of Normal. Kording took the time to not only consider the act as presented on Normal’s website but also verified its correctness by finding an 1867 text that included a copy of the act.
Kording said he appreciated the argument made by Shestokas that Normal acted like a village but that the argument did not “carry the day.” Instead Kording agreed with Todd Greenburg, attorney for Dullard that Normal has taken no legal action to change its legal status and therefore remains legally a town.
Regarding the 1970 precedent, Kording found the two cases distinguishable. That is he did not believe the 1970 case had a bearing on the 2022 case.
Kording admitted that the petitioner’s argument regarding 1985 legislation requiring town’s to elect certain officers was the petitioner’s best argument. However, Kording decided that because the town hadn’t taken direct steps to change from a town to a village that even failing to abide by that law would not result in Normal being a village.
Kording did not rule on the 1985 issue itself because the Town of Normal wasn’t part of the case and was therefore not able to provide their input on that matter. Therefore that subject remained unsettled.
