Attorney Michael Kasper filed a 414 page motion on Wednesday to dismiss the case of Shoraga et al. v. Normal and Hounker. Kasper needed a week to prepare the filing. Tom DeVore, attorney for Shoraga, agreed at the status hearing last week to respond in one day (Thursday). That sets up a hearing scheduled today at 1:30pm.
The case involves three Normal residents who filed nominating petitions to run for three offices that the town doesn’t believe it is required to elect. The candidates argue state law requires the offices. Those Candidates are Amy Conklin, Robert Shoraga and Charles Sila.
In their motion Normal argues the case, “should be dismissed because no unequivocal right exists to be placed on the ballot for an unelected office and the Town of Normal (“Normal”) clerk did not have an unequivocal duty to certify an unelected office for the ballot. Plaintiffs look to the wrong statutes to claim the offices they seek should be elected.”
Normal’s lead attorney Michael Kasper wrote, “Plaintiffs, by focusing exclusively on § 10-8 of the Election Code and §§ 3.1-25-90 and 3.1-25-95 of the Municipal Code, neglect the important fact that Normal has adopted a managerial form of government and, therefore, Article 5 of the Municipal Code, rather than the statutory provisions Plaintiffs set forth in their pleadings, provides the legal basis for (Normal Town Clerk Angie) Huonker’s actions regarding Plaintiffs’ nominating papers.”
Normal Filing Motion to Dismiss in Conklin, Shoraga and Sila Versus Normal and Huonker
DeVore’s case rests largely on 3.1-25-95 which reads in part, “Incorporated town officers. For the general municipal election to be held in the year 1985 in every incorporated town with a population of 25,000 or more by the last official census, and every 4 years thereafter, the municipal clerk shall certify the names of the candidates to the proper election authority as provided by the general election law. A president, a clerk, an assessor, a collector, and a supervisor shall be elected for a term of 4 years and until their successors are elected and have qualified.”
Kaplan argues that since Normal approved a managerial form of government in 1970 that 3.1-25-95 does not apply to the town. Instead he claims Article 5 applies to Normal. But there is a major problem with Kaplan’s argument. Article 5 only applies to cities and villages.
Last year Normal went to great lengths to argue it was a town and won a legal decision determining such in court . Therefore residents were not allowed to petition their government to create districts in Normal and elect its trustees by district. Now Normal is putting that legal decision aside and basing their argument in this case on the fact that they operate like a village.
Today’s hearing regarding the motion to dismiss and if necessary a motion for summary judgement will be held in court room 5D at the McLean County Law and Justice Center with Judge Mark Fellheimer presiding.
