Sign up for Chalkbeat Chicago’s free daily newsletter to keep up with the latest news on Chicago Public Schools.A decision Tuesday by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners prevents dozens of school board candidates from being removed from the ballot.In a 3-0 motion, the board ruled against multiple objectors who said the candidates collected signatures improperly by working with petition circulators who had also circulated petitions for partisan candidates in Illinois’ March primary — known as “dual-circulation.” Chicago’s school board races are nonpartisan. Adam Lasker, general counsel for the board, said this ruling is not technically final, but the board members do not intend to change their opinion.For the first time, all 21 seats on Chicago’s Board of Education are on the ballot in November’s general election. In May, 51 people filed nominating petitions, but 28 now face challenges that argue they don’t have enough valid signatures to have their name printed on the ballot. Many of those challenges made the “dual-circulation” argument. The Electoral Board met at 10 a.m. on Tuesday to hear arguments on the dual-circulation objections questioning the legality of 22 school board candidates’ petitions. What is the “dual-circulation” argument?By Illinois election code, a circulator cannot petition for candidates from two different parties in the same election cycle. Another section states that unless it creates some inconsistency, nonpartisan candidates are treated as independent candidates, which counts as a party affiliation.Ed Mullen, an election lawyer representing multiple candidates, argued that the dual-circulation law should be judged on its intentions, which were to prevent a candidate from switching party affiliation during a single election cycle. He also noted that candidates had no choice but to run as nonpartisan in the school board election.Candidate lawyer Ed Mullen delivers an argument against sustaining the dual-circulation objections.“You’re not switching party affiliation,” Mullen said. “Democrats run against independents, New Party, and Republicans. Nonpartisan runs against nonpartisan. They are not adverse to each other.”Mullen also addressed voter confusion, saying that since the circulations were months apart and for different offices, it would not be confusing to voters to have the same circulator distributing a partisan petition in the primary and a nonpartisan petition for the school board.Michael Kasper, lawyer for the petition objectors, argued that an Illinois Supreme Court ruling, McCaskill v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board for the City of Harvey, that held dual-circulation prohibition does not apply to nonpartisan elections applied only to consolidated elections in odd-numbered years. It doesn’t apply to the general election on which the school board ticket will be run, and thus nonpartisan candidates should be treated as independents, Kasper argued. Kasper also argued that having petitioners circulate for nonpartisan candidates was confusing to voters, since petitioners would be asking for signatures for nonpartisan candidates when they’d previously been doing so for partisan candidates.“The voters are confused when this circulator shows up at the doorstep with an independent petition,” Kasper asked. “But they’re not confused when that same person shows up at the same door on the same day with a nonpartisan petition? Come on.”Objector lawyer Michael Kasper diagrams his argument that petitioners need to maintain party alignment throughout an election cycle.What did the board decide?After hearing the statements, the electoral board’s general counsel Lasker said that even if the objectors’ arguments stood, they were bound by legal precedent established by cases like McCaskill. Lasker also said asking candidates to keep track of whether circulators were previously affiliated would have placed a tremendous burden on their campaigns. After the statements were made, all three members of the board voted in favor of dismissing the dual-circulation challenges. The Board of Election Commissioners will resolve the other objections on a case-by-case basis. Hearings are scheduled per-candidate with hearing officers, with the last on July 8. The final decisions are made by the Board of Election Commissioners after those hearings are complete.Lasker says those hearings won’t change the board’s ruling on this decision.The final decisions may still be appealed after they are made, in which case the objection would be retried in an appellate court.Most candidates who have received the dual-circulation objection will have signatures above the threshold required to earn a place on the ballot, even if all other petition objections stick. Candidates who are facing other objections that could place them below the threshold still may not have enough, but will no longer face the dual-circulation objection.“I think this is really an objection that was created to sow chaos in the election,” Mullen said in an interview with Chalkbeat. “And in that respect it worked, but on the legal perspective it didn’t.”The board also moved to drop objections against three candidates after two objections were withdrawn and another was overruled.This means Aaron “Jitu” Brown (5a) and Katherine Dunneback (9b) will appear on the ballot this fall. Rosita Chatonda (10b) still has one objection case pending, but another objection against her petition was dropped.
