nominating papers of animal or candidate for state representative in the forty third for the democratic nomination for state representative in the forty third district alibi which is up in the elevator because this matter involves a matter of statutory construction or statutory interpretation exceptions on the bar against signing nominating petitions or being a candidate for more than one party in a single election cycle under section eight of the election code the second argument is that the board's interpretation of section eight in him it's achieving its public policy purpose of preventing one party from manipulating the primary election of candidates in the other political party third argument is that care more the act of first signing her own nominating petitions prior to signing the nominee petitions of a republican candidate in the same election cycle does not render her own nominating papers to be valid and lastly the petitioner appellant argues that the petitioners interpretation does not render section a day the election code unconstitutional as advanced argument by the athlete as to the first argument as to the plain language of the statute section eight provides that important part that a qualified primary like door of a party may not sign the petition for or be a candidate in the primary election of more than one party council what is the remedy and the statute for a violation of those two for a violation of signing in more than one or being a candidate more than one yet if your statutory remedy you what the remedy is to have to rely on case law as to the remedy yes i would agree that you have to rely on case law yes i section eight as i was saying to those why court found that this section talk to walk ins but all think it relies on walk ins in the sense that the apple leader would have this court understand it relies on walk ins it the walk ins decision itself is talking about dissimilar situation talking about a circumstance where we're determining what signatures on a candidates nominee petition is valid it's not talking about whether the nominee papers themselves for the candidate are valid so i don't think it's central to the decision that the rose come to the attention of the legislature that this is an issue that needs to be addressed though it has now come up as an issue in at least three cases in the last three years and those are all cited in our brief there's the manjeet case the instant case and if you'll bear with me for a second be needs to be decided needs to be stressed by this court the second argument that we have advanced is that the or its interpretation of section eight encourages party reading rather than actually prevention and this is the the real issue that there's a real concern i think that i have with the walk ins decision itself watkins is addressing one one way that one individual or party can interfere with the the other political parties primary process it's addressing i think what they call flat false flag candidates where you have a member of party a who runs as a candidate and party with the hope that that individual gets elected and kind of lays down for the election of party b s real candidate and in the watkins case you would the rule that they numerate in that case would prevent that but it doesn't address the kind of party rating we see in this case because under walk ins if you sign for the individual first then your subsequent signatures are invalid so you can't plant false why can it not support your own but what you have in this case is a factually dissimilar circumstance in the walk ins rule doesn't prevent this type of party it actually promotes  have a situation here and i'm not saying that this is ms moore's intent i don't think that that's relevant but you have if you fall of the rule that there's more of elections as enumerated in this case and that the circuit court affirmed in this case what you have is a situation where if i want to influence party b who know nothing about that file their nominee papers we walk into the seaport of elections and file an objection to all the paper saying they're invalid because we signed ours first and the wrong walk ins does not prevent that party raid it actually promotes that kind of party raid i think have in fact such as prevented in this case that's the real issue i think with the walk ins decision so to the extent that the rosenzweig court relies on it i think that would be in error because of the fact that it's not promoting the public policy purpose that section eight is for the kind of thing that section eight is supposed to be preventing from a public policy standpoint the state has a legitimate interest in curtailing party reading and preserving  ruled you can't cite any democratic nominee protection and then run as a republican of course even if sequencing is relevant i think it's important to note that more in this case did sign the republican candidates nominee petition and then file after that to runs into the it reexamination may be warranted moreover i started decisis does not prevent mistakes in reasoning from later being corrected even if the mistake has been followed by courts for many years and and you and i know you mentioned the that the watkins case thirty years old and that's true but i think there are some inconsistency there are some errors in its reasoning at least as it applies to the facts of this case stari decisis also does not preclude review where there are factual distinctions between the present and former decision even if the object or is right there are sufficient signatures here for this candidate to remain on the ballot even if the signatures aren't valid and that i think is it important in court i think are supposed to avoid crafting broad rules if there is a narrower way to address the case and i think that was the point that the third justice in the walk ins decision was trying to make which i think reinforces my point that walk ins has some that the petitioners interpretation of section eight does not render the statute unconstitutional is i cited before the state has a legitimate interest in curtailing reading by members of opposing political parties and preserving the integrity of the electoral spurling and is on its face constitutional the that the matter that the petitioner is interpretation effectively prohibits can get more from running as a candidate for either party isn't an issue that the apple he makes in their brief but again i don't believe that that renders our interpretation of constitutional restrictions on candidates can lawfully be more burdensome than those of members of the general public and that's been the law grants and sperling also the objectors interpretation does not prevent i can get more from running as an independent candidate in this election or otherwise identifying as a member of the democratic party or voting in the democratic primary or even being a candidate for the democratic nomination for state representative in the forty third district in the next election cycle this is a narrowly tailored remedy to the bars of the prohibition in section eight of the code more is not citing the case to support her argument that this is unconstitutional they just argue that the u s supreme court has found the state can reasonably classify voters by political party and  impose regulatory restrictions the further the state's important interest in preserving the your integrity of the electoral process by preventing party great and more is interpretation of the statute i think it would actually work against the state interest in doing so it would again as argued before facilitate party writing at least under the facts of this case which raises another issue and that is that if the court were to affirm the decision of the electoral board and the decision of the circuit court there is no adverse penalty here to a candidate who has it minutely violated section eight of the election code by signing in i mean petition for a candidate of a different political party and s oath on that nominee petition that i am a qualified primary electorate of the republican party and then sign finally documents with the state board of election saying the exact opposite thank you only person here who would suffer an adverse impact if this court were to affirm is the candidate who didn't know that somebody who was a member of a different political party or may not have known at the time someone was going to remain a member of the other political party sign or nominee petition could have possibly lost a valid signature on her nominee fished out from his wife and that didn't make a difference in this case but it could have if she had filed the minimum number of signatures and then someone objected to by with knowledge that ms is more had signed her nominee petition and under the watkins will invalidate it that signature a statement of intent to be a write in and is receiving right involves and that's certainly an option for anybody even or somebody could have filed as an independent has of the practical impact at this point i'm not certain of but i do believe there is somebody who is finally on the issue of constitutionality if this court were to step in the argument that simply because ms mohler would be ineligible  a candidate for either of the major political parties in this state in this election cycle if the court finds that their argument is correct if that makes it unconstitutional infringement of first amendment association rights i think then the court should look at the state constitution says residency requirement the residency requirement or the state constitution says that you cannot run for a represent you can't be a state representative unless you have lived in the district for the two years preceding the election so anybody who moved into a district can be a candidate for out of political party for the first three years they move into a district they can vote in that party's primary they can identify as a member their party but they can't be a candidate for state representative or member of that party so the issue is that anything is facially unconstitutional if it precludes you from being a member or party from being a candidate for state representative for either major political party if that's facially and constitutional i think that's the f l these arguments in the court would have to accept the talked about that alleges the letters represent more his bio that section eight the sheet of the election code which says quote a prime qualified primary voter quote may not sign petitions for or be a candidate in the primary of more than one party close to the app all language in the primary is what the issues and of course the primary election is over the relief that mr mayor seeks is no longer possible in this mall is name appeared on the primary election ballot and in his in his brief period in this court is changed to remedy sixty seats that her name administrative review and so the relief that he seeks that her name not appear on the ballot is for violating his statute that doesn't even apply to the general election that statute has no application in the election going on right now so this case is moot under the supreme court's rules on the goodman case and in the six cases so the question for this court is whether or not the public interest exception should applied to the movie stock and the public interest as we both cite in our briefs the public interest exception applies in three six one three circumstances the present number one if it's a question of public interest and the supreme court has held election law questions are public talk and see that the second one is whether or not it ministre to election authorities are in need of guidance for the conduct of elections well they fail in this instance as you recognize justice turn in this role the first time rule has been administered effectively and efficiently by election authorities for over thirty years so election authorities aren't in need of guidance there is not a split so i think they fail that is us and that the second prong of the public interest except i think that the third is whether or not this is the circumstance it's likely to occur mr mayor just said the facts are so crazy in this case i don't think it's likely to occur and that's the debatable question so i think this interest this case is moot and the public interest exception should not and that's what is the consequence of the justice turning just asked that question what is the consequence of a reversal well not only it doesn't affect my client representative muller and cleared her from being reelected what about the voters who signed her nomination but what about the voters who voted for her in the primaries what about the voters who have voted for her in this election over early voting started weeks ago absentee ballots started before you could take judicial notice of the fact that a today seventeen hundred people have voted this and so i think that you have to weigh that in deciding whether or not this case is moot i stood in front of this panel four months ago on a case said muller but all the people who voted for her already and what is the practical effect of this the ballots are already printed there ronnie street there are out the election code says that a vacancy occurring less than fifteen days before the election cannot be filled and so representative maulers name is going to appear on the ballot on which a much you order that somehow they reprint all alex so i think this case is moot and it doesn't warrant the application of the public interest exception going on to the merits of the case i think the law on this question is fairly well settled but while it's not particularly complicated and the walk ins case and the rosen side case stand for the same pro public policy that citizens ought to be encouraged to participate in the primary election process and what the apology is asking you to do is to change that and to say that a person who does this mean most people i agree with mr maher most people who sign for more than one party don't understand the rules and do it by mistake because people are polite and they like to accommodate candidates his rule would say you cannot participate in either party and that has didn't say anything of first didn't invalidate that first signature that's what mr meyers said mr meyers argument to you is that the rule of walk ins and of rosensweig the first in time rule should be changed so that circumstance that voter would not be a feel able to affiliate with either that's where the constitutional process is so the question for this court is whether we should change the consequence of signing for more than one party from public policy of encouraging citizens to participate in the nomination is number one and number two the question then is ok assume the dischord decides to accept mr meyers that there should be a zero tolerance nonaffiliated should that be applied retroactively to represent and that's where i got into my starry decisis argument in in the brief but walk ins and rosenzweig first sign rule assume that there's no evidence in the record this i assume that she was being polite and there's there was some evidence in the record about you know how it occurred that she came to sign that republican position for a local candidate  have an adverse impact i'm a smaller who relied on the law that was well established never mentioned it's never been questioned by any court that i and all the voters who have supported her signed her petitions voted for primary important work in the general election so finally i think that if you do adopt that non affiliation that would render the statute unconstitutional i'm mr meir is incorrect i did say cases in that argument  to infiltrate for lack of a better word the republican party is invalid and vice versa but what this what mr mayor is asking you to do is say not that you can't break the republican party but you're also thrown out of your own party that's where the constitutional problem is that a democrat who signs for a republican not that bad action is invalid but the first action in affiliating with the democrats in the first place as well and that's i think will cost the constitutional problem i joachim's rule that people ought to be encouraged to participate in their party nominating process and not sort of if clyde had these rules apply that would calm discourage that participation and so the problem the first amendment problem with mr meyers is is participating in the political process his core fundamental first amendment right the right to affiliate with a political party is at the very core of the first and the first amendment rights there can be limits on those you know obviously under under the appropriate circumstances if they survive a strict scrutiny and a limit on the first amendment which says you may affiliate with one party production but not to survive that for the anti party rating but a rule that says you may not participate in any part of our nation pilots that and i think it would not survive a cost to china and mr pryor in his history of our country if i found a case that said a person could be ineligible to be both a democrat and a republican because of signing of petitions and so for that reason i don't think mr mayor's  arguments are well founded i think if they are it raises serious constitutional questions and then finally on this question of victim in in his reply brief mr maher uses the word vict thank you again your arms i want to address brief we two issues or two arguments raised by mr gasper first the issue of moving us mr casper points out the primary election is taking place and early voting has started the standard though for whether or not an issue is policy behind section eighty is of it is a foreigner given meaning in this case in effect he says that under these facts where someone has violated the statute admittedly violated the statute there is no penalty to them and that it's incumbent upon the person the candidate who did violate the statute to go through scrub their petitions and strike out the signatures by people who knew or should have known that they were violating the law when they signed to petitions that it is much as your honor i understand that there may be some concern over the the remedy or the relief that we're requesting in this case i don't know that there's any other relief to be afforded that would give any meaning to the public policy purpose behind section eight if your only other alternative advanced by mr casper is that there be