all right we are all ready for our third case of this morning which is rose against board of election commissioners for the city of chicago is true she wrote it morning your honor thank you very much for the they've come to a final judgment and not only anything that was raised in anything that could have been raised has been concluded so i think that's where i really need to start and if you could in a follow up to chief judge to chief judge woods question i am wondering in what sense he was deprived of an opportunity you would keel the circuit court decision because he could have sought expedited appeal the question here is does rescued a cot or the issues of preclusion that something is heard before a final judgment on the merits but and there clearly was in the state court the state court resolved the merits of the claim before it an appeal could have been taken not that that really matters exists once the court of first instance is finished with the case and the circuit court certainly was yes but i know there there is a doctor and where if the case is the final judgment occurs usually within thirty days  appeal is expired you know it's final i think you're confusing an issue preclusion doctrine in some jurisdictions one of the factors that the courts will look at to see if it's equitable to apply issue preclusion is whether there was an opportunity to appeal that's a an issue preclusion issue and here as judge rover's question implies there was plenty of opportunity to appeal had to do is fire people all the time file a notice of appeal the day after a judgment comes down illinois itself especially in this kind of time sensitive kind of case allows that well the issue with filing an appeal is in illinois once the election is passed the case is considered it wasn't passed at the time the circuit court ruled there were still about three weeks ago correct but an individual has thirty days doesn't mean you have to go until the last minute you can file a week after the decision you still have had two wall where there's a duty ordering somebody to immediately seek appeal because the law doesn't care if you want to move your own case that's europe is yes but if you want to take it's not that the state didn't offer you an appeal it offered and you well they're not really had any court offer him now that the election and and the runoff election have passed well this case is not moot because as after the time of the filing of this case that the from the point of allege that the four percent signature requirement which or the four hundred seventy three signatures violate the united states constitution and they violate and deny people their right to access to the ballot in a meaningful a meaningful  isn't at least the four percent aspect of that entirely moot since it doesn't exist anymore in illinois law and there's no prospect of it ever coming back well because it's not it's not in substantive due process coin and that's a government created him i'm sorry it's not substantive due process i mean that that is a it's a theory that doesn't work when there is a more specific part of the constitution that protects  certain right he is not complaining about his status as a voter any way he stands he's complaining about his status as a candidate and the four percent requirement is never again going to affect his status as a candidate this time the four percent requirement translated into a four hundred seventy three signature requirement that's still in the law but we don't know what he's going to do in twenty nineteen we have no idea well as a voter and under pre enforcement is not suing as a voter he he has a say as he also in his complaint he stated that he is not only a registered voter but also a candidate and there is a symbiotic it hurts his status as a voter i don't see anything in this case about it hurts the status is of order for this what the city is on is one or the state is honest said one plus one equals three they've taken a four percent requirement which was determined by a possible challenge to the way chicago has drawn the board lines but that is far afield from what this case presents well there are other issues but the question i think is going back to why is this board's decisions and also the constitutional claims the claims under the voting rights act were addressed by the state court the claims under the first amendment were dressed by the state court the equal protection claim was addressed by the state court the  imposing a duty it's within the purview of the general assembly to provide and in the civil pursue civil procedure to provide the times for appeals you see the appellate courts are limited jurisdiction only that your section given to him by congress there you don't have  original jurisdiction and so the courts cannot come up with a doctor and violate the separation of powers and say you have to appeal sooner the congress has said and this general simply a set executive that each individual has a thirty day right to appeal and  days nothing changes whether he does it in two days for three days or four days it is a thirty day gap and if the case becomes moot prior to the opportunity that's given by the state for you to appeal better procedural right that individual cannot equip face under the you got to the circuit court the circuit court both had an exercise the jurisdiction to consider the constitutional arguments presented in the prefix we explained the circuit court is limited by statute their jurisdiction in this specific review they don't have the ability to address anything that was not presented on the record though here at the bottom level there was no ability to conduct discovery there was no ability to entertain the thought in essence hashed or that that i mean if you want to save  he does have a claim for damages in the in his complaint and so for purposes of damages there may s you know rose claims that the board is an administrative arm of the state and therefore a state actor would you respond to that argument i think that misunderstands the the election law that they have board of election commissioners for the city of chicago is created by state statute but it is not it is not an agency of the state so it wasn't as it was not a statewide election and so the state board of elections was not involved the board of election commissioners for the city of chicago administered the municipal election and so that would be the true party in interest is that that the church the state the state has to if the if the prior proceeding here right so we look under seven hundred thirty eight to illinois requirements for claim preclusion to see whether the quality of this judgment qualifies that's right and under illinois law this is the state court action is entitled to close of a fact there are three elements to claim collusion under illinois law the first is the identity of the parties which existed here he said the same entities in both the state court proceeding and in this lawsuit the second is whether there's identity of claims which there are also which also exists in this case illinois and after the transactional ties with respect to determining whether there's identity of claims and so not only claims that were actually raised in the sovereign immunity and the district court because the just record doesn't mention it and i mean obviously you can raise that issue at any time during the litigation but i'm just curious as to whether or not congress might have chosen to allow suit against the state the fact is it did not that's correct your honor and so and so that claim that one thousand and three claims cannot proceed against the state in any case but but as i was saying all it claim all of the claims that he raises that all of the underlying constitutional claims that are subject of the one nine hundred eighty three claim were already considered by the by the state court and so they are barred in the district court and its decision below went through each claim ensured that the circuit court addressed each and every claim that plaintiff phrases and your opponent just argued that the circuit court i guess you must be saying they shouldn't have done that or something because the circuit court judge certainly does as a matter of fact look at the constitutional mean i thought this started out maybe used two suits in the state circuit court one judicial review action over what the board did in the other the independent action they got consolidated is that right there were there were two actions in the state court the allegations of his complaint his complaint alleges that he was deprived access to the ballot in the february in the twenty fifteen election and so to the extent that he's trying to transform his case into a pre challenge of the statute that became effective in june twenty fifth scene there that argument is premature he's it's not right for you it's it's purely speculative whether three years from now that will affect its right where they acted on justifiably in an acting it and then there's the other one where there's official government action such as the cases approach and where they pump someone stomach where they can make conduct that is so far from our fundamental sense of ordered liberty and justice that it shocks our conscience and here what we have are proceedings that are just unfair they were done in less than a few days and even if the defendant did file his his appeal no one here can say that the supreme court would have expedited because expedition  discretionary and furthermore no one can say that it would have been heard before that the case was moot which is why you haven't had to cry why didn't you give them a try to see what they would do because we believe that the proper course in this matter given the nature of the affairs there was into federal court and we made a judgment call saying that if the case is mooted we won't have to deal with the politics of the state of illinois and that was our position because as you know one thousand nine hundred eighty three was designed to protect from the corruption of the states and to allow the federal government to come in when things are so bad it is a vehicle that was done during the civil rights movement to allow people to come out of state court into a more level fairground a more level playing ground that's not the same state politics and again we exercise that right there is no duty at all to file an appeal within thirty days you have the right and the opportunity and it's condition by the general somebody and the court can't force you to move faster on something that the