no morning everyone we're here today for a large mass will begin with case number one shipley versus chicago board of elections this is case number seventeen dash three thousand five hundred and eleven and we'll begin with attorney frank and five percent of precincts on election day the purpose of the rancor before we get too far into the substance your opening brief notes that you're acting pro se i'm not sure if that was just something left over i want to just that i was alluding to before as required by state law since sure votes are cast accurately and counted and you know with volunteers witnessed that day really shocked them they saw  were all at the al that say or honor ok and the audit site in the polling place are neither one in the same nor nor are they are those things occurring at the exact same time correct i'm sorry could you pete question play the poll the polling place in the audit site or not one in the same that's district court's statutory interpretation was correct that a vote cannot be changed based on the five percent audit rule how can you state a clear and i understand you dispute the  st part of that nature but assuming that statutory construction is accurate and a vote can't be changed based on any irregularities found through an audit how can you state a claim that for a variety of factors one is that the actual five percent are meeting has to itself is the only remedy to cure any sort of voting in accuracies and but the question would be what's the r the audit the statute says a written report can be filed and it could be taken from them but again assuming the preface of the question is accurate that the under th statute you can't change in the votes or the election commission can't change any votes based on that audit regardless of how irregular it might be or the problems that you got served with it how can that that's audit statute does not allow the election commission to make any kind of changes in votes based on the final results of the audit how can you state a claim then based on that audit provision well again the finality as far as the actual audit is concerned is is really kind of what the issue is if that makes sense of the court the finality of the test if your claim is that your clients were deprived of their right to vote and if the statute doesn't allow any changes in votes that were cast how can your clients be deprived when it again they're deprived of the right to vote as far as their voting interests are concerned now their private right to vote because their votes aren't being properly calculated and their votes are probably being tabulated so with the five percent operating test it's a test that has a lot of valid billeted with in and out of that cell that i i'm sure i think that can  disconnect there ok because when you look at see fifteen see fifteen does seem to contain language in the in the st large paragraph that would allow precinct officers to correct errors that quote that occurred at the polling place i mean that's that's just in the text of the statute ok your claim is not about anything that happened at the polling place your claim is about something that happened on another day at an audit location and i think it is i hear judge seems question which she saying is in the  nd part of the statute for better or for worse the illinois legislature made clear that whatever happens in an audit cannot affect final election results so that presents a pleading barrier for you or at least a pleading challenge for you and i understand the court's point in all those regards what i can say is that our claims states that the ballots that were cast were not counted before the audit actually took place so it's a kind of a timing doesn't count the ballots at the audit they're checking the returns made by the election officials right will again look i think that in a way just kind of like skipping to one part as far as actual  audion test where we're seeing that the ballots themselves that were cast they weren't counted for the audit took place so the audit itself wouldn't actually have any could not as their later on with one of the votes specifically and again there's a variety of issues involved in this case there were votes that were  essentially just counted in properly now while the ballots at the polling place or at the audit site at both were not in a whole long trip i don't read your complain to allege any misconduct at the polling place as voting was occurring and there if i'm mistaken can you point me to where that's alleged in your complaint at the polling place not at the audit site sure and that goes and judge scudder is the st one of us fresh questions to us just confirming that this was based on conduct at the audit not at the polling place so what you're saying now is something different than what you responded to to the audit taking place and the audit is used more as a shock on those particular boats which are frankly the challenge though is that you've got a constitutional claim with regard to these into illinois statutes  statutes themselves if you're asking this court to do an analysis of those statutes you've got to bring in an allegation of a constitutional provision and that's what the panel is exploring with you what is that constitutional deprivation if it's not anyone you know the freedom of assembly and it is far as the actual votes not being counted you know again that that's an issue where the claim is that the votes themselves aren't being counted rather the claim is that regarding the central tabulation there was there was there was errors regarding those votes being counted at a later time the latter time is at the audit site correct before hand his right to vote include the right to have that vote counted and you know the district court initially denied defendant's motion to dismiss in a well written opinion and and then for reasons that are not exactly clear from the record it  this moreover ignores the plain fact that at the time of the count the result had not been served fine and at the very fear and where the boat was to be certified plaintiffs attempted to present evidence of the regarding the count but they were not allowed to present this information rather the board elections performed the gavel to gavel meeting certify the results and only allow public comment after the serve cation of the clearly erroneous and inaccurate co t the district court ignores the facts pled in the complaint and precedent regarding twelve b six motion in their opinion and at the time of the recount there was no certified file the result that plaintiffs were seeking to challenge goes into the constitutionally protected right to vote and specifically the right to have that particular vote counted and you can say that the district court got a correct the st time they good morning he may please the court my name is daniel burns and i represent the chicago board of election commissioners in james and scale because section twenty four c fifteen the on the election code cannot change anyone's vote opponents cannot state a claim that their right to vote was violated the disregard properly recognized as such and granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice to provisions of the illinois election code largely should guide this cards and else the st time as mentioned in section for the election authority in this case the chicago board of elections if they discover an obvious discrepancy in the total number of votes cast in any precinct to correct the vote to correct the return but this action is unrelated to the five percent auditing test that is the basis of appellants allegations contained in their nd handed complaints this is important because the board is created by statute and it can only do what is provided for it by the elections to canvass votes with the results of the five percent auditing test can you speak to what why the legislature structure the statute that way what's your what's your best estimation judge you know  provided for that equipment is allowed to be you in this instance there's also the state court of elections which has the final say so i believe that the way they structure it is they don't want to give too much power to the local showed showed very very substantial irregularities why would why would the legislature set up a statutory scheme that did not allow those irregularities to actually inform or to authorize revisiting a precinct returns well i think it does judge because there is a there are two provisions that candidates can use in order to determine more information so the five percent auditing test only allows for five percent of the precincts or five percent of the early voting machinery however if they can of that takes advantage of the discovery petition and they can pick twenty five percent of precincts they want to look at they can also file an election contest when everything can be like that again so this five percent auditing equipment test is just one part of this scheme that the illinois legislature has put together in order to safeguard the vot provide for a prompt orderly elections what's the purpose of the written report that is provided for in twenty four c fifteen the written report is provided if there is an airless count that cannot be performed and the point is to show where the  occurred it's than sent to the illinois state board of elections who can then do what they will with it who is responsible for preparing that written report that's the chicago board of elections is that something the plaintiffs could have prepared or if there were improprieties at the audit what type of a claim should plaintiffs have brought to challenge them would have been through them through the report well that that's one issue but it ultimately if they have a problem with the way the the process went there are remedies and when i state court they can see as a law suit there are violation of the state law it's not a federal claim here so and as i explained with that were reports that is publicly available and they could look at it if they wanted and also it goes to the state board of elections after that but finally that most importantly section twenty four c dash fifteen i i argue in certain points for certain claims that they have brought up newly on appeal that they were on the right on the right to vote claim in particular in your view do they have base have they satisfied the requirements of article three c any i believe so  s but and as counsel mentioned that he spoke about how they amended their complaint afterwards but it really doesn't matter how many details they've added or more facts they've created when the same allegations law in supports but even if they if this court wishes to look at the allegations are there obstructed from viewing or photographing the tallies that board members may hostile comments may misled the plaintiffs but as correct the discrepancies as they wanted and as this quote this court has noted the government may not interfere with the right to petition but it may not the government cannot interfere with the right to petition but it need not grant  this changes the abstracts of the vote and i really do emphasize abstract because that specifically means that these were official votes ye was on a question public or permitted in the one point one the the specifically to say when these votes should be used change previewed the clear result of vote on a question of public concerns public policy but also because the ballots and voting records issue were not previously declared at all times relevant to  the early votes go to the central tabulator and there's only one time that they have in regards to those ballots being offered to really examine that if that the cleared results of the statute reference result that's not accidents at the time then three table ation took place and that's that renders defendants and the district courts seat change votes as a matter of constitutional right and nor are there any observations of voting records being used for and use overturn pocket nations that had not yet taken place  accepted within their response so while there are state law issues the state law issues are more appropriate to be heard within that within the confines of the federal for you to article three of mung other things and you know if we also contrast section twenty four dollars b fifteen it specifically says an additional part of this in regards to defendant's arguments under now you know that they cite to this honorable court as far as certain pressing defining a single list incident being insufficient and i don't believe that a that was a single incident but even argue when to if there was a single incident you know this is a case where  the supreme court's actually made it quite clear that there doesn't have there that can be a single it's and you know this is conduct that's ongoing