present this morning and however he will have access to the audio recording of oral argument and we'll be listening to that and he will be a pulley participating  represent the petitioner appellants chant quite this is a case that revolves around interpretation of the statute in fact interpretation one could say of a few different statutes and the  statutes both of the illinois election code that being interpreted and then i think assisted in should be harmoniously interpreted with the illinois town chip code because both of those codes address and deal with the dash three the last paragraph states that a candidate seeking election to an office for which candidates of political parties are nominated by caucus who is a participant in the caucus and who is defeated for his or her nomination as such caucus in eligible to be listed on the ballot at that general or consolidated election as an independent candidate now chad quite is he had given a letter of intent to be a candidate for muhammad township highway commissioner but did not attend the mohammad township republican caucus and therefore we argue and i think the facts show and the this language raised before the board that you're talking about now in the township code to the specific language of the township code was not but the interpretation of stance shoot once does that answer your question so i think the answer is no didn't pass something that the board was able to decide to song so is it appropriate for us to consider that at this point you're correct that the township code was not brought up specifically in the electoral board's hearing but i believe that it's appropriate for this court to look at this one because statutes and courts are to interpret statutes in harmony with each other this was a township caucus this was a township electoral board and so it's the the interpretation and just as mr mourdock and i bring in additional case law into the  g whether the electoral board made an appropriate decision and so the the facts are really undisputed mr coates sent a letter of intent to the republican caucus that he intended to run for a republican for the nomination for republican township highway commission in the end he did not end up appearing and therefore did not participate in that town board there was and that's uncontested he did not show up he did not ask to be nominated he didn't even know the person who had nominated him until they were weeks later he had not asked for anyone to nd him and he hadn't asked for anyone to be trying to remember the term but essentially to town ballots on his behalf there were volunteers that were were given an apparently mr dennett's had asked for one of his cited by i think both parties and i think is really the sum of all case here along with interpretations can't you believe that it really is not there was no actual participation by chad quick because he did not appear  yes i think you get the nail right on the head of arms mccarthy being a seminal case and i look at this language in mccarthy when you talk about whether or not the candidate so specific probable documented actions towards seeking the republican nomination which were more active duty simply being president and others are so when i read that mike which i think obviously even if you're there you know glee may not be participating and then of course the flip side is what we have here if you're not there can you still protest the pay so help me out here did he not take specific pro bowl documented actions toward seeking that nomination he took some steps but i don't believe that those are sufficient under mccarthy v straight to to demonstrate that and in fact mccarthy the straight cites to the florida supreme court case obviously that's not binding but i think that it's persuasive authority and in that florida supreme court case that i note also in addition to being an mccarthy straight i cite that in my brief but in the special tax school district number three versus the state the florida supreme court notes in concludes that participation as it applies in election means nothing short caucus shaking hands talking with folks on the day of the actual hockett in this case chad kuwait had written his letter of intent sometime beforehand and had posted on facebook but come the day you of the copies come the actual caucus he did not end up he did not show up he did not talk with voters who were there or participants who were and did not otherwise participate and so i think that is different and and frankly the mccarthy straits he knew them where they even talk about how people who show up and mill around talk with the voters but don't sign and don't fine an affidavit are not actual participants and i think the other thing that was sort of interesting is the mccarthy distrait court noted that one does not have to file a florida supreme court and as the statutes are apply and in illinois with regard to these mr coates did was not a participant and therefore the electoral board erred in determining and ruling that he was a participant and therefore in eligible to run as an independent candidate for the for mohamed township highway commission he's he was not challenge on any other grounds for which one could be or that yet there was no other challenge it was only with regard to that and again he did not appear he didn't ask anyone and she didn't know the person who had nominated him and for those affidavit of the county clerk advices and that was filed with our motion for a stay that the court denied but it notes that it will take several days for the county clerk to be able to amend the ballot to allow the voters an actual choice because right now there's only one person on there we have tried to accelerate this case as much as possible finding the notice of appeal in a motion to accelerate we filed a brief actually before the motion to accelerate was even granted and we appreciate that the court granted the motion to accelerate we had not asked for oral arguments in an effort to try to allow the court to move forward so that it would give the county clerk enough time and sufficient time to amend the ballots so that the the voters would have an actual choice in this election which we believe is also important this is were you asking for immediate relief and if the court would  issue an order we would ask as soon as possible i think that the facts are laid out sufficiently by the parties in the case law to even issue an order today that the county clerk is to is order to include which was not discussed and the argument in chief and that is the subject matter jurisdiction of this court in order to for this court to obtain jurisdiction the circuit court must have had  a petition must be filed with the clerk the service must be obtained by registered or certified mail of the within full five days of the board's decision on the aggrieved parties including the  petition must state why the board's decision should be reversed and a proof of service needs to be filed with the clerk of court this course this mode of procedure must be strictly pursued it if if it is not  this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the the fact remains that more than five days passed between the decision of the of the electoral board and the filing of the proof of service we had a hearing in this matter to establish the accelerated timeline and accelerated briefing schedule which is necessary in these type of election cases because we are dealing with a tight time frame when we had our initial hearing in front of the judge and were setting this briefing that mr kohut filed his proof of service with the clerk of the court now there are three cases that have been so cited by the parties in this case addressing this exact issue the st is the nelson case which was a two thousand  case which found that file failing to file the proof of service within the time provided in the election code was grounds for dismissal of the of the petition that case was overturned on different grounds that being the service that's required on the elect for board and its members but that particular portion of the nelson case remain and and is was not overturned on on appeal the other two mcdonald and karl stare those two cases found the opposite those two cases found that the that the proof of service did not need to be filed within the time frame that being five days  neither of them actually addressed in any detail that that argument they simply held that the statutory language did not put the five days five day requirement in the sentence where required the proof of service despite it also despite it being in the paragraph it wasn't included in that sentence and neither of those courts wanted to read into that statute the five day requirement however it is the position of the that it's not reading into the statute words that's not there it's simply reading the statute as a whole and the provision of the election code section one thousand and ten dollars requires jurisdiction to be obtained by the circuit court within five days of the  filing the decision in this case it was not because the th factor for obtaining jurisdiction was not filed until after that five day requirement out the practical effect of of this is after five days the electoral board these township block horrible wards have a requirement to transmit their order to the election of forty so so the election process can continue so the ballots can be certified and so the printing can began and so the election to get underway and that's why we're in such a tight time in this particular if if the proof of service is not jurisdictional then that time frame begins to expand and expand greatly  if that proof of service requirement can be cured at any time during the hearing all the way up into it until the actual hearing on the merits of the petition then you have the electoral board in limbo on whether on what to county clerk mr moallem i have a question for you obviously you know you are arguing that you know when the time in this you know you know from a situation where we are very far out but that's not our situation here correct given that the document was filed after you brought it to the court's attention right correct me if i'm glad or what is the significance if any i do not put significance into that particular requirement because then the election code would would read repetitive but you have to obtain jurisdiction and you have to take these steps and it would just repeat the five days over and over and over again for each of these one reading section one thousand and ten dollars as a whole it makes sense that the petition needs to be filed them and proof of service needs to be filed with the clerk of court in this preparing for the hearing on the th my client still had not received a certified a registered letter so as we're getting ready for a st appearance in front of the circuit court we had no idea whether or not service was sent to us or the board and that's the point of the proof of service because we could've had had service not been proper or it could have easily been disposed of by the court on the th and that's the purpose of the proof of service as reflected in the nelson case it's to inform the court that proper service has been sent it's not a high burden on the practitioner we do this with with almost all motions that we file and in any court there accompanied with a proof of service  and and it it really aids the court in these type framed cases and it makes more sense as a practitioner as well because if if this jurisdictional element could be cured at any time then it then it would have made then it makes no sense to raise it at the circuit court level and to just bring any adverse decision up to this court so it could dispose of the subject matter jurisdictional question if the proof of service has never been file believe that statutes are not intended to lead to such results which is why we're we believe that the five day requirement under the proof of service is the more soundly reasoned decision moving on to the to the nd issue the real issue in this case is the interpretation of the election code question of whether or not mr quinn participated in the republican caucus there is there is no interpretation and no review of the township code that's required as argued by mr  township code is not ambiguous and it was it's been raised in this appeal as informing the requirements of the election code but this is not new this this language has been in the has has been in the township code for since prior to the mccarthy case so it was it was present for the mccarthy decision and mccarthy v street is the case that governs this matter and that court looked at the factors that it had it had different slate of candidates who took different actions and craft the rule based on those the rule is that there must be something more than being present and observing and the candidate must engage in specific provable documented actions that would be fail to a rd party candidate and both of those mr coit meets both of those requirements he's not like the candidates in mccarthy who merely observe merely was  the republican caucus had rules in place that were more specific than other townships they had the requirement that a letter of intent be sent and mr quaid mr quit met that requirement he campaign in the record he posted to facebook he sent unsolicited mail and he was nominated miss norman he asked people to attend on his behalf miss norman testified in the electoral board found this credible that showed that he mr quit had asked her to attend the caucus on his behalf is the only reason he is not the nominee for the republican party is because he did not receive enough votes and and so he he could have very well been  of a primary process whether it be a primary election or a caucus to take that candidate supporters and run as an independent or run as a new political party and pull those voters away from the established little party and that's exactly what would happen if mr quit was allowed to run as an independent candidate after he campaigned was named as a candidate was nominated and received votes there were seventeen voter seventeen caucus voters that he could take with him to run as an independent candidate weakening the republican ticket for mohammed township highway supervisor it's important to note that mccarthy from the mccarthy slate he testified that he did not in any way encourage or discourage his name from being put in the nomination this is not the case that we have before the court today mr coit did encourage his name to be put in the nomination he did want the republican the republican nomination and his intent to become the republican nominee informs his intent to participate in the republican caucus and the florida supreme court case where that required voting that had to do with a referendum it was not a  not a caucus where they were looking at there are different are there different levels for the person or thing to be voted on for there for them to engage in actions the referendum was presented the referendum could not engage in specific provable documented actions you know the so the thing being voted on now was could not engage in the actions or do anything more which is why the florida supreme court said well in this case to participate it means to vote in that election but the mccarthy case was careful and the mccarthy court were careful to move beyond that to craft the rule that there must be specific provable documented actions again the mccarthy case crafted this rule even with the language in the township code which is relied upon by mr quinn even with that be present on the mccarthy court could have simply said well no a participant needs to sign an affidavit stating that was stating as required by the township code that is what is required for participation mccarthy court did not do that and the and one of the reasons that it likely did not do that is because that sect that particular section of the township code is directory it's not mandatory and which side of the ferguson the ryan case which looked at section forty five dollars dash fifty of the township code subsection a of that township code actually list the requirements for requirements that's not the language that subsection b which lists out the rules for operating a caucus or subsection c which in which the affidavit language is found neither of those start with with this being a requirement and ferguson looked at subsection b and subsection c and determined that because there no prohibition on it of the word shall is actually directory in this case and held that in fact it did they did not need to be followed so an individual actually can be a participant in a caucus without signing the affidavit because that requirement is directory not mandatory  affidavit which is which is put out by the lot for a board or at least a form one actually talks about it being an affidavit of voters to attend the township caucus and what that what they're doing the affidavit is swearing that they're actually allowed to vote in in the caucus and we discussed this were the core of the circuit court actually asked this question is there a difference between participating at and participating in a speak because the section section four and there would be because you can participate in a caucus in a caucus without actually being physically present at a caucus the the mccarthy case stands for the proposition that attendance does not mean participation and there needs to be something more and in this case or something specific and provable and documented other than mere attendance in this case  takes those boxes with with his actions leading up to that caucus the statutory language in subsection c of the township code says individuals participating at an established political party township or multi actually physically being present at the caucus he was he was found to be in eligible to be nominated he was in fact nominated and he received he received votes he did not receive enough votes and since he was defeated he should be locked out of running as an independent candidate for these for these reasons and unless the court has any questions we ask that the decision from hama township  rebuttal argument thinking on the issue of whether the court cancerous diction there are two pieces that i think interpret this accurately and show that in fact the appellate court chancers stiction in the circu specifically and as i noted in the reply brief these pieces of me both of them came out answer the cases cited by mr moore dogs in his arguments and as and as i note in this is justice holder of service requires no such has no such timeline and so it would be improper never appropriate to read the statute or to just sort of redo the statutes when it's the that is the legislatures job filed with the circuit court circuit clerk within five days of service of the electoral board's decision and hand not been done which is exactly what mr bennett's is arguing and reviewing that statute specifically them but that doesn't mean that i am married the doesn't make me the participant in a marriage i may intend to be employed and i may be and i may send a letter requesting employment for an application but that doesn't make me a point and similarly when simple letter than it tends to participate that doesn't make one a participant and a ruling is mr dennis is suggesting could really play some pretty incredible political games here where you might end then he could be nominated at the democratic office just shortly before the republican office and be listed as the democratic nominee since his participation is not isn't required under mr denniss under mr out the forms where when you file if the candidate is or where there is a primary republican and democratic primary you have to go the can they have to actually collect signatures actually file a statement of candidacy file a statement economic interest and file that paperwork and so the candidate is much more in control whether they participate when it's in a primary but the caucus really just happened that night the night of the statutory listing of what a