Docket No . 109725.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

___________________

FREDERICK

J. HO SSFEL

D, A ppel l an t, v. THE IL

LINO IS STATE BOA RD OF ELECTIONS et al. , Appell ees.
Opinion filed October 7, 2010.

CHIEF JUS TIC E FI TZG ER ALD d elivered t he judg ment o f the
co ur t , w ith o pinion. Justice s Fre eman, Tho mas, Kilbride , G ar man, Ka rmeier , a nd Bur ke c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON
This ap pea l conc er ns t he pa rt y-swit ching restrictions on poli tical candi dates fo rt he Ge ne r al As se mbly under secti on 8–8 of

the El ec ti on Code (10 ILCS 5/8–8 (West 2008) )

. At is sue is wh ether St even J. Rausch enb ergerwas i

nel igi ble to r un as a Re publican c andida t e in the Feb ruary 2010 ge ne

ral pri mary el ec ti on f or th e of f i ceof State Sen ator because he v

ot ed a Dem

o cratic ba

ll ot in the Feb

ruary 2009 consoli dated prim

ary el ection i n Elgin Townshi p. On Septembe

r 22, 2010, fo llo win g o r al a r gu men t in t his c as e, t his courtiss ue d it s o r al r ulin g a ffir mi n g th e j udgm en t of th e a pp el l ate cou rt, w hich h eld t ha t Ra us ch en be r ge rwa s e ligible t o r un ( 39 8 I ll. App. 3d 73 7) . A wri tte n ord er to th

at e f f ec t wa s a l so ente red on Septembe r22 , st at ing t ha t an o pin io n fr o m t his co ur t wo uld fol low.1 Raus chen berger previously

hel d the office

of Repu blica n Senat or fr om the 22nd Leg

islative Districtfr om 19 92 to 2 00 6, when he un suc ce ssfu

ll y ran as th e Re pub lican can dida te fo r Li eute na nt Go ve rn or
. -2- This is t hat op inion.

BACK GROUND The relev ant facts are not in di spute. In Februar y 2 009, Steven Raus ch en berger, wh o ha d h ist o r ica lly vo t ed a R ep ub lica n ba llo t in pri mary elections, vot ed a Dem ocratic bal

lot in the consoli

dated pri mary election i

n El gi n Townsh

i p. R ausc hen

berger’s s is

ter was ru nning for Dem

ocrat ic t o wn ship t rus t ee
. T he ge ne r al t o wn ship elect ion, for whi

ch that prim

ary wa s hel

d, t o ok place i

n A pril 2009. Six months la ter, in October 2009, Rausche nbe rger fi le d nom i na ti on pape rs se ek i ng the Re publ i ca n n om i na ti on f or th e of f i ceof State Sena torof the 22nd L egi sl ative Dis trict for the February

2, 2010 , general pr imary elect ion. 1 Pursuant to section 8–8 of the El ec ti on Code (10 I LC S 5/ 8–8 (Wes t 200 8)) , Ra us ch en be rge r’ s n om i na ti on pape rs i ncl uded a s wo rn “s t at eme nt o f ca nd ida cy” wh ich st at ed , in
re l ev an t pa rt, that Ra

us ch en be rge r wa s a “ qua l i f i ed pri mary vote r of the Republ

ic an Party.” Pri ort o t he gen

eral pri mary election, F reder

i ck J . Hossf

eld, a registered vo t er o f t he 22 nd Le gis lative D i str ict, fil ed an o bjector ’s pe ti ti on challen gin g Rauschenberger’s el

igi bili ty to run as a Republ ic an can di date. H oss fel

d arg ued t hat Rau schenberger’s st at ement o f ca nd ida cy fa lse ly stated that he

wasa “ qual

i f i ed pri mary voter of t he Re publican P ar t y.” Re lyi ng o n Culle rto n v. Du Page Count yOff icers Electoral Board , 384 Il l . Ap p. 3d 98 9 (200 8), Ho ss feld maintaine d t ha t because Rauschenberger had voted as a Dem ocrat at t he mos t re cent pr imary elect ion p re ced ing t he fili ng of his n om i n ati on pape r s, his s t at us wa s “lo ck ed ” a s a De mo cr at ic pri mary voter unti

l he voted i n the Fe bruary 2010 g eneral

pri mary elect ion. The State Board

of El ections, s i

ttin g asthe State

Of f i cers El ectoral Bo ar d, app oint ed a hear ing examiner w ho, re lyi ng o n t he Cullerton case, recomm

ended that Hossfel

d’s obj ection b e sustai

ned. The Board’s general

coun sel co ncur re d. A subse que nt vot e by the-3- ei ght-mem

ber Board, however, resulted i n a ti e v ot e. Because a
maj ori ty vote is requi

red to in val i date no mi

nation papers (10 I LCS 5/10–10 ( We st 20 08 ) ) , Ra us ch en be r ge r ’s na me re mained o n t he ba l l ot f orthe F ebruary

2010 g eneral

pri mary elect ion p ending judi

ci al review in the ci rcuit court o f Cook County. The cir cu it court dis tingui shed t he Cu llerton case an

d deni ed Hossfel

d’s peti tion. In an

expedi ted ap pe al, th e a

pp el l ate cou rt a f f i rm ed , over a d i ss en t. 398 Ill . App. 3d 737. The a

pp el l ate maj ori ty h el d th at the Election Code “no longer provides express ti me l i m i tati ons on party -swi tchi ng f or can di dates ,” and that Ra

uschenb erger

i s a q ual i f i ed pri m ary vote r of the Republ

ic an P ar t y. 398 Ill . App. 3d

at 74 3. Alt ho ug h t he dis se nt ing jus t ice wo uld have re moved Rau sche nber ger fro m the bal lot based on the Cullerton opi ni on (398 Il l . Ap p. 3d at 7 44- 45 ( St eele, J., dissent ing)) , t he appe l l ate maj ori ty con cl ud ed th at Cullerton i s “

n otabl y di f f er en t” f rom t he pr es en

t ca se (3 98 Il l . A pp . 3d at 743). We all

owe d Ho ssfeld’s petition f or leave to appeal . 210 Ill . 2d R. 315.

AN AL YSIS I Al thought he Bo ar d failed t o r ende r a dec ision by a m aj ori ty vote, and thu s took

no a cti on on H os sfeld’s o bject ion, the Boa rd’ s dec i si

on is nonetheless s ubj ect to j udici al revi ew. Se e 10 IL CS 5/1 0–10.1 (West 200 8) (p ro vidingt hat an “o bject or agg rieved by the de ci si on of
an el ectoral board may

secure j udic ia

l rev ie w”). Whi le the Board ’s ord er doe s n ot s et f orth the re ason s the

mem bers vote d to s us tai

n or denyHossfeld’s objec t ion, the general counsel ’s recomm

endati on, as we ll as the h eari

ng e xa m i ner’sreportand r eco mmended d ecisio n, b oth
co nt ain a de t ailed exp lanat ion fo r su st aining Ho ssfeld’s objec t ion. Thus, judi

cial review m

ay b e accomplished by

reviewi ng these documents. See Cook

Coun ty Rep ublican Pa rty v . Il li nois Stat

e Board of Elections , 232 Ill . 2d 231, 241-43 (2009) (holdi ng thattievote di sm i ss als of El ec ti on Code complai

nts were subj ect to judi

ci al reviewon the meri ts, b as ed on th e d etai l ed ex pl an ati on set for t h in the gen eral coun sel ’srecom

mendati on). As t o t he a pp ro pr iat e s t and ar d o f r eview, we a gr ee w ith t he appe l l ate cou rt th at de novo review applie s. 398 Ill . App. 3d at 740. An electoral

board i s v i ewed as a n adm i nistrati ve agen cy
. Cinku s v

.-4- Villageof Stickney Mu nic ipa l Off icers Electoral Board , 228 Ill . 2d 200, 209 (2008). Thus, the standar d o f r ev ie w is de t er mined by the typeof q ues tion on rev i ew. Cinkus , 228 Il

l

. 2d at 210 . H er e, t he h i sto rical fa ct s a r e n o t in d isp ut e, an d t he qu es t io n is a p ur ely l ega l
one: wh eth er, b ase d o n ou r int er pr et at ion o f sect ion 8 –8 o f the Elec ti onCo de, Rau sche nber ger is a “qu alifi ed p rimary vo t er of t he Republ ic an Party.” Our revi

ewis “indepe ndent and not def eren tia l .” Cinkus , 228 Ill . 2d at 210.

II Bef ore considerin

g the me rits, we note that Rauschen berger has si nce wo n t he Re publican n omi nat ion fo r S t at e Se nat or of t he 22 nd Leg islative Dist rict . H os sfeld mainta ins, and we agree, t hat t his event hasnot render ed this a

ppea l m oot. A cas e on a

ppea l i s m oot where t he i ss ue s rai se d b el

ow n o l on ger e x i st b ec au se ev en ts su b se qu en t to t he fili ng of the appeal

make i t i m pos si b l e f or th e r ev i ewi n g c our t to gr ant the c omp l ai

ni ng p arty ef f ectual rel i ef

. Cinkus , 22 8 I ll. 2d at 207- 08. Though the pri

ma ry el ection at which Rauschenberger’s candi dacy
was challenge d has pas sed , t he Novem ber 2, 2010, general

el ection at whi ch the Sen ate s eat he se ekswil l be deci ded h as y et to occur. Moreov er, and in anyeven t, t hi s appeal

rais es an is sue of el

ection l aw whi ch “inhe r en t ly

is a ma tt er of publ

ic concern” an

d reviewabl

e under t he public int er est exce pt ion t o t he mootness doctri ne
. Cinkus , 22 8 I ll. 2d at 208.

III Ho ss feld arg

ue s, p urs ua nt to Cullerton , that Rauschenb erger was not a “qu al i f i ed pri mar y v oter of th e R epub l i ca n Pa rty ” b eca use he voted a De mocr at ic ballot in “the most re cent pri mary el ec ti on pr ece ding the fili

ng of [hi s] statem

en t of ca ndi dacy ,” and h e was thus “l ocked” as a Dem ocratic prim ary v ot er until he v ot ed i n the 2010 general pri mary election. Cullerton , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 996. Ho ss feld maintains that no sign

if ic ance attachesto t he fac t t ha t t he De mo cr at ic ba l l ot he vo ted was i n a consol ida ted or local

el ection, whi

ch was compl eted prior to Rauschenb ergerfiling his nom i na tion pape rs f or a2 Under the E lect ion C ode, munic ipa l a nd t owns hip off ices are fi ll ed at an election kn ow n as a “ cons olida ted el ect ion, ” whic h is held in od d-nu mber ed ye ars. 10 ILCS 5/2A– 1.1(b), 2A –1.2(c), (d

) (We st2008 ). C erta in fede ra l, state and county offices (in c luding St at e Senat or) a re filled at an election known as a “ gen eral e

le ctio n,” w hi ch i s he ld in ev en -num bered y ears. 10 ILCS 5/2A–1.1(a), 2A–1.2(a ), (b) (We st 2008).
-5- statewide o ffic e. 2 Ra us ch en be r ge rr es po nd s t ha t t he Ge ne r al As se mbly hasel im in ated t he “lo ck o ut ” p r o visio ns in the Election Code, whic h were hel d unconsti

tut iona l (se e Kusper v. Pontikes , 414 U.S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 2d 2 60, 94 S . Ct . 30 3 (1 973 ); Sperling v. County Of ficers Electoral Boa rd , 57 I ll. 2d 8 1 ( 197 4) ), and t hat unde r t he cu rr ent El ec ti on Code, Ra us che nbe rg er pr o pe rly d ec lar ed himself a qualif ie d pri mary vot er of t he Re publican P ar t y. Rau sche nb erg er further
re sp on dsth at Cullerton is limit ed by it s fa ct s a nd st an ds o nly f ort he prop osi ti on th at a ca n di da te is pre clude d fro m switc hing par t ies du ring
an ele ct io n c ycle

. Ac co r din gly, Ra us ch en be r ge rmaint ain s t ha t his De mo cr at ic v ote in

the 2009 co nso lida t ed ele ct io n in E lgin T o wn ship did not precludehim fr o m de cla r ing himse lf a qualif ie d prim ary v ot er of t he Re publ i ca n P arty i n h i s n om i na ti on papers f or t he 2010 gen

eral pri mary election. We agre e wi

th Ra uschenb erger
. His t o r ica lly, the

El ec ti on Code contained a

two- ye ar res tri cti on on par t y-swit ching appl

i ca bl e to voters , si

gners of nom i na ti on petitions, and candi

dat es. See ge ne r ally Sperling , 57 Ill . 2d at 81-82. S pe cif ica lly, under

section 7–43(d), a person was n ot entitled to v ote at a prim ary el ection if h e had v ot ed at the prim

ary el ection of an

ot her poli tical pa r t y wit hint he pr ec ed ing 23 mo nt hs. I ll. Rev. St at . 1 971 , c h. 46, pa r. 7–4 3( d) . Se cti

on 7– 10 con

tai n ed a s i m i l ar re str ic t io n ap plic ab le to si

gners of nom i na tin g peti tions f or pri mary elect ions a nd
c and ida tes for nom

in ation i n such prim ary el ections. Secti on 7–10 required that nomi natin g petitions

shal l b e signed by “qual if ie d pri mary electors,” an d t ha t ca nd ida t es , in t he ir n o mi na t io n petitions, must
swear that he or she “is a qual

if ie d prim ary v ot er of the party to whi ch t he petition rel

ates .” Il l . Re

v. Stat. 197 1, ch. 46, pa r. 7 –10 . F or purposes of

det er mini ng eligibili

t y to sign a n om

i n ati on pe ti ti on or to be a c an di da te, se cti on 7– 10 pr ov i de d, i

n re l ev an t part, t h at a “qual if ie d prim ary el ect or ” of a p arty “ i s a n e l ec tor wh

o has n ot requesteda pri

mary ba l l ot of an y other pa rty a t a pri mary ele ct io n he ld3 Although the Ele cti on Cod e refe rs toboth a “q ual if ie d p rim ary e le cto r” anda “ qua lifi ed pr ima ry vot er, ” t he phr as es ha ve the s ame me aning. Sperling , 57 I ll . 2d

at 83

. -6- wi t hin 2 ye ars of the date on whi ch the peti

tion m ust be f il ed

. ” I ll

. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 46, par. 7–10. 3 The res tri cti ons on pa rty -s wi tch i ng set f orth i n s ec ti on 7–10 were mi rrored in a r t icle 8 o f the Elec t ion Co de, which go ver ns no minatio ns of mem bers of t he General

Asse mbly . Section 8–8 requi

red a
ca n di da te t o s wea r, in his or her st at ement of ca nd i da cy , th at he or

she is a “qu al i f i ed pri mar y v oter of th e p ar ty to which t he peti

tion relates.” For pu rpos esof

de term i ni ng el i gi bi l i ty to si gn a n om i na ti on p eti ti on orto be a can

dida te underarti cle 8, a

“qual if ie d prim ary el ector” was defi ned in relevant par t as “an e lect or who has n ot requesteda pri

mary ba l l ot of a ny other pa rty a t a pri mary el ec ti on he l d w i thi n 2yea rs of t he da te on which t he pe t itio n must be fil ed. ” I ll. Rev. St at . 1 971 , c h. 46, par. 8–8. In Kusper v. Pontikes , 414 U.S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 2d 260, 94 S. Ct. 303 (1973), t he Suprem

e Court held that

t he r es t r ict io n a ga ins t pa r t ysw itching by vo t er s c o nt ain ed in se ct io n 7 –4 3( d) un co nst it ut io na lly in fri nged on the righ

t o f f ree pol i ti cal as soc i ati on pro tect ed by

the fi rst and fo ur t ee nt h a men dme nt s. T he Co ur t ex pla in e d t hat a vo t er who wis hed t o ch an ge his p ar t y affilia t io n m ust wai t al most two ye ars be f ore t hat cho ice will be g iven e ff ect, and i s f

orced to forgo par t icipat ion in any pr imary elect ions o cc ur r ing wit hin th e 2 3- mon

th statutory hiatu s. “T he effect of t he I lli nois s t at ut e is t hus t o ‘ lock ’ t he voter int o his pre-exi stin

g party af fi li ation f or a substantial

pe riod of t ime followi

ng partici

pation i n an y pri ma ry el ection, and e ach
suc cee ding prim

ary v ot e extends

this period of conf

in em ent.” Kusper , 414 U .S. at 57, 38 L. Ed. 2 d at 267 , 94 S. C t. at 308. One ye ar after the Kusper

deci si on was en

tered, th i s court deci ded t he Sperling

ca se
. T he r e w e h eld t ha t , ba se d u po n t he r ea so ning in Kusper , t he t wo - yea rno - sw it ch rule appl i ca b l e to v oter s w h o wish to sign pr imary nominat ingpetitions, se t fo r t h in s ec t io n 7 –1 0, mus t fall. Sper ling , 57 I ll. 2d a t 84. In Sperling , w e also co nsider ed t he
co nt inuingviabi

li ty of the two-year

no -s wi tch ru l e a pp l i ca b l e to candi dates i n pr i ma ry el ections. W

e observed that the “s

tandards-7- go ver ning pa r t y cha ng es by ca nd ida t es sho uld be mor e r est rict ivethan those relati

ng to vot ers general

ly ,” and that “the res tri cti on on candi dat es coul d be uph

el d agai nst constitutional

chal le nge.” Sperling , 57 Ill . 2d at 84 , 86

. We co nc lu de d, ho we ve r , t ha t be ca us e t he pa r t yswit ching restrictions

upon the t h ree cat egor ies of v ot ers are so clo se ly re l ate d, t h e G en er al A ss em b l y wou l d n ot hav e ena ct ed t he porti on r ela t ing t o ca nd ida t es ap ar t fr o m s om e res tri cti ons upon votersge ne

ral l y , an d up on v oters wh o si gn pri mary nom i na ti on petitions. Sperling , 57 Ill . 2d at 86. “In these ci rcums tan ces t he
res tri cti ons upo n cand idat es c anno t be co nsider ed inde pend ent and
sev erab l e f rom th e i nv al i d porti ons of

the p l an .” Sperling , 57 Ill . 2d at 86. This co ur t late r c larified t hat , in t he absence o f am endatory legislat ion, t he eff

ect of t he de cisions in Kusper and Sperling

wa s to “rende rinop er able” t he t wo -year par t y-swit ching restri cti ons. Dooley v. McGillicudy , 63 Il

l . 2d 54, 6 0 (197 6). In 199 0, t he General

A ss em bl y am en de d s ec ti ons

7–1 0 a nd 8–8 of t he El ec ti on

Code. See Pub. Act 86–1348, §2, eff . September 7, 1990. Though re t aining the requirem

ent that a candidate must swear that he
or sh e is a “qu alifi

ed p rimary vo t er of t he pa rt y to which t he
no mi na ti on petition rel

ates,” the General

Asse mbly del eted th e de f i ni ti on of “qual if ie d prim ary el ector. ” In so doin

g, the General Ass emb ly del eted th e two-y

ear n o-swi tch ru l e. A f ter am en dm en t, sec t ions 7–10 a

nd 8 –8 state d si

m pl y that “ [a] ‘ qual

i f i ed pri mary el ec tor’ of a par t y may

not sign pe t itio ns for or be a c andida t e in the pri mary of m ore t han one party.” Pub. Ac

t 86–1 34 8, §2 , e ff. Septembe r7, 1990. Since 1990, the General Ass embly has n ot adopted any

tim e restrictions

on party-swi

tchin g by ca nd i da tesor ot her de finit io n o f “ qua lif

ied pr imary elect or .” Mo re re cent ly, the General Assembly delet ed t he no - sw it ch rule ap plic ab le to voters set f orth in section 7–

43(d), whi

ch the Kusper

op inion fou nd
un co nst it ut io na l. See Pub. Act 95–699, §5, eff . Novemb er 9, 2007. Thus, no vestige of the f ormer pa rty-s wi tc hing ru le remains in t he statut e. Against t his back dr op , t he appe l l ate court deci ded the Cullerton
case in 2008. At is sue was whethe r Thomas C

ull erto n was a “

qual if ie d pri mary vo t er o f t he De mo cr at ic P ar t y” f or pu rpos esof se cti on 7–10 of t he E lec t io n C o de

. Cu ller t o n ha d v o t ed a R ep ub lica n ba llo t in t he Feb ruary 200 8 ge ne ral pri mary el ec ti on in Du P age Co unt y. Fo llowing-8- that pri mary , th e D em ocra ti c Pa rty, wh o h ad n o ca

n di da te f or S tate Se na torof th e 2 3r d L eg i sl

ati v e D i str i ct, n om i n ate d Cul l er ton as i ts can di da te for the Novem

ber 2008 gene

ral el ection. The Du

Pag e Cou n ty El ec tor al B oar d sust ained an objection to Cullert on’s candi dacy , whi ch

t he cir cu it co ur t r ev er se d. On ap pe al, th e a pp el l ate court hel d t ha t Cu ller t o n w as ine ligible t o run as a D emo cr at ic
ca n di da te in the general

pri mary election. Cullerton , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 990 . Aft er re viewing t he hist or y of t he par t y-swit ching pr ovisio ns in the Election Code, the appell ate court concl

uded: “The pla in and ordin

ary m eani ng of the requ

irem en t th at a ca n di da te be a qua l i f i ed pri mary v oter of th e p ar ty for whi ch he see ks a nominat ion mand ates , if not hing else, t hat t he
ca n di da te have been

eligi ble to vot e i

n the prim

ar y f or t hat pa rty i n the m ost recent pri

mary election pre ced ing t he candidates’ fil

ing t he st at ement of c andi dacy .” Cullerton , 384 Ill . App. 3d at 996. The appell

ate co urt expl ain

ed that when Cul

lerton chose to v ote in the Republ ic an an d n ot t he Dem

ocratic prim

ary i n 2008, he was

“l ocked” as a Repub li

can prim ary v ot er until the nex t prim ary, then schedul ed f or 201 0. Th

us , at th e ti me Cul l erton su bm i tted h i s state men

t of
ca nd id ac y, he wa s no t a q ua lified pr imar y vo t er o f t he De mo cr at ic Party

. Cullerton , 384 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 996. Though Hossf

el d argues that the sam

e resul t should obtai

n he re, t he situ at ion ad dr esse d in Cullerton is n ot the situation we address here. In Cullerton , t he ca nd ida t e a t t emp t ed t o sw it ch pa r t ies wit hin
one election cy

cle or season, i.e. , Cull

erto n voted

a R ep ub l i ca n b al l ot at th e p ri mar y , but th en sou gh t to ru n as a D em ocrati c c an did ate at t he ge ne ral el ec ti on f orwhi ch that prim

ary wa s hel

d. In c ont ra st , t he el ec ti on cy cl e or s ea son

duri ng wh ic h Rausc hen berger voted a De mo cr at ic ballot –t he 20 09 c ons olidat ed e lect ion i nE lgin Townshi p–was co mple t ed wit h t he ge ne r al t o wn ship ele ct io n in Ap r il 2009, prior to Rauschenb erger ali gni ng hi ms el f wi th the R epu bl

ic an Pa rty in hi s October2009 n

omi na tion pape rs for purposes of the 2010 general pr imar y. Ra

us ch en b erger has

n ot att em pte d to swi

tch parties dur ingt his n ew ele ct io n c ycle wh ich will be co mple ted wit h t he Novem ber 2010 gen era l

el ec ti on. Th

us , Hos sf

el d’ s r el i an ceon Cullerton is

mi spl aced. Moreov er, we find no t hing in the l an gua geof se cti on 7–10 or 8–8-9- of th e E l ec ti on

Cod e to s uppor t H o ssf el d’s argum

ent that Ra uschenberger ’s nomi

nation pa

pers fa ls el y s tate t hat he i s a “qual if ie d pr imar y vo t er o f t he Re pu blic Par t y.” As the a ppel l ate court here correct ly

observed, the Election Code no lo nger co nt ains express tim e l im itations on party-swi

tchin g, and Rausch

enb ergerdid not run afoul of the onl y rem ai ni ng restriction, set for t h in bot h sec t ions 7–10
an d 8–8, that a “ ‘qual

if ie d prim ary el ector’ o f a party

ma y n ot sign pet itio ns f or or be a ca ndi date i n the pri mary of m ore than one p arty .” See 398 I l l. A

pp. 3d at 744. Furt her, no cl ai m h as been ma de that Rau sche nbe rgerdi d not m eet the qual i f i cations f or pri mary voters gen er ally whi ch a re set f orth in section 7–43. See

10 ILCS 5 /7 –4 3 (West 2008) (sett in

g forth resi dency

and age restri cti ons f or pri mary voters ). Though we agr ee w ith H os sfeld t hat par t y-swit ching re st rict ions
on candi dates for pu

b lic office ar e an impo rt ant pr ot ect ion in t he el ectoral pro cess, “[s] uch r est rict ions a nd es t ablishment o f the periods of t ime invo lved are , wi

thi n c ons ti tuti ona l l i m i tations , m

atte rs f or legislat ivedeterm

i na tion .” Sperling , 57 I ll. 2d a t 86. Afte r d elet ing t he two- ye ar no-s wi tch ru l e, t h e G en

er al A ss em b l y h as n ot s een f i t to enact an y f urthe r t ime re st rict ions. Acco rd ingly, unde r t he pr ese nt Election Code, Rauschen

berger’s n

omi natin g papers are val

id.

CONCLUSION For t he r ea so ns s t at ed , we affir m t he jud gme n t of th e a pp el l ate courtaffirming the ju dgment of the ci rcu i t cou rt of Cook Co unty that de nied Ho ss feld re lief.
Aff irmed

.