2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

No. 2-20-0127 

Order filed March 13, 2020 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

CYNTHIA PILZ, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

 ) of McHenry County. 

 Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 20-MR-19 

) 

McHENRY COUNTY ELECTORAL ) 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, JOSEPH ) 

J. TIRIO, NORMAN D. VINTON, ROBIN L. ) 

SHETLEY, and JUSTIN HANSEN, ) 

 ) 

 Respondents ) Honorable 

 ) Philip G. Montgomery, 

(Justin Hansen, Respondent-Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

PRESIDING JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Bridges and Brennan concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The candidate’s designation of the office sought in his nominating papers 

substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Code; we therefore 

affirm the trial court’s judgment confirming the Electoral Board. 

¶ 2 Respondent, Justin M. Hansen (candidate), filed nominating papers to be a candidate of the 

Republican Party for nomination to the office of resident circuit court judge for the Third 

Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, McHenry County, in the March 17, 2020, 

primary election. Petitioner, Cynthia Pilz (objector), filed objections to the candidate’s nominating 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 2 -

papers, and the McHenry County Electoral Board (Board) overruled her objections. On judicial 

review, the McHenry County circuit court denied the objector’s petition for judicial review and 

confirmed the Board’s judgment overruling her objections. On appeal, the objector argues that the 

Board erred in determining that the candidate substantially complied with sections 7-10 and 7-14a 

of the Illinois Election Code (Election Code) (10 ILCS 5/7-10, 7-14a (West 2018)) in accurately 

identifying the office sought. Because the candidate’s nominating papers sufficiently identify the 

office sought so as to be free from any basis for confusion, the Board correctly overruled the 

objector’s objection and we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 As is relevant to the March 17, 2020, primary election, three circuit judges in the McHenry 

County circuit court retired: Hon. Michael J. Caldwell effective December 31, 2017; Hon. Michael 

J. Sullivan effective December 31, 2018; and Hon. Sharon Prather effective July 12, 2019. Hon. 

David R. Gervais was appointed to the Caldwell vacancy, which was an at-large judgeship. The 

candidate was appointed to the Sullivan vacancy, which was a resident judgeship in the Third 

Subcircuit of the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit. Hon. Mark R. Gerhardt was appointed to the 

Prather vacancy, which was a resident judgeship in the Fourth Subcircuit of the Twenty-Second 

Judicial Circuit.

¶ 5 In timely fashion, the candidate filed his nominating papers for the resident judgeship of 

the Third Subcircuit. In his statement of candidacy, in the blank provided for the office sought, 

the candidate described the office as “Judge of the Circuit Court, Hon. Michael J. Sullivan 

vacancy.” In the blank for the district, the candidate inscribed, “22nd Judicial Circuit, 3rd 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 3 -

Subcircuit.” Each of the sheets of the candidate’s nominating petition contained the following 

heading: 

“JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT—SUBCIRCUIT—PRIMARY PETITION

We, the undersigned, qualified primary electors residing within the district named 

below and members affiliated with the Republican Party, in the 3rd Subcircuit of the 22nd 

Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, do hereby petition that the following named person 

shall be a candidate of the Republican Party for the nomination for the office hereinafter 

specified, to be voted for at the Primary Election to be held on March 17th, 2020: 

Justin Hansen

Who resides at [address], County of McHenry and State of Illinois, shall be a candidate of 

the Republican Party for the office of Judge of the Circuit Court to fill the vacancy of the 

Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, 3rd Subcircuit, for the 22nd Judicial Circuit of the State of 

Illinois.” 

¶ 6 In addition, each petition, after having 15 lines for the petitioners to provide their 

signatures, printed names, and addresses, provided a sworn statement for each circulator to fill out. 

The circulator provided his or her name, address and averred as follows: 

“that I am 18 years of age or older (or 17 years of age and qualified to vote in Illinois); that 

I am a citizen of the United States; and that the signatures on this sheet were signed in my 

presence, not more than 90 days preceding the last day for filing of the petitions, and are 

genuine and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were, at the 

time of signing the petition, registered and qualified voters of the Republican Party, 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 4 -

residing in the 3rd Subcircuit of the 22nd Judicial circuit of the State of Illinois, and that 

their respective residences are correctly stated, as above set forth.” 

¶ 7 On December 9, 2019, the objector filed her verified objection to the candidate’s 

nominating papers. The objector alleged that the candidate’s nominating papers did not identify a 

valid vacant office and, as the office specified was invalid, the whole of the candidate’s nominating 

papers was likewise invalid. The candidate filed a response and the objector filed a reply. 

Following the parties’ briefing, the matter advanced to a December 18, 2019, hearing before the 

Board. The objector personally made a brief statement during the hearing on her objection to the 

candidacy of Donald R. Brewer, but it applied to and was applied by the Board to the hearing on 

the candidate’s nominating papers. The objector asserted that she believed that the candidate had 

made a serious error in failing to correctly identify the office for which he was seeking nomination, 

and she asserted that she would not have objected to “an administrative error, an error such as 

stapling.” 

¶ 8 On January 3, 2020, the Board issued its ruling. The Board determined that the candidate 

had consistently identified the office sought in his nominating papers. With that said, however, 

the candidate had not utilized the exact name of that office. Nevertheless, the Board held that there 

was but “one judicial vacancy for the Office of Circuit Court Judge for Subcircuit 3.” The Board 

also determined that the Chief Justice’s Certified List of Judicial Vacancies expressly stated that 

the origin of the office “emanat[ed] from the retirement of Judge Sullivan.” There was, therefore 

“some basis and recognition of the link between the specific vacancy and the name of Judge 

Sullivan.” The Board determined that substantial compliance with the statutory requirements was 

the standard and, “even though the term, ‘Judgeship A’ was not included in the office description, 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 5 -

it was clear that the Candidate was seeking to run for the one vacancy in Subcircuit 3. As a result, 

there was no reasonable basis to create confusion among voters.” The Board overruled the 

objection. 

¶ 9 On January 7, 2020, the objector petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s decision. On 

January 17, 2020, the candidate moved to dismiss the petition for judicial review because it had 

not been served upon him in his private capacity, but rather, service had been effected at his 

employment (as the appointed resident circuit judge for additional judgeship A in the Third 

Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial District) in his official capacity. The objector eventually 

filed a memorandum in support of her petition for judicial review outside of the original briefing 

schedule prompting the candidate’s motion to strike due to the memorandum’s tardiness. 

Following the briefing of the pending issues, on February 11, 2020, the trial court heard arguments. 

¶ 10 The same day, February 11, 2020, the trial court issued its judgment. The trial court denied 

the candidate’s motion to dismiss. After moving to the merits, the trial court confirmed the Board’s 

judgment and denied the petition for judicial review, echoing the Board’s reasoning and holding 

that the candidate’s nominating papers did not create a basis for confusion. On February 13, 2020, 

the objector filed a timely notice of appeal. On February 20, 2020, we granted the objector’s 

emergency motion to expedite the instant appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 311(b) (eff. 

July 18, 2018). 

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 On appeal, the objector advances the solitary contention that the candidate failed to indicate 

an actual and existing office to which he sought nomination. The objector argues that the vacant 

office was actually additional judgeship A, whereas the candidate listed the office variously as 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 6 -

“Judge of the Circuit Court to fill the vacancy of the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan” or “Judge of 

the Circuit Court, Hon. Michael J. Sullivan vacancy.” The objector reasons that, because the 

Election Code requires the prospective candidate to identify the office sought, the candidate’s 

erroneous identification of the office must result in his disqualification and her objection must be 

sustained. 

¶ 13 A. Jurisdiction 

¶ 14 As an initial matter, we note that the candidate challenges our jurisdiction on the basis that 

the objector effectuated service upon him in his professional capacity rather than his personal 

capacity. Specifically, the candidate argues that service was faulty because the objector sent a 

copy of the objection to his place of employment rather than his home. Section 10-10.1(a) of the 

Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-10.1 (West 2018)) requires that the “party seeking judicial review 

must file a petition with the clerk of the court and must serve a copy of the petition upon the *** 

other parties to the proceeding by registered or certified mail within 5 days after service of the 

decision of the electoral board.” The provision does not require that the certified or registered mail 

be sent to the abode of the other parties. The candidate cites Hough v. Will County Board of 

Elections, 338 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 1093-94 (2003), to no avail. In Hough, the court determined that 

it lacked jurisdiction because the other parties were not served; rather the attorney for the other 

parties was served. Id. at 1094. Here, service was effectuated on the candidate via certified mail. 

Thus, the candidate was served in compliance with the Election Code and jurisdiction in the circuit 

court was properly established. 

¶ 15 The candidate also argues that the petition for judicial review did not provide “a brief 

statement of the reasons why the decision of the board should be reversed” (10 ILCS 5/10-10.1(a) 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 7 -

(West 2018)). The petition, contrary to the candidate’s contention, contained an adequate 

statement of “the reasons why the decision of the board should be reversed.” Accordingly, we 

reject the candidate’s jurisdictional challenge. We now turn to the objector’s contention on appeal.

¶ 16 B. Governing Principles 

¶ 17 This case comes before us from the judicial review of the Board’s decision on the objector’s 

objection to the candidate’s nominating papers. Judicial review proceedings under the Election 

Code are in the nature of administrative review. Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398, 405 (2011). 

When such proceedings are appealed, the appellate court reviews the electoral board’s decision, 

not the circuit court’s decision. Id. As in any administrative-review case, our standard of review 

depends on what is in dispute: the facts, the law, or a mixed question of fact and law. Id. Factual 

issues will not be disturbed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Cinkus v. 

Village of Stickney, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210 (2008). Issues of law are reviewed de novo. Id. Issues 

of mixed questions of fact and law (i.e., where the historical facts and applicable law are 

undisputed, but the issue involves the application of the law to the facts) are reviewed under the 

clearly erroneous standard. Id. 

¶ 18 This case presents an issue of law. The issue of whether the candidate’s nominating papers 

satisfied the statutory requirements involves the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, 

and it is well established that statutory interpretation presents a question of law. Brunton v. Kruger, 

2015 IL 117663, ¶ 24. We note that cases diverge in the standard of review to be applied to the 

issue of whether a candidate’s nominating papers satisfy the statutory requirements. Zurek v. 

Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 2014 IL App (1st) 140446, ¶ 11 (de novo review of the 

issue of whether the candidate’s nominating papers satisfied the Election Code); Salgado v. 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 8 -

Marquez, 356 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1075 (2005) (same); Samuelson v. Cook County Officers Electoral 

Board, 2012 IL App (1st) 120581, ¶ 11 (application of the law to nominating papers merits review 

under the clearly erroneous standard). Regardless, however, of the standard used, the result in this 

case is the same.

¶ 19 Section 7-10 of the Election Code governs the form and content of a candidate’s 

nominating papers. In order to be placed on the primary ballot, a candidate must submit 

nominating petitions in the requisite form containing the required number of signatures. 10 ILCS 

5/7-10 (West 2018). 

“Each sheet of the petition other than the statement of candidacy and candidate's statement 

shall be of uniform size and shall contain above the space for signatures an appropriate 

heading giving the information as to name of candidate or candidates, in whose behalf such 

petition is signed; the office, the political party represented and place of residence; and the 

heading of each sheet shall be the same.” Id. 

¶ 20 Our supreme court has held that the purpose of section 7-10 of the Election Code “is to 

provide an orderly procedure whereby qualified persons seeking public office may enter primary 

elections.” Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill. 2d 48, 53 (1976). To that end, the nominating papers are to be 

considered altogether. Id. at 53-54. Further, only substantial, rather than strict, compliance with 

the Election Code is required, and the nominating papers will satisfy the requirement of substantial 

compliance if there is “no basis for confusion as to the office for which the nominating papers 

were filed.” Id. at 54. With these principles in mind, we turn to the objector’s contentions. 

¶ 21 C. Identification of the Office Sought 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 9 -

¶ 22 The objector argues that the candidate so misidentified the office sought that the petitionsigners would have been hopelessly confused. As a result, the candidate’s nominating papers did 

not substantially comply with the Election Code and her objection should have been sustained by 

the Board. We disagree.

¶ 23 The objector starts from the assertion that at least two similar offices were available in the 

relevant voting district. Section 7-14a of the Election Code provides that: 

“Where there are 2 or more additional judgeships created in any judicial district or circuit, 

to be filled at the same general election and to be elected from the same district, circuit or 

county, each such additional judgeship shall be designated by the State Board of Elections 

by a letter of the alphabet beginning with the letter “A”. Such designation shall be made 

no later than one day prior to the first day for filing of nominating petitions for such 

additional judgeships. Each candidate for such additional judgeship shall specify to the 

State Board of Elections upon the filing of his nominating petitions the judgeship for which 

he seeks nomination. Such candidates shall be nominated and elected for the judgeships 

which they have designated.” 10 ILCS 5/7-14a (West 2018). 

¶ 24 From this, the objector determines that the actual name of the office sought by the candidate 

is “Additional Judgeship A.” Because the candidate did not use this precise formulation, he 

misidentified the office he was seeking. In turn, this led to confusion as there were two judicial 

office vacancies within the voting district. The objector concludes that, as a result, her objection 

should have been sustained. 

¶ 25 The objector correctly notes that the proper denomination for the office sought is

“Additional Judgeship A.” However, even though the candidate did not use this terminology, 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 10 -

because the governing standard is substantial compliance, and because substantial compliance in 

this regard focuses on whether there is no basis for confusion as to the office sought, if the 

candidate can demonstrate substantial compliance, i.e., no basis for confusion, then the improper 

nomenclature of the office will not be fatal.

¶ 26 In the first instance, the Illinois Constitution provides that the position sought by the 

candidate was entitled “circuit judge.” Ill. Const 1970, art. 6, ¶ 7. In his candidate’s statement 

and nominating petitions, the candidate indicated that the office sought was “Judge of the Circuit 

Court.” As this comports with the constitutional designation of the judicial position he sought, we 

cannot say that his alternate form of identification was not also a correct denomination. This 

conclusion is further supported by the order of appointment as the candidate was appointed to fill 

the vacancy created by Judge Sullivan’s retirement. Our supreme court ordered that the candidate 

be appointed to the position of “Circuit Judge of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, Third 

Subcircuit.” Thus, the candidate was actually appointed to the position of circuit judge, and this 

is also identified as the office to which he was seeking nomination, notwithstanding how the 

position may be portrayed on a ballot. Therefore, contrary to the objector’s contention, we cannot 

say that the office sought was nonexistent. 

¶ 27 Next, we note, as did the Board, that the certification of judicial vacancies labeled the office 

as Resident Judgeship A for the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit. In 

addition, the certification identified the “Judicial Officer who Held Position” as the Honorable 

Michael J. Sullivan, who retired effective December 31, 2018. It is undisputed that the candidate 

was seeking the office of circuit judge. While he did not employ the term “Judgeship A,” he did 

include all of the other information appearing in the certification. The omission of the title 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 11 -

“Judgeship A” in light of all the information taken from the certification is de minimis, especially 

since the office was properly identified as the judgeship for the Third Subcircuit. Including the 

information about the Sullivan vacancy did not create confusion; rather, as the information was 

included in the certification, it helped to more specifically identify the office sought and, if 

anything, decreased any basis for confusion. 

¶ 28 Finally, we note that several cases strongly support our reasoning. First, in Lewis, the 

candidate filed a statement of candidacy that described the office he was seeking as “ ‘Judge of 

the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District,’ ” while his nominating petition described 

the office as “ ‘Judge of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, to fill the vacancy 

created by the retirement of the Honorable Robert E. English.’ ” Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 49-50. The 

court held that the nominating papers, considered altogether, clearly stated the office sought, 

notwithstanding the variance between the statement of candidacy and the nominating petition. Id.

at 53. The court concluded that the candidate had substantially complied with the provisions of 

the Election Code. Id. In this case, the candidate identified the office by its constitutional title and 

included all of the relevant information from the Chief Justice’s certification of judicial vacancies. 

The statement of candidacy and the nominating petition were effectively the same regarding the 

office sought and provided exactly the same information. Lewis, therefore, strongly supports our 

reasoning because the information included in the candidate’s nominating papers clearly identified 

the office sought and there was no basis for confusion arising from the candidate’s identification 

of the office sought. 

¶ 29 In Wiesner v. Brennan, 2016 IL App (2d) 160115, ¶ 25, the sheets of the candidate’s 

nominating petition were not uniform in their designation of the office sought, with sheets 1 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 12 -

through 58 designating the office as “ ‘Resident Circuit Court Judge to fill the vacancy of the 

Honorable John T. Elsner, for the 18th Judicial Circuit,’ ” and sheets 59 through 80 designating 

the office as “ ‘Judge of the Circuit Court to fill the vacancy of the Honorable John T. Elsner, for 

the 18th Judicial Circuit.’ ” The objector challenged sheets 59 through 80 because they contained 

an incorrect office and varied from sheets 1 through 58. Id. This court held that all of the 

nominating petition sheets specified the office (circuit judge) and did not lead to any voter 

confusion, because if the nominating papers describe only one office, there can be no basis for 

confusion. Id. ¶ 28. We concluded that, “because there was only one office to be filled by ‘the 

vacancy of the Honorable John T. Elsner’ in ‘the 18th Judicial Circuit,’ *** there was no basis for 

confusion.” Id. The same reasoning applies here. There is only one office available in the Third 

Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit that was vacated by the Honorable Michael J. 

Sullivan. The candidate’s nominating papers described only a single office, that of Judge 

Sullivan’s vacant resident circuit judgeship in the Third Subcircuit; moreover, all of the sheets of 

the candidate’s nominating petitions were uniform in designating that precise office sought, and 

there is no basis for confusion. 

¶ 30 In Stevenson v. County Officers Electoral Board, 58 Ill. App. 3d 24, 26 (1978), the 

candidate used an outmoded designation for the office sought. In his nominating papers, he stated 

he was seeking the office of “ ‘Superintendent of an Educational Service Region,’ ” but the title of 

the office changed to “ ‘regional superintendent.’ ” Id. The court held that the use of the former 

title and not the current statutory designation did not cause a question as to the office the candidate 

was seeking and, therefore, the candidate had substantially complied with the Election Code. Id.

at 27. In this case, the candidate clearly indicated that he was seeking the resident judgeship vacant 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 13 -

in the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit. The candidate’s designation here is 

for an actual position; arguably, in Stevenson, the candidate’s use of the former designation meant 

that he was seeking nomination to an office that no longer existed. If the use of an expired 

designation that no longer applied did not create a basis for confusion, then in this case, the 

candidate’s inclusion of an existing office, the geographical designation, and the name of the 

previously elected officer likewise does not create a reasonable basis for confusion and is 

substantially compliant with the Election Code.

¶ 31 The objector tries to rationalize her objection with Stevenson’s holding by explaining that, 

in this case, the office is unequivocally Judgeship A, and is not a “minor error” of seeking an office 

by a name that is no longer current. We fail to see any meaningful difference, especially as, just 

as in Stevenson, the office sought clearly existed and the candidate’s designation provided no 

reasonable basis for confusion among the electorate. 

¶ 32 The objector relies on Salgado, 356 Ill. App. 3d 1072, for the proposition that when a 

judicial candidate misidentifies the office by failing to use specifically prescribed language, it is a 

failure on par with failing to identify any office sought in any of the nominating papers. The 

objector asserts that the candidate’s “failure to identify a certified office is akin to leaving the 

‘Office’ line blank” in his nominating papers. Salgado is distinguishable because there, “[t]here 

[was] no dispute that Marquez did not list the office he sought on any of his nominating petitions.” 

Id. at 1075. This court held that, by omitting completely the office sought from the sheets of the 

nominating petition, the candidate in Salgado frustrated the purpose of the nominating petition 

which was to demonstrate the candidate’s initiative and some minimum appeal to eligible voters. 

Id. at 1079. Here, the candidate stated consistently in all of the sheets of his nominating petition 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 14 -

that he was seeking the office of “Judge of the Circuit Court to fill the vacancy of the Honorable 

Michael J. Sullivan, 3rd Subcircuit, for the 22nd Judicial Circuit.” Thus, the candidate identified 

the office, its electoral locus, the previously elected officeholder, and he demonstrated his initiative 

and some minimum appeal to the eligible voters of the relevant electoral locus. In other words, 

the candidate provided what was missing in Salgado, and this distinguishes Salgado from our case.

¶ 33 The objector challenges various details of our analysis. The objector asserts that, for us to 

even consider whether the candidate has substantially complied with the Election Code, the 

essential hurdle is whether the office specified in the nominating papers can only refer to one 

possible vacancy in that district so there is no basis for confusion. Pascente v. County Officers 

Electoral Board of the County of Cook, 373 Ill. App. 3d 871, 874 (2007). This assertion overstates 

Pascente’s holding. In that case, the court measured the objection against the standard of “a 

candidate is entitled to have his name placed on the ballot if ‘there was no basis for confusion as 

to the office for which the nominating papers were filed.’ ” Id. at 873 (quoting Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 

53). The court did not make the use of substantial-compliance analysis contingent on any condition 

precedent; rather, substantial compliance is demonstrated by showing that no confusion arises, and 

one of the ways this can be done is to show that the nominating papers refer to only one possible 

vacancy. In Pascente, the candidate identified the electoral locus along with the position and this 

demonstrated that the nominating papers referred to only one possible vacancy. Id. at 873-875. 

Here, the candidate identified the single vacancy occurring in the judiciary in the Third Subcircuit, 

which fully comports with Pascente’s reasoning. 

¶ 34 The objector next contends that the no-basis-for-confusion standard must be viewed as 

whether the nominating papers submitted by the candidate could refer to more than one vacancy 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 15 -

in the “district.” We agree with this statement. See Wiesner, 2016 IL App (2d) 160115, ¶ 27 (“the 

nomination papers as a whole must not create a basis for confusion as to the office sought”). The 

objector’s argument focuses on “district.” The objector argues that, by identifying the office as 

that of circuit judge to fill the vacancy of the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, Third Subcircuit, 

Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, the candidate created a basis for confusion. Specifically, the 

objector contends that “district” is ambiguous in the Election Code because it is used in 

conjunction with voting area as well as in reference to a Judicial District in defining the number 

of needed signatures for a nominating petition. In addition, the objector argues that circuit and 

subcircuit are undefined in the Election Code. Finally, the objector contends that using the term 

“vacancy” in the identification of the office implies that it was for the at-large judicial position.

¶ 35 The Election Code defines “district” to mean:

“any area which votes as a unit for the election of any officer, other than the State or a unit 

of local government or school district, and includes, but is not limited to, legislative, 

congressional and judicial districts, judicial circuits, county board districts, municipal and 

sanitary district wards, school board districts, and precincts.” 10 ILCS 5/1-3(14) (West 

2018). 

According to the objector, the Election Code does not define a “subcircuit” as a “district.” Instead, 

“judicial district” is referenced in section 7-10(h), but only in the context of the number of 

signatures needed by a candidate for “judicial office:”

“If a candidate seeks to run for judicial office in a circuit or subcircuit, then the candidate's 

petition for nomination must contain the number of signatures equal to 0.25% of the 

number of votes cast for the judicial candidate of his or her political party who received 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 16 -

the highest number of votes at the last general election at which a judicial officer from the 

same circuit or subcircuit was regularly scheduled to be elected, but in no event less than 

1,000 signatures in circuits and subcircuits located in the First Judicial District or 500 

signatures in every other Judicial District. (Emphases added.) 10 ILCS 5/7-10(h) (West 

2018). 

The objector concludes, by focusing on the emphasized language, that the relevant “district” (i.e., 

“area which votes as a unit for the election” of an elected position) encompasses the entirety of the 

Twenty-second Judicial Circuit. From this conclusion about the voting district, the objector then 

reasons that, because there are three vacant judicial positions within the Twenty-second Judicial 

Circuit, the candidate’s failure to accurately identify the position he sought created a basis for 

confusion. The objector further contends that, even if the relevant voting district were confined to 

the Third Subcircuit, there are still two judicial positions that will be voted on, and the candidate’s 

failure to accurately identify the position he sought still created a basis for confusion. Under either 

scenario, we disagree. 

¶ 36 The objector’s argument requires us to consider the meaning of the relevant provisions of 

the Election Code. The cardinal principle of construing the meaning of statutory provisions, to 

which all other rules of statutory interpretation are subordinate, is to ascertain and give effect to 

the legislature’s intent. Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30, 34 (2004). The plain language of the 

statute is the best indicator of the legislature’s intent, and where that language is clear and 

unambiguous, it will be given effect without employing other aids of statutory construction. Id. at 

35. 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 17 -

¶ 37 We further read the statute as a whole and not as isolated provisions. Id. at 37. In our 

interpretive endeavor, we also consider the stated purpose, if any, of the statute as well as the 

judicial pronouncements of that purpose. Id. We also consider the statute as a whole in order in 

order to determine what it was primarily designed to accomplish. Id. 

¶ 38 The voting district for the resident judgeship associated with the Third Subcircuit is 

obviously the Third Subcircuit itself. No other voters may participate in electing the resident 

circuit judge associated with the Third Subcircuit. Likewise, the voting district for the at-large 

judgeship associated with the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit is the entirety of the Twenty-second 

Judicial Circuit. The rub occurs because the voting districts overlap; all of the eligible voters who 

reside in the Third Subcircuit may also participate in the election of the at-large candidate for the 

Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, but only the subset of eligible voters who reside in both the 

Twenty-second Judicial Circuit and the Third Subcircuit may participate in the election of the 

resident judgeship associated with the Third Subcircuit. However, the districts remain distinct as 

well as the offices. It is therefore mistaken to conflate the overlap of voting districts with the 

creation of a basis for confusion where the offices themselves do not overlap and are otherwise 

clearly defined.

¶ 39 The objector seeks to divine confusion arising from the purportedly indiscriminate use of 

circuit, subcircuit, and district in section 7-10(h). According to the objector, the relevant language 

is “[i]f a candidate seeks to run for judicial office in a circuit or subcircuit, then the candidate’s 

petition for nomination must contain *** 500 signatures in every other Judicial District.” 10 ILCS 

5/7-10(h) (West 2018). The objector reasons that, “even where a subcircuit is specifically 

mentioned, it is still referred to as a subdivision within a ‘Judicial District’ as the more general 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 18 -

area.” The objector then concludes that, “[c]onsistent with this language, the relevant ‘district’ 

here is the 22nd Judicial Circuit.” 

¶ 40 The objector’s reasoning does not track, and section 7-10(h) is, and remains, clear and 

unambiguous. It is clear that the term “Judicial District” in section 7-10(h) refers to the appellate 

districts of the State. Section 7-10(h) sets the minimum number of signatures necessary for the 

nominating petition and this number is the same whether the candidate is running “for judicial 

office in a circuit or subcircuit,” and is dependent on whether the position resides in the First 

Judicial District or any or another Judicial District. There is no suggestion from the provision that

the relevant voting district for the office sought would not correspond with the geographic territory 

of the circuit or subcircuit. Thus, the objector’s conclusion that the relevant voting district, 

informed by section 7-10(h), simply does not follow. The relevant voting district is the subcircuit 

itself.

¶ 41 The objector notes, more relevantly, that the at-large judgeship was denominated as the 

vacancy of the Honorable Michael T. Caldwell, while the Subcircuit 3 judgeship was denominated 

“Judgeship A.” According to the objector, when the candidate indicated that the office sought was 

the vacancy of the Honorable Michael J. Sullivan, this was confusing because “vacancy” refers to 

an at-large judgeship, so there was a basis for confusion. We disagree. 

¶ 42 The objector’s argument turns on ignoring all of the other information present in the 

nominating papers. The candidate clearly indicated that he was seeking the office of circuit judge 

in the Third Subcircuit. The candidate also included information about the previously elected 

judge who held the position and whose retirement left it vacant. The use of the term “vacancy” 

does not transform the nominating papers into papers for the at-large vacancy, particularly where 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 19 -

the candidate inscribed the name of the previously elected resident circuit judge of the Third 

Subcircuit as well as the location of the position in the Third Subcircuit. Where there is one 

position available in the district and where the nominating papers describe only one possible 

vacancy in the district, there is no basis for confusion. Wiesner, 2016 IL App (2d) 160115, ¶ 28. 

We reject this argument. 

¶ 43 Next, the objector argues that the misidentification of the office sought rendered the 

petitions ineffective in their purpose of demonstrating that the candidate had the necessary 

minimum level of appeal to the eligible voters. In Salgado, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 1079, this court 

held that the purpose of nominating petitions “is to reduce the electoral process to manageable 

proportions by confining ballot positions to a relatively small number of candidates who have 

demonstrated initiative and at least a minimal appeal to eligible voters.” However, the minimal 

appeal component of the purpose of nominating petitions can be shown “only by reference to a

particular type of office.” The objector argues that the misidentification of the office sought was 

tantamount to including no office on the nominating petitions and therefore Salgado controls. We 

disagree.

¶ 44 The candidate here included the office sought: circuit judge. This is indeed the general 

type of office sought as well, a judgeship. Accordingly, the petitions were sufficient to 

demonstrate the minimal appeal component as they revealed the candidate was seeking the office 

of circuit judge. The objector erases the substance of the office sought and replaces it with the 

empty talisman of a label as if the label itself is the end-all and be-all. We reject petitioner’s 

argument. 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 20 -

¶ 45 The objector relies on Zapolsky v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 296 Ill. App. 3d 

731, 734 (1998),1 in which the court noted that the candidate’s nominating petition did not include 

a reference to the specific office sought, and this frustrated the signatories’ ability to ascertain the 

specific vacancy sought by the candidate so that each signatory could make an informed decision 

to sign the candidate’s petition or to support a different candidate for the same vacancy. The 

objector’s reliance on Zapolsky is misplaced. In that case, it was uncontroverted that there were

numerous vacancies for the type of office sought by the candidate. Id. It was also uncontroverted 

that the sheets of the nominating petition did not specify the vacancy sought or inform the 

signatories of the specific vacancy sought. Id. at 734-35. Here, by contrast, there was but a single 

vacancy in the Third Subcircuit. The sheets of the candidate’s nominating petition adequately 

described the vacancy sought and there is no question that the signatories were thus informed about 

the specific vacancy. Zapolsky is therefore unavailing. 

¶ 46 The objector rejoins that “judge” does not refer to a specific office. The objector contends 

that “judge” is an equally valid identification for “any one of the three open judicial vacancies.” 

While true, the objector ignores the context of the appearance of “judge” on the nominating papers 

1 We note that a central holding of Zapolsky was that the purpose of the nominating petition 

was to expand the informed participation of members of the respective parties in their primary 

election. Zapolsky, 296 Ill. App. 3d at 734. In Salgado, we noted that we disagreed with the 

holding, determining that it was rather to reduce the electoral process to manageable proportions 

and to demonstrates the candidates’ initiative and a minimum level of electoral appeal. Salgado, 

356 Ill. App. 3d at 1078. 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 21 -

and only views it in isolation. Nevertheless, to support her contention, the objector cites section 

7-14a of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-14a (West 2018)) and Johnson v. State Board of 

Elections, 57 Ill. 2d 205 (1974), for the proposition that a candidate must designate the specific 

office sought. However, the objector’s argument is untenably narrow if, as the objector does, the 

focus is exclusively on the manner in which the office sought is designated. To illustrate, 

according to the objector, the correct designation for the office sought is Judgeship A. However, 

there is another Judgeship A available in the Fourth Subcircuit. Thus, for “Judgeship A” to have 

any specificity, the entirety of the nominating papers must be considered. If the entirety is 

considered, then the ambiguity vanishes, because one office is Judgeship A in the Third Subcircuit 

of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit, and the other is Judgeship A in the Fourth Subcircuit of the 

Twenty-second Judicial Circuit. Similarly, the candidate here stated that he sought the office of 

circuit judge in the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit. This designation 

sufficiently describes the office sought and substantially complies with the requisites of the 

Election Code. 

¶ 47 The objector insists that the Election Code requires more than “Judge” to designate the 

office. As we have seen, even accepting the objector’s contention that “Judgeship A” is the only 

acceptable designation, the bare name, “Judgeship A,” is insufficient and would not comply with 

the requirement of the Election Code that the candidate specifically designate the office sought. 

10 ILCS 5/7-14a (West 2018) (“Each candidate for such additional judgeship shall specify to the 

State Board of Elections *** the judgeship for which he seeks nomination. Such candidates shall 

be nominated and elected for the judgeships which they have designated”). 
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 22 -

¶ 48 The objector maintains that, if the designation “Judge” were deemed to be a substantially 

compliant identification of the office sought, it would “render[] superfluous the [Election] Code’s 

provisions as to specific identification of judgeships.” Again, employing the objector’s logic and 

focus, the designation of “Judgeship A” without more would not comply with the specificidentification requirement. Expanding the information considered to include “Third Subcircuit” 

makes either designation, “Circuit Judge” or “Judgeship A,” compliant. Moreover, we see no 

significant difference between “Judgeship A in the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial 

Circuit” and “Circuit Judge in the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit.” 

¶ 49 In her reply brief, the objector tightens the argument and urges us to view the requirement 

in section 7-10 of the Election Code that the candidate identify the office sought in light of the 

naming convention for the office sought in section 7-14a. The objector reminds us that, in 

construing a statute, the court must give effect to all of the provisions, especially where statutes 

relate to the same subject matter. See Knolls Condominium Ass’n v. Harms, 202 Ill. 2d 450, 458-

59 (2002) (the “court presumes that the legislature intended that two or more statutes which relate 

to the same subject are to be read harmoniously so that no provisions are rendered inoperative”). 

However, the issue is not strict compliance with the section 7-14a naming convention, but

substantial compliance overall. Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 53. As we have noted, there is no material 

difference between the designation “Judgeship A” and “Circuit Judge” when considered with the 

necessary information “in the Third Subcircuit of the Twenty-second Judicial Circuit.” Thus, there 

is substantial compliance, and the objector’s argument is unavailing. 

¶ 50 III. CONCLUSION
2020 IL App (2d) 200127-U 

- 23 -

¶ 51 For the foregoing reasons, the candidate’s nominating papers substantially comply with the 

Election Code and the judgment of the circuit court of McHenry County is affirmed. 

¶ 52 Affirmed.