IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Libertarian Party of Illinois, et al., ) Case No. 20 CV 2112

) 

Plaintiffs, ) Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr., 

) Presiding Judge

and Kyle Kopitke, )

) Hon. Jeffrey Cummings

Intervenor, ) Magistrate Judge

)

vs. ) Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

) Emergency Judge.

J.B. Pritzker, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) 

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS DEFENDANTS’ 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN PART OF ORDER 

GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

NOW COMES Defendants, individual members of the Illinois State Board of Elections

(the “Board”), and, pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this 

Honorable Court for reconsideration of certain provisions of the Order granting a preliminary 

injunction as entered by this Court on April 23, 2020. In support of this Motion, the Board states 

as follows: 

1. This case concerns the nomination of independent and new political party candidates for 

State offices in the November 3, 2020 General Election. Under Illinois Election laws, such 

candidates are ordinarily required to gather a statutorily required number of petition signatures 

and file them with the Board by the June 22, 2020 filing deadline set forth in the Election Code.

See 10 ILCS 5/10-6. This statutory deadline was previously upheld by the Seventh Circuit in 

Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2004).

2. Recognizing the difficulty in gathering signatures under the current COVID-19 

environment, all parties agreed that some easing of the ordinary petition circulation restrictions 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:423
2

would be appropriate for this election. After several discussions amongst the parties and two 

hearings, this Court entered a preliminary injunction addressing four main points:

(1) Plaintiff political parties would be permitted to nominate candidates without 

petitions in any race in which they had nominated a candidate in either 2016 or 

2018, and any independent candidate who ran for an office in 2016 or 2018 would 

be permitted to run for that office again in 2020 without petitions;

(2) New political party and independent candidates not subject to item (1) would 

be required to file nomination petitions signed by not less than 10% of the 

statutory minimum number required;

(3) Petition signers will be permitted to affix their signatures to a petition 

electronically, by using a computer mouse, a stylus or their finger; and 

(4) the statutory petition filing deadline of June 22, 2020 will be moved to

August 7, 2020.

3. With due respect for this Court, the Board, after consultation with several local election 

officials, is compelled to ask this Court to reconsider its decision regarding the petition filing 

deadline and the signature requirement for two reasons. First, and foremost, the Board after 

consultation with many of the State’s local election authorities has determined that the 

component parts of the Court’s Order will make it extremely difficult to comply with the various 

deadlines imposed by both State and federal law necessary for the orderly conduct of an election 

on November 3, 2020. Second, in light of the decision just three days ago by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Esshaki v. Whitmer, Case No. 20-1336 (6th CIR. May 5, 

2020), the Board respectfully requests that this Court amend its Preliminary Injunction Order to 

grant Plaintiffs similar relief to that the Court directed in that case: namely that the Board be 

ordered to determine the best relief to balance the interests of the Plaintiffs (and other 

candidates) and still be able to meet its obligations to conduct an orderly election.

4. As the Board indicated before this Court, and as set forth in greater detail in the attached 

Declaration by Steve Sandvoss, the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections (Exhibit 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:424
3

A), the August 7, 2020 filing deadline (which constitutes a 46-day delay in the filing deadline)

imposes a great strain on not only the Board, but all of the 105 local election authorities across 

the State, who must prepare and print ballots within the timeframes established by both State and 

federal law.

5. As further set forth in the Declarations of Thomas Holbrook, the St. Clair County Clerk, 

and Edmund Michalowski, the Deputy Clerk for Elections (Exhibits B & C), the August 7 

deadline imposes a severe burden on local election authorities who believe it will be very 

difficult, if not impossible, to finalize their ballots in time for the September 19, 2020 deadline to 

mail out military and overseas ballots required by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act. 52 USCA § 20302(a)(8).

6. Because the prospect of an August 7, 2020 filing deadline first arose in this case on April

21, 2020 (and the idea of any August filing deadline did not come up until April 19), the Board 

was unable to present the Court with difficulties such a late filing deadline presents to both it and 

local election authorities.

7. For example, the Board is required by law to certify the final contents of the ballot to 

local election authorities no later than August 21, 2020, so that those authorities can begin the 

process of preparing ballots for the election. 10 ILCS 5/10-14. Pursuant to Section 10-8 of the 

Election Code, any voter objecting to a candidate’s nomination papers must do so within five 

business days of the filing deadline. 10 ILCS 5/10-8. Accordingly, this Court’s Order creates an 

August 14, 2020 objection deadline. As indicated in the attached Declarations, this begins an 

administrative process that often takes another seven days before the various electoral boards 

created to hear these objections can even begin to consider the objections. 10 ILCS 5/10-9. In

short, the August 7, 2020 filing deadline creates a system where electoral boards cannot begin to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:425
4

consider any objections until the same day that the Board is supposed to certify the final ballot to 

local election officials.

8. For example, if a candidate’s nomination papers were challenged pursuant to the 

applicable provisions of the Election Code, and that challenge were not resolved by the 45th day 

before the election, the local election authority would either have to miss the federal mailing 

deadline and wait until the objections are resolved, or meet the deadline and send out ballots 

knowing that some candidates appearing on the ballots could later be removed, thereby causing 

the voters who receive those ballots to be disenfranchised by voting for candidates later 

determined to be ineligible. In such a case, all votes for a candidate whose name appeared on a 

mailed ballot, but who is later deemed ineligible, are discarded and not counted.

9. In this case, the Complaint filed on April 2, 2020 did not request a delay in the petition 

filing period. Comp., pp. 25-26. Pursuant to this Court’s initial Order, on April 19, 2020, 

Plaintiffs proposed an August 3, 2020 filing deadline. The following day, April 20, Defendants 

proposed delaying the filing period by two weeks until July 6, 2020. The parties could not come 

to any agreement.

10. The Court held a hearing on this matter on April 21, 2020, at which time the August 7, 

2020 filing deadline was first raised by the Court (no parties had proposed such a late filing 

deadline) and the Preliminary Injunction Order was entered on April 23, 2020. When the 

prospect of an August 7, 2020 filing deadline was first raised, the Board’s attorney had the 

following exchange with the Court:

MR. KASPER: And, your Honor, this is Michael Kasper again. I'm sorry to raise one last 

point. The Board is very concerned about the August 7th deadline because that bumps up 

against the other statutory deadlines and the deadlines imposed to get military ballots out 

under federal law. And so we would sort of ask you to reconsider that and maybe push it 

forward a little bit. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:426
5

THE COURT: You know, I'd like to push it forward because I do think it's very difficult 

to get these things printed but I'm also -- I'm really sensitive to the world we're living in 

in Illinois and the difficulties that the governor has and that the rest of us have in trying to 

balance our need to proceed with life as we know it on the one hand versus the very, very 

significant public health concerns and the need for social distancing and stay at home 

even after those orders are lifted. I don't think I can be any more generous than that. 

MR. KASPER: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. 

Tr., 4/22/20, pp. 37-38.

11. Due to the expeditious nature of the preliminary injunction proceedings, the Board was 

unable to fully assess the impact of an August 7, 2020 petition filing on the orderly 

administration of the election. Since the April 23, 2020 Order, the Board has made such an 

assessment and has had the opportunity to consult with other election authorities who agree that 

such a late filing deadline will severely impact their ability to conduct an accurate and orderly 

election on November 3, 2020.

12. In addition, the Board and local election officials have severe reservations regarding the 

significant reduction in the signature threshold contained in the Court’s Order – reducing the 

statutory signature minimum by 90% of the number required by the Illinois Election Code. 

While the Board agreed that some reduction was appropriate (it initially proposed 50% and was 

willing to agree to 33%), the Board and local election officials believe that reducing the 

minimum number of signatures by 90% renders the threshold merely de minimus. Such a drastic 

reduction also threatens the orderly conduct of the election by inviting a slew of non-serious 

candidates who lack the traditional modicum of support necessary to qualify, leading to 

increased litigation and delays through increased ballot objections, as well as an overly cluttered 

and confusing ballot. Accordingly, the Board asks that the Court reconsider this aspect of its 

Preliminary Injunction Order as well.

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:427
6

13. A request for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “allows a party to direct the district 

court’s attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact, and 

enables the court to correct its own errors and thus avoid unnecessary appellate procedures.”

Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996).

14. On Tuesday of this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision regarding 

the same issues as presented here in the State of Michigan. In that case, like this one, the District 

Court issued a preliminary injunction reducing the signature threshold for the upcoming election 

(but by only 50%), delayed the filing deadline, and ordered the election authority to accept 

electronic signatures. Esshaki, p. 3.

15. The Sixth Circuit reversed that decision finding that “through a plenary re-writing of the

State’s ballot- access provisions” the District Court “was not justified” because “federal courts 

have no authority to dictate to the States precisely how they should conduct their elections.” Id., 

citing Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 586 (2005).

16. Instead, the Sixth Circuit directed “the State to select its own adjustments so as to reduce 

the burden on ballot access, narrow the restrictions to align with its interest, and thereby render 

the application of the ballot-access provisions constitutional under the circumstances.” Id., at pp 

3-4. In this case, the Board respectfully requests that this Court issue a similar Order directing 

the State to make the accommodations necessary under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Illinois State Board of Elections 

Defendants respectfully pray that this Court: (1) grant its Motion to Reconsider its April 23, 2020 

Order; (2) issue an Amended Order directing the Board to establish appropriate ballot access 

requirements for independent and new political party candidates for the November 3, 2020 

election; and (3) order such other relief as may be just and proper. In the alternative, the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:428
7

Defendants request that this Court amend the preliminary injunction order issued on April 23, 

2020 to move the deadline for candidate nomination and petition filings from July 31, 2020 

through August 7, 2020 to June 29, 2020 through July 6, 2020, and setting the minimum petition

signature threshold at 25% of the statutory minimum. 

Respectfully submitted,

Defendants, Members of the Illinois State 

Board of Elections

By: /s/ Michael J. Kasper

One of their Attorneys

Michael J. Kasper

151 N. Franklin, Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

312.704.3292

mjkasper60@mac.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:429
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Libertarian Party of Illinois, et al., ) Case No. 20 CV 2112

) 

Plaintiffs, ) Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr., 

) Presiding Judge

and Kyle Kopitke, )

) Hon. Jeffrey Cummings

Intervenor, ) Magistrate Judge

)

vs. ) Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

) Emergency Judge.

J.B. Pritzker, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing State Board 

of Elections Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Reconsideration in Part of Order 

Granting Preliminary Injunction along with the accompanying Exhibits with the Clerk of 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will notify all participants in the CM/ECF system as 

follows:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Scott K. Summers Oliver B. Hall

P.O. Box 430 Center for Competitive Democracy

Harvard, IL 60030 P.O. Box 21090

Mobile: (815) 403-8411 Washington, DC 20009

Fax: (815) 986-1333 (202) 248-9294

Email: Scott@scottksummers.com Email: oliverhall@competitivedemocracy.org

Counsel of Record Pro Hac Vice Pending

Mark R. Brown

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6590

(614) 236-6956 (fax)

Email: mbrown@law.capital.edu

Pro Hac Vice Pending

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:430
9

Counsel for Defendant J.B. Pritzker

David W. Van de Burgt Gary Caplan

Division Chief, Government Relations Deputy General Counsel

Illinois Attorney General’s Office Office of the Governor

100 West Randolph Street Email: Gary.Caplan@illinois.gov

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 814-2822

Email: DVandeBurgt@atg.state.il.us

Leigh Richie 

Associate General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Email: Leigh.richie@illinois.gov

Respectfully submitted,

Defendants, Members of the Illinois State 

Board of Elections

By: /s/ Michael J. Kasper

One of their Attorneys

Michael J. Kasper

151 N. Franklin, Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

312.704.3292

mjkasper60@mac.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:431