ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION (CHICAGO) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02112 

Hon. Charles R. Norgle 

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 

ILLINOIS GREEN PARTY, DAVID 

F. BLACK, SHELDON SCHAFER, 

RICHARD J. WHITNEY, WILLIAM 

REDPATH, BENNETT W. MORRIS, 

MARCUS THRONEBURG, 

Plaintiffs, 

and ALEXANDER (AJ) RUGGIERI, 

Intervenor-Plaintiff, 

vs. 

J.B. PRITZKER, in his official capacity 

as Governor of Illinois, 

and WILLIAM J. CADIGAN, KATHERINE S. 

O'BRIEN, LAURA K. DONAHUE, CASSANDRA 

B. WATSON, WILLIAM R. HAINE, IAN K. 

LINNABARY, CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, 

WILLIAM M. MCGUFFAGE, in their official 

capacities as Board Members for the Illinois State 

Board of Elections, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ALEXANDER (AJ) RUGGIERI’S MOTION TO INTERVENE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The underlying action before this Court is intended to address the issues presented by the 

necessity of independent and new party candidates to collect petition signatures to access the 2020 

General Election ballot in light of the COVID 19 pandemic and the series of Executive Orders 

issued by Governor Pritzker aimed at addressing COVID 19 public health concerns. The pandemic 

and those Executive Orders have had the effect of making collecting petition signatures more 

difficult than usual. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:536
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

In light of these conditions, this Court provided independent and new party candidates 

throughout the entire State of Illinois with relief, entering an Order allowing those candidates to 

(1) access the ballot with only 10% of the signatures otherwise required; (2) collect signatures 

remotely; and (3) file their nomination papers by July 20, 2020, rather than June 21, 2020. (1:20-

cv-02112 Docket #26, 36 “the Order”) 

Intervenor Alexander (AJ) Ruggieri (“Ruggieri”) is a Republican candidate for the Illinois 

State Senate in the 52nd Legislative District. Ruggieri was appointed to fill a vacancy in 

nomination following the March 17, 2020 Primary Election. Pursuant to Section 7-61 of the 

Illinois Election Code, once appointed, Ruggieri was required to collect the statutory minimum 

number of petition signatures (1000) and to file them no later than June 1, 2020. Like the 

independent and new party candidate plaintiffs in this case, Ruggieri’s signature collection has 

been materially adversely affected by the COVID 19 pandemic and the pendency of Governor 

Pritzker’s Executive Orders. 

While Ruggieri and his supporters used their best efforts to collect signatures on his behalf, 

and did file 1,152 petition signatures on June 1, 2020, an objection to his nomination papers 

threatens to keep Ruggieri from the General Election ballot. On June 19, 2020, staff at the Illinois 

State Board of Elections made an initial determination that Ruggieri’s nomination papers contain, 

at most, 949 valid petition signatures. Accordingly, Ruggieri seeks to intervene in this case so that 

he may be granted relief commensurate with that granted to independent and new party candidates, 

particularly including those in the 52nd Legislative District. 

This Motion is not brought on an emergency basis, but presents emergent issues, as it is 

anticipated that the SBE will meet on July 20, 2020, at the latest, and at that time enter an order as 

to whether Ruggieri may appear on the General Election ballot. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:537
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. Typical Ballot Access Requirements 

In Illinois, established party candidates compete in party primaries to earn a spot on the 

general election ballot. Independent and new party candidates do not compete in primaries, but 

rather are required to collect a greater number of petition signatures than established party 

candidates in order to earn a spot on the general election ballot. For example, established party 

candidates for the Illinois House and Illinois Senate are required to gather 500 and 1,000 signatures 

respectively in order to access their party’s primary ballot. See 10 ILCS 5/8-8. New party and 

independent candidates for those same offices, by contrast, are required to submit a number of 

signatures equal to or greater than 5% of the votes cast in a political subdivision at the preceding 

general election. See 10 ILCS 5/10-2, 10-3. For General Assembly candidates (prior to the entry 

of the Order), that minimum threshold varied from 2,930 to 5,580 signatures for State Senate 

candidates and from 990 to 2,700 signatures for Illinois House candidates, depending on the 

district. 

Prior to entry of the Order, an independent or new party candidate for State Senate in the 

52nd Legislative District would have been required to submit a minimum of 4,523 to access the 

General Election ballot. Under the Order, those candidates are required to collect and submit only 

452 signatures, while an established State Senate party candidate like Ruggieri can only file if he 

gets 1000 signatures. 

The Illinois Election Code prescribes minimum signature requirements for new party and 

independent candidates that are higher than those for established party candidates who must first 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:538
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

compete in a party primary. Like established party candidates, new party and independent 

candidates must collect petition signatures of electors in order to demonstrate a modicum of 

support sufficient to justify placing their names on the general election ballot alongside established 

party candidates. However, because neither new party candidates nor independent candidates have 

to first win a party primary before making the general election ballot, they are required to collect 

more signatures than established party candidates. 

The disparity in the required number of signatures between established party candidates 

and new party and independent candidates is grounded in the notion that “ballot access laws serve 

the important, interrelated goals of preventing voter confusion, blocking frivolous candidates from 

the ballot, and otherwise protecting the integrity of elections.” Navarro v. Neal, 716 F.3d 425, 431 

(7th Cir. 2013). This Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of Illinois’ ballot access 

laws. See, e.g., Tripp v. Scholz, 872 F.3d 857, 871 (7th Cir. 2017); Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 

(7th Cir. 2004).

B. Ballot Access Under COVID-19 Conditions 

This election cycle, the circulation period for independent and new party candidates was 

hampered by the effects of COVID 19. Accordingly, independent and new party candidates 

petitioned this Court and were granted relief providing that independent and new party candidates 

throughout the entire State of Illinois may (1) access the ballot with only 10% of the signatures 

otherwise required; (2) collect signatures remotely; and (3) file their nomination papers by July 

20, 2020, rather than June 21, 2020. (1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 26, 36 “the Order”) 

However, independent and new party candidates are not alone in having to collect petition 

signatures in COVID 19-affected conditions. Certain established party candidates, like Ruggieri, 

also were required to collect petition signatures while under the effects of COVID 19 and the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:539
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

Governor’s successive “stay at home” orders. Where no candidate of an established party is 

nominated at a primary election, either by petition or write-in, an established party may fill that 

“vacancy in nomination” by appointing a candidate who then must collect and file signatures of 

party electors. 10 ILCS 7-61. Candidates who are nominated after the primary in this manner must 

collect the same minimum number of signatures as established party candidates for that same 

office who run in primary elections, and must file their petitions within 75 days after the primary 

election. Id. This election cycle, such established party candidate filings were required to be made 

no later than June 1, 2020. Governor Pritzker’s successive Executive Orders required that 

Illinoisans “stay at home” throughout the entire amount of time allotted to established party 

candidates to collect signatures and to file petitions to fill vacancies in nomination. 

Having been appointed to fill a vacancy in the Republican nomination for State Senator for 

the 52nd Legislative District after the March 17, 2020 primary, Ruggieri was required to gather 

petition signatures under the same COVID 19-hampered conditions as independent and new party 

candidates. Ruggieri used his best efforts and did file his nomination papers on June 1, 2020, 

including petitions containing 1,152 petition signatures. (Ruggieri Dec. ¶ 5, 6.) 

On June 8, 2020, a resident of the 52nd Legislative District filed an objection with the 

Illinois State Board of Elections (“SBE”) to Ruggieri’s nomination papers under Section 10-8 of 

the Election Code on the grounds that Ruggieri’s petitions contained fewer than the statutory 

minimum of 1,000 valid petition signatures. (Ruggieri Dec. ¶ 7.) On June 19, 2020, the SBE 

conducted an exam of the objection to Ruggieri’s petition signatures. (Ruggieri Dec. ¶ 8.) The 

initial result of the SBE exam has indicated that Ruggieri’s petitions contain 949 presumptively 

valid signatures, which is below the statutory minimum for established party candidates for State 

Senate. (Ruggieri Dec. ¶ 8.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:540
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

Having used his best efforts to gather the existing statutory minimum number of signatures 

under COVID-affected conditions, Ruggieri now wishes to intervene in this case to ask this Court 

for the same relief granted by this Court to new party and independent candidates in the 52nd

Legislative District, who are likewise forced to gather signatures under similar circumstances. In 

the event this motion is granted, Ruggieri will accordingly file a petition to enjoin the SBE from 

enforcing the existing statutory minimum signature requirement for established party candidates 

for State Senate. 

III. ARGUMENT 

Intervention under FED R. CIV. P. 24 provides a means for non-parties to “protect interests 

that might otherwise be adversely affected.” iWork Software, LLC v. Corporate Express, Inc., 2003 

WL 22494851 at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Rule 24 allows for two types of intervention: (1) intervention 

as of right; and (2) permissive intervention. Irrespective of the type of intervention sought, “Rule 

24 should be liberally construed in favor of potential interveners.” Id. (emphasis added). Ruggieri 

qualifies for intervention under both standards. 

A. Ruggieri is Entitled to Intervene as a Matter of Right

Rule 24(a)(2) allows for intervention as a matter of right, and the Seventh Circuit has 

determined that intervention as a matter of right must be granted where the following four criteria 

are met: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the subject matter of the action; (3) 

potential impairment, as a practical matter of that interest by the disposition of the action; and (4) 

lack of adequate representation of the interest by the existing parties of the petition.” Reich v. 

ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 

344 (7th Cir. 1994)). As demonstrated below, Ruggieri meets these four requirements. 

1) Ruggieri’s Petition is Timely 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:541
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

This Motion is timely, brought almost immediately after the SBE staff’s June 19 initial 

determination on the validity of Ruggieri’s petition signatures. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, 

the test for timeliness “is essentially one of reasonableness: ‘[P]otential intervenors need to be 

reasonably diligent in learning of a suit that might affect their rights, and upon so learning they 

need to act reasonably promptly.’” Reich, 64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd. v. 

United States, 31 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted)). Four factors are 

considered when determining whether a petition to intervene is timely: (1) the length of time the 

intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in this case; (2) the prejudice to the original 

party caused by the delay; (3) the resulting prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied; and 

(4) any unusual circumstances. See Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing 

South v. Rowe, 759 F.2d 610, 612 (7th Cir. 1985)). 

Review of each of these factors reveals that Ruggieri’s petition meets the timeliness test. 

Given that he filed his petition almost immediately after the SBE has made an initial determination 

that Ruggieri’s nomination papers do not contain the statutory minimum number of valid petition 

signatures, Ruggieri’s petition is unquestionably timely. Further, Ruggieri did not approach this 

Court until he clearly needed relief. There is no credible claim of prejudice to any original party 

because Ruggieri did not delay this petition and all original parties received their own ballot access 

relief. Ruggieri, by contrast, will be prejudiced if this Motion is denied, as he will have been 

required to collect his signatures under the very same conditions as independent and new party 

candidates, but without similar relief. Without leave to intervene, Ruggieri cannot adequately 

represent his interests and no existing party can do so on his behalf. 

2) Ruggieri Maintains Valid Interests in This Action 

A prospective intervenor’s interest in an action must be “‘direct, significant, and legally 

protectable.’” Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Schipporeit, Inc., et. al., 69 F.3d 1377, 1380 (7th 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:542
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

Cir. 1995) (quoting Am. Nat’l Bank v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 144, 146 (7th Cir. 1989)). The 

interest must be “something more than a mere ‘betting’ interest ... but less than a property right....” 

Id. at 1381. 

Ruggieri has a direct and significant interest in this litigation. As an established party 

candidate for State Senate in the 52nd Legislative District, where he also resides, Ruggieri is 

affected by the Order insofar as it permits independent and new party candidates for State Senate 

(his General Election opponents) to access the ballot in a dramatically relaxed fashion as compared 

to established party candidates like himself. If the SBE’s decision on the objection to the validity 

of his supporting signatures stands, Ruggieri will not have the necessary number of 1000 signatures 

needed for candidates like himself to access the ballot while other candidates with the same or 

fewer signatures will make the ballot thanks to the Order’s disparately relaxed standards. Thus, 

Ruggieri has a “direct, significant, and legally protectable” interest in joining this case. 

3) Ruggieri’s Interests Have Been Impaired By The Order Entered In 

This Case 

The Order impairs Ruggieri’s First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. Impairment 

“depends on whether the decision of a legal question involved in the action would as a practical 

matter foreclose rights of the proposed intervenors.” Meridian Homes Corp v. Nicholas W. 

Prassas & Co., 201, 204 (7th Cir. 1982). Here, the Order relaxes ballot access requirements for 

new party and independent candidates, but does not do likewise for established Republican Party 

candidates like Ruggieri who had to collect petition signatures under precisely the same difficult 

circumstances. As relief has been granted to Ruggieri’s General Election opponents and not to 

him, there is no question that the Order disparately impairs Ruggieri’s interests. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:543
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

4) The Existing Parties Do Not Adequately Represent Ruggieri’s 

Interests. 

The existing parties do not adequately represent Ruggieri’s interests. Although a wouldbe intervenor has the burden to demonstrate that the representation of his interests may be 

inadequate, the Seventh Circuit has held that such a burden is minimal. Lake Investors Dev. Group, 

Inc. v. Egidi Dev. Group, 715 F. 2d 1256, 1261 (7th Cir. 1983). 

The current plaintiffs represent the interests of new parties and independent candidates 

who, as political opponents, have interests that are at odds with Ruggieri. The current defendants 

are the Governor and the State Board of Elections, who are charged solely with overseeing the 

administration of the election. No part of any Defendants’ interest includes vindicating the rights 

of a private established political party candidate. Ruggieri’s interests therefore will not be and 

have not been adequately protected by any current party. See See Maxum Indemnity Co. Security 

Insur. Co. of Hartford v. Eclipse Manufacturing Co., 06-cv-4946, 2008 WL 4831734 at *4 (N.D. 

Ill. 2008) (granting motion to intervene because “[n]o other party is in precisely the same position 

as [the intervening party]”). 

Because Ruggieri satisfies each of the criteria necessary to intervene as a matter of right 

under FED R. CIV. P. 24 (a)(2), his Petition to Intervene should be granted. 

B. Alternatively, This Court Should Exercise Its Discretion to Permit Ruggieri to 

Intervene in This Action.

If the Court were to find that Ruggieri is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right, it 

should exercise its discretion to permit intervention for the same reasons discussed above. The 

Court may permit permissive intervention in instances where the potential intervenor “has a claim 

or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

24(b)(1)(B). When determining whether to allow permissive intervention, “court[s] must consider 

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:544
ClarkHill\98090\343686\223805836.v1-4/30/20 

whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ 

rights.” Id. at 24(b)(3). 

All of these factors weigh in favor of Ruggieri’s intervention. Ruggieri has a claim that 

shares common questions of law and fact with the main action. Rather than presenting new 

questions of law or fact, Ruggieri merely seeks to intervene and advocate for himself. Further, as 

discussed above, no undue delay or prejudice will result from allowing Ruggieri to intervene in 

this proceeding. As such, permissive intervention, as an alternative, is appropriate here. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Ruggieri asks the Court to grant his Motion to intervene in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander (AJ) Ruggieri 

/s/____John Fogarty, Jr.____________. 

Counsel for the Intervenor 

John G. Fogarty, Jr. 

(ARDC No. 6257898) 

Clark Hill PLC 

130 E. Randolph, Suite 3900 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

(773) 680-4962 (cell) 

(773) 681-7147 (fax) 

jfogarty@clarkhill.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02112 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/23/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:545