2015 03 03 Petition Shaw 01 FILED

8/9/2019 2015 03 03 Petition Shaw 01 FILED

1/30

IN

THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK

COUNTY

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY

DIVISION

- ELECTIONS

ANNE SHAW, Candidate, and

RONDA LOCKE, Candidate,

Petitioners,

C ITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS as the election authority

and the canvass authority for the Chicago

Municipal Election held on February 24,2015,

LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,

MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, Commissioner,

RICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner, and

PROCO JOE MORENO,

Candidate,

ANDREW HAMILTON,

Candidate,

Respondents.

VERIFIED

ELEC TIO N

C O N TES T

PETITION

NOW COME

the

Petitioners ANNE

SHAW

and RONDA LOCKE

individually

ai^y

p o

^

. 1

I

their attorney, AndrewFinko PC., and herebyfile this verified electioncontest petitioh

puri^^t

-

Cour t

No.

i5C EL 35

C A L E N D A R R O Q H

1

T I H E OOSOO

EX

set: Cars i r e s t i ed

65

ILCS

20/21 27

andArticle 23 of the Illinois Election

Code

contesting the results )fthe

\

co

election for the

office

of

Alderman

for the P Ward of the Cityof

Chicago

thatwas

votetopoi^t

the Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24, 2015, as follows.

Pre face

1. This election contest is filed prior to the time that the Respondent, Board of

Election Commissioners, is scheduled to proclaim the results

of

the election for Alderman for the

1st Wardof the City ofChicago, based upon information available as

of

the date

of

filing, and

without the benefit of a discovery recount which, under the Illinois Election Code, can not even be

requested until after the proclamation. Indeed, some late arriving absentee ballots and qualified

provisional ballots have not yet been counted as of the last statutory day for the filing of this

action. Necessarily, in the situation presented herein, where 65 ILCS 20/21-27 requires an

1


2/30

election contest petition be filed within five days of the Election Day, the parties must plead more

generally subject to later amendment after the proclamation, further discovery or a recount. See,

Evans

Preckwinkle,259 Ill.App.3d 187, 636 N.E.2d 730

(P

Dist. 1994), and O'Neal

Shaw,

248 Ill.App.3d 632, 618 N.E.2d 780 (1^ Dist. 1993).

Parties

Background

2. Petitioners, ANNE SHAW ( Shaw ) and RONDA LOCKE ( Locke ), are duly

qualified electors in the P' Wardof the City

of

Chicago, and were candidates for election to the

office

of

Alderman for the P' Ward in the City ofChicago, with their names printed upon the

ballot for said office and voted upon in the 1stWard Chicago Municipal General Election held on

February 24, 2015.

3. Respondent, City ofChicago Board

of

Election Commissioners ( Board ), is the

election authority which conducted the Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24,

2015, and sits as the canvassing board that will perform the official count of the ballots and render

a final proclamation

of

results of the election for the office ofAlderman for the 1stWard

of

the

City ofChicago, Illinois. In addition. Respondent, Board, is named in its capacity as the election

authority that will conduct all supplemental or runoffelections in the City ofChicago onApril 7,

2015, and for purposes

of

subjecting the Board to orders

of

this Court.

4. Respondents, Langdon Neal, Marisel A. Hernandez and Richard Cowen, are each

Commissioners and members of the Board, and are named in their official capacities as

Commissioners

th e Boa rd .

5. Respondents, Proco

Joe

Moreno ( Moreno ) and

Andrew

Hamilton

( Hamilton ), were candidates competing for election to the office

of

Alderman for the 1st Ward in

the City

of

Chicago, and their names were printed upon the ballot for said office and voted upon in

the 1st Ward Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24, 2015.


3/30

6. Initially, on Election Day, February 24,2015, the Board posted at its website

unofficial results that stated that Shaw garnered 2,017 votes, or 24.86

of

the total votes cast in

the 1st WardAldermanic election, that Moreno garnered 4,129 votes, or 50.90 of the total votes

cast in the 1st Ward Aldermanic election, and that Locke garnered 1,661 votes, or 20.48 of the

total votes cast in the 1stWardAldermanic election, and that Hamilton garnered 305 votes, or

3.76 of the votes cast in the 1stWardAldermanic Election, such that a supplemental or runoff

electionwould not occur. Copy

of

theFebruary 24, 2015 unofficialelection results (byprecinct)

for

the

office

ofAlderman in the 1st ardofthe CityofChicago are attached and incorporatedas

xhib i t

A

7. As ofMarch 1,2015, the Board posted at its website unofficial revised results that

stated that Shaw garnered 2,022 votes, or 24.77

of

the total votes cast in the 1st Ward

Aldermanic election, that Moreno garnered 4,163 votes, or 51.00

of

the total votes cast in the 1st

WardAldermanic election, and that Locke garnered 1,668 votes, or 20.44 of the total votes cast

in the 1stWardAldermanic election, and that Hamilton garnered 309 votes, or 3.79 of the votes

cast in the 1stWardAldermanicElection, such that a supplemental or runoff electionwould not

occur Copy

of

theMarch 1, 2015unofficial electionresults (byprecinct)

for

the office

of

Aldermanin the 1st

ard

ofthe CityofChicago are attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.

8. TheBoard sunofficial revisedresultspostedon or aboutMarch1,2015,report

Respondent, Moreno, purportedly 82 votes above 50

of

all votes cast in the 1st Wardelection

held on February

24 2015

9. The Board continues counting additional ballots, andwill issue a final proclamation

of results fourteen days after the February 24,2015 Election, on March 12,2015.

LL G TIONS OF RRORS

10. Petitioners,

Shaw and

Locke, voted in the election

of

the

Alderman

for the 1st Ward


4/30

and their respective campaigns had volunteers observing Election Day procedures at precincts

throughout the 1st Ward.As set forth more fully and specifically below, in good faith and based

upon reasonable inquiry which continues, Shaw and Locke allege that, and believe that, mistakes

and fraud have been committed in the casting and counting of ballots for the office

of

Alderman

for the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago at the election on February 24 2015

11. When the results of the full count and other discovery become available, further

information will come to the attention of the Petitioners, Shaw and Locke, that there were

mistakes, errors or fraud in the counting of the ballots for the subject election, and/or fraud

committed regarding the election, such that the count

of

votes must be revised in the favor

of

the

Petitioners, Shaw and Locke

12. As set forth more fully and specifically below, the Respondent Board s count of the

electiontotals for the electionof Alderman for the 1st

Ward

for the City of Chicago wasperformed

in derogation of the Board s statutoryduties in that its determination and anticipatedproclamation

of results embody results in which numerous invalid ballots were wrongly counted,numerous

validballots werewrongly not counted numerous duly qualified voters of the 1stWard in the City

of

hicago

were

wrongly denied

theirrightto vote in the election, and

numerous

persons who

were on the Election Day) not duly qualified voters

of

the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago but

were wrongly permitted to vote in the election,and overshadowedthroughout the ward by

pervasive electioneering from one candidate. Respondent, Moreno. Based on the facts alleged

herein developed through Petitioners investigation, and as will be more

fully

developed andpled,

the true, correct and lawful count of the votes which were properly cast, and which should have

been properly cast, in the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago should show a result different from that

reported by the Judges of Election and thus far unofficially announced by the Board; and should

show that Moreno fVas Not elected as Aldermanfor the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago by in


5/30

excess

of

50

of

all votes cast in the February 24, 2015 Chicago Municipal General Election and

that a supplemental or runoffelection is required on April 7, 2015 to determine the true, correct

and l awful successful candidate

Proportional Reduction

13. All allegations of street address below refer to street addresses within the corporate

limits

of

the City

of

Chicago unless otherwise noted.

14. ShawandLocke request that, exceptas otherwisespecified,anysuchvotes foimd

invalid byvirtue of this

petition

be

remedied

byproportional reduction or (asthe case

may

be)

addition.

The

effect ofthe

proportional reductions

and

other

changes

in

votes necessitated

bythe

allegations in this petition is that Shaw s and Locke svote total should be increased,andMoreno s

shouldbe decreased, as requiredby themethodology of proportional reductionand addition.

15.

Voters LivingOutside the 1stWard.

Numerous voters have moved

their

legal

residence to outside the 1stWard or never

lived

within the 1st

Ward

butvoted inthe subject

election byvirtueof anapplication forballot

which

borean

address

in the 1stWard.

Further

on

information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of

Alderman for the 1st

Ward of the City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of

10 ILCS5/5-2 and other applicable

law.

16. Voters Voting

From

AddressesWhich Are Commercial Establishments And Or

DoNot Contain Residential Living Units. Numerousvoters were registeredat addresseswithin

the 1

St

Ward

of the City

of

Chicagobut these addresses were not their true residenceaddresses, the

purported

residence address being

a

commercial

establishment and/or notcontaining residential

livingunitsthereon. Further, on information andbelief, thesepersonscast a vote in therace for the

officeofAldermanfor the 1st

Ward

of the CityofChicago. In eachcase, this Court shoulddeclare

thevote invalid as violative of 10

ILCS 5/3 2

and5-2,andotherapplicable provisions.


6/30

17. Voters Voting from a Different Address in the 1st

rd of

the City

of

Chicago.

Numerous voters have voted in the election by virtue

of

an application for ballot which bore a

particular address in the 1st Ward

of

the City

of

Chicago in Cook County. However these voters

actually resided at a different address in the 1st Ward

of

the City

of

Chicago in Cook County.

Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman

for the 1st Ward of the City ofChicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative

of

10 ILCS 5/5 2 and other applicable law.

18. Voters Not Registered to Vote Numerousvoterswere illegallypermittedto vote

from

the

addresses

inthe

precincts

stated notwithstanding

theirnot

being

registered

to

vote

at

any

address

in the 1stWard ofthe City of Chicago Further on information and belief these persons

cast a vote in the race for the officeof Aldermanfor the 1st

Ward

of the CityofChicago. In each

case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of

10ILCS 5/5 2 17 9 and other

applicable law.

19 Voters Who

Voted

From AnAddressAt Which They WereNot Registered.

Numerous voters were registered

at

addresses within

the 1st

Ward

ofthe

City

of

Chicago

but

voted

from

a

different address

in 1st

Ward

ofthe

City

of

Chicago

the

voting address being

one

from

which they werenot registered.

Further

on information and belief these persons casta votein the

race for the officeofAldermanfor the 1st

Ward of

the Cityof Chicago. In each case this Court

shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violative

of

10ILCS 5/5 2 and other applicable law

20. Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified. Numerous voters

votedby

absentee

ballot andtheir

absentee

ballotapplications werenot dulycertified.

Nonetheless the voters were illegallypermitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further on

information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of


Ward

of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative


7/30

of

10 ILCS 5/19 3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballot are so numerous

in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with certainty be separated

from other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be applied. However to the extent that

ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be separated and identified the

specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have

his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

21. Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified and not true.

Nonetheless such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further on

information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st

Ward of the City

of

Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 and other applicable

law

In the case in which absentee ballot are so numerous

in the particular precinct thatthe ballotrelating to suchvotercan not withcertainty be separated



specific ballot should be invalidatedand the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have


22. Absentee Ballot rrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope in which the absentee ballot was

mailed. Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of

Alderman for the 1st Wardof the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote

invalid as violative

of

10 ILCS 5/19 5 and other applicable law.In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with

certainty be separatedfrom other absenteeballots proportionate reductionshouldbe applied.


8/30

However to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be

separated and identified the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting

from such ballot should have her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

23.

ignature

on Application for Absent Voter s Ballot Different from Signature on

Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot but the

signature on the application for absentee ballot on information and belief was executed by a

different person than the person who executed the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope.

Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of

Alderman

for the 1st Ward

of

the City

of

Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative of 10ILCS 5/19-3 19-5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots

are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with

certainty be separated from other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be applied.


separated and identified the specific ballot

should

be invalidated and the party herein benefiting

from such ballot should have her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

24. Absentee Voters Who Failed To Sign he Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous

voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee

ballot mailing envelope. Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race

for the officeofAlderman for the 1st Ward

of

the City

of

Chicago. In each case this Court should

declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 19-5 and other applicable

law

In the case

in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinctthat the ballotrelating to such

voter can not with certainty be separated from other absentee ballots proportionate reduction

should be applied.

However

to the extentthat ballots from voterswith this deficiency can with

certainty be separated and identified the specific ballot

should

be invalidated and the partyherein


9/30

benefitingfrom such ballot shouldhave his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

25.

bsentee

Voters

Who Failed

To Certify

Their

ddress

On the

Absentee

allot

Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot but they failed to indicate their

residence/registration address on the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope. Further on


Ward

of

the City

of


of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so

numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with certainty be

separated from other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be applied. However to the

extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be separated and identified

the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should

have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

26. Absentee Ballots Not Properly Delivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but by mistake and/or fraud their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the

Chicago Board ofElection Commissioners thus invalidating the ballots. Further on information

and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the

City

of


of

10 ILCS

5/19 6 19 8 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with certainty be separated from

other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be applied. However to the extent that





10/30

27. Voters Who Voted In A

Precinct

In

Which They were Not

Registered.

Numerous voters were registered to vote from a particular address and precinct but actually voted

at another precinct in which they neither resided nor were registered. Further on information and

belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Wardof the City

of


of ILCS

5/17 9

and other applicable law.

28. No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted by absentee ballot but

apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further on

information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of


Ward of the City

of



numerous in the particular precinct that the ballotrelating to such votercan not withcertainty be

separatedfromotherabsenteeballots proportionate reductionshould be applied. However to the

extentthat ballots from voters withthis deficiency can with

certainty

be separated and identified

the specific ballotshouldbe invalidated andtheparty hereinbenefiting from such ballotshould


29. No Record of Voter VotingAbsentee. Numerousvoters purportedly voted by

absentee ballot but the records

of

the Respondent ChicagoBoardofElection Commissionersdo

not show that the absentee ballot was processed by that office. Further on information and belief

these

persons

casta votein the

race

forthe

office

of

lderman

for the 1st

Ward

of the Cityof

Chicago. In each case this Court shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violativeof 10ILCS 5/19 3

19 5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct thatthe ballot relating to suchvotercan

not

with certainty be separated

from

other absenteeballots proportionate reductionshouldbe applied.However to the extent that


11/30




30.

Voter

Failed to

Sign Application

fo r

Absent Voter s

Ballot. Numerous voters

purportedly voted by absentee ballot but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.


for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative of 10ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots

are so numerous in the particularprecinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with

certainty

be separated from

other absentee

ballots proportionate reduction

should

be applied.

However

to theextent that

ballots from voters

withthis

deficiency

can with

certainty

be

separated

and

identified the specific ballot

should

be invalidated andtheparty herein benefiting

from

such ballot

should

have hisorher total for the precinct

reduced

by a whole vote.

31.

Legal Voters Denied The Right To

Vote.

Numerous registered and

qualified

voters

in

the 1st

Ward

of the

City

of

Chicago

were

illegally denied their

right

and opportunity

to

vote

by

mistake orfraud including but not

limited

toerrors inBoard

documents

late opening equipment

failure locked doors

election

judge errors

et

al. Further

on information

and

belief

these persons

would

have cast a vote in the race for

the

office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of

the City

of

Chicago.In each case this Court shouldproportionately add such votes.

32. Voters Improperly Permitted to

Vote.

Numerous

registered and

qualified

voters

in the

1st Ward

of the

City

of Chicago were illegally permitted to vote in the precinct polling

place

on

Election

Day even though such

voters

names appeared on

listings

as having been issued a

grace period absentee or early ballot without submitting their absentee ballotsfor cancellation

or otherwisecomplyingwith 10ILCS 5/17 9and otherprovisions of the ElectionCode in this


12/30

regard. In the case in which these ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot

relating to such voter can not with certainty be separated from other ballots proportionate

reduction should be applied. However to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency

can with certainty be separated and identified the specific ballot should be invalidated and the

party herein benefiting from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a

whole vote

33. Improper Handling Altering and or Removal of Ballots from Precincts.

Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled altered and/or removed by

persons in precinct locations who were not duly credentialed and authorized to so handle alter or

remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices and for example at least three ballots that

were cast by voters and/or at least one electronicvote countingdevice were illegally and

improperly removed from precinct locations without being counted in the Board s vote totals. Such

actions

of

unauthorized persons so tainted the countingof the votes in numerous precincts as to

render all such results in the precinct unreliableand subject to full review by the Court and the

party hereinbenefiting fromsuch actions should have her total for the precinctreduced by a whole

vote for each such tampered ballot.

Allegations Requiring Modification

of Whole Votes

34. Applications For Ballots Which Do Not Bear Initials Of Any Election Judge.

Numerous votes were cast which should not have been counted since the application for ballot did

not bear on its face the initials

of

an election judge. Further on information and belief ballots

were issued for such applications and votes were cast in the race for the office

of

Alderman for the

1st rd of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the particularballot

invalid as lacking the requisite integrity and assurances that applications for ballots were issued in

accordance with the Election Code and the Board s required procedures as documented in the

12


13/30

Board s 2015 Judge ofElection / Polling Place Administrator Handbook.

35. Ballots

Which

Do

Not

Bear

Initials OfAny

Election

Judge

Numerous votes

were cas t wh ich should no t have been counted

since

the ballo t d id not b ea r on i ts face the ini ti al s

of an election judge. Further, on information and belief, such votes were cast in the race for the

office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should

declare the particular ballot invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/17-9 and 10ILCS 5/17-11, and the

Board s required procedures as documented in the Board s 2015 Judge

of

Election / Polling Place

Administrator

Handbook

36.

Absentee

Voters

Whose

Applications

Were

Not

Certified

Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applicationswere not duly certified.

Nonetheless, the voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on


of


Ward of the City

of

Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law.In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particular precinct thattheballotrelating to suchvotercannot,with

cert inty

be separated

from other absenteeballots,proportionate reductionshouldbe applied. However, to theextentthat

ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the



37. Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified, and not true.

Nonetheless, such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on


of


Ward of the City ofChicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

13


14/30

of

10ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable l w In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particular precinctthat the ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be separated





38. bsentee allot Carrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope in which the absentee ballot was

mailed. Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of

Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City ofChicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote

invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not with



separatedand identified the specific ballot shouldbe invalidated and the party herein benefiting

from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

39. Signature on Application for Absent Voter s Ballot Different from Signature on

Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot but the

signature on the application for absentee ballot on information and belief was executed by a

differentperson than the person who executedthe affidaviton the absentee ballot carrier envelope

and was not genuine. Further on information and belief these persons cast a vote for the office

of

Alderman for the 1st Wardof the City ofChicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote

invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5 and other applicable laws. In the case in which

absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can


15/30

not with certainty be separated from other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be

applied. However to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be

separated and identified the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting

from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

40. Absentee Voters Who Failed To Sign

The

Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous

voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee

ballot mailing envelope. Further on informationand belief these persons cast a vote for the office

ofAlderman for the 1st Wardof the City ofChicago. In each case this Court should declare the

vote invalid as violative

of

10ILCS 5/19 3 and 19 5 and other applicable laws. In the case in

which

absentee ballots areso

numerous

in theparticular precinct thattheballot relating to such

votercan not withcertainty be separatedfromotherabsenteeballots proportionate reduction

should be applied

However

to theextentthatballots from voters withthisdeficiency can with

certainty

be separated and identified the specific ballot

should

be invalidated andthe

party herein

benefiting

from

suchballot

should have

his or her

total

for theprecinct reduced by a

whole vote

41. Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify

Their

Address On the Absentee Ballot

Envelope. Numerous voterspurportedly votedby absentee ballot but they failed to indicate their

residence/registration

address

ontheaffidavit onthe absentee ballot carrier

envelope Further

on


Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of

10 ILCS 5/19 3 and 19 5 and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee ballots are so

numerous in theparticular precinct thattheballotrelating to suchvotercannot withcertainty be

separated

from

other absentee ballots proportionate reduction

should

be

applied However

to the

extent that ballots

from

voters withthis deficiency

can

with

certainty

be separated and identified

the specific ballotshouldbe invalidated andthe partyhereinbenefiting from such ballotshould


16/30


42. Absentee Ballots Not Properly Delivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but by mistake and/or fraud their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the

Chicago Board of Election Commissioners thus invalidating the ballots. Further on information

and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office

of

Alderman for the 1st Ward of the

City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS

5/19 6 and 19 8 and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particularprecinct that the ballot relating to suchvoter can not with certainty be separated





43. Voters Who Voted In A Precinct In Which They were Not Registered.

Numerousvoters were registered to vote from a particularaddress and precinct but actuallyvoted

at another precinct in which they neither resided nor were registered. Further on information and

belief these persons cast a vote for the officeof Aldermanfor the 1st

rd

of the City of Chicago.

In each case

this

Court should

declare the vote

invalid as violative

of

10

ILCS 5/17 9 an d

other

applicable law.

44. No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted by absentee ballot but

apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further on


Ward

of

the City

of



numerousin the particular precinctthat the ballotrelating to such voter can not with certainty be

16


17/30

separatedfromotherabsenteeballots proportionate reductionshould be applied. However to the

extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be separated and identified

the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should


45. No Record

of Voter

Voting Absentee. Numerous voters purportedly voted by

absentee ballot but the records of the Respondent Chicago Board

of

Election Commissioners do

not show that the absentee ballot was processed by that office. Further on information and belief

these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward

of

the City

of


of

10 ILCS 5/19 3

19 5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particularprecinct that the ballotrelatingto such voter can not with certainty be separatedfrom

other absentee ballots proportionate reduction should be applied. However to the extent that




46. Voter Failed to Sign Application for bsent Voter s Ballot. Numerous voters

purportedly voted by absentee ballot but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.


for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative

of

10 ILCS 5/19 3 and 19 5 and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not

vit



separatedand identified the specific ballot should be invalidatedand the party herein benefiting


18/30

from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote

47 Election

Judges

Issued Ballots

Without

Comparing Signatures on Ballot

Application Numerous voters were issued ballots and allowed to cast ballots but were not the

named duly registered voters because such signatures were not genuine and proper signatures of

the respective voters and no such signatures or corresponding ballots should be counted as valid

in all similar Precincts in which signatures were not validated as being genuine by election judges

48 Respondent Moreno s Campaign Workers Improperly Influenced Dozens of

Ballots On dozens upon dozens

of

occasions voters at Lathrop Homes 2717 N Leavitt were

improperly influenced in casting their ballots or had ballots signed and cast for them without

their knowledge Voters who were defauded

of

their ballots include Priscilla Ramos Aida

Ramirez Ana Cruz Isa Zulu Lillian Hart Brenda Harper Betty Carlson Benabe Carmen

Gerardo Ponce de Leon Maribel Lopez In Son Juan Licor Carme Torres Antonio Yates Pedro

Cervantes Emilia Colon Jose Pinero and many others who had ballots cast without their

knowledge inputor direction and such ballots were improperly manipulated to favorRespondent

Moreno were the choices of the misbehaving public officials and not of the voice and free will of

the voters Therefore the appropriate legal remedy is to deduct whole votes from the intended

beneficiary of the misbehavior Respondent Moreno In the alternative such votes were

impermissibly tainted and should be subject to proportionate reduction

49 Ballots Mistakenly

Not Counted

Numerous voters voted on ballots which

through mistake error or fraud were not counted by the judges

of

election Further on information

and belief these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward

of

the

City of Chicago In each case this Court should to the extent that ballots with this deficiency can

with cert inty be separated andidentified validate suchballots andthe partyherein benefiting

from such ballotshouldhave hisor her total for the precinct increased by each corresponding


19/30

whole vote. Specifically, but not limited to:

a) Provisional ballots were improperly issued by electionjudges to persons who were registered

in a different precinct of 1stWard,and voters were erroneously issued a provisional ballot

instead of being directed to travel to their correct precinct by an election official and/or were

by mistake, error or fraud deposited in the ballot box counting device for the wrong precinct

and therefore were not counted, and the Board should be estopped from striking or not

counting votes) provisional ballots that were cast in reliance upon the statements

of

election

officials and/or election judges;

b) Votes on touchscreen machines assigned to a different precinct which may have been located

in the same room for which a ballot authorization card was properly issued and the votes cast

by registered and qualified voters which were therefore not counted by mistake, error or

fraud because they were cast on a touchscreen device for a different precinct;

c) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were

by mistake, error or fraud deposited in the spoiled ballot envelope and not deposited in the

ballot box counting device, and therefore were not counted;

d) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were

by mistake, error or fraud wrongly determined to have identifying or distinguishing )

marks and therefore were not counted;

e) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were

by mistake, error or fraud determined not to clearly display the intent of the voter, but were,

in fact, clearly intended to vote for Petitioners Shaw and Locke, but were not counted;

f) Ballots which wereproperly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were

bymistake or error

of

a counting devicenot counted, including but not limited to

calibration errors on touch screen voting machines, wherein a vote cast for Petitioners

Shaw and Locke was erroneously counted as a vote for Respondent, Moreno, and was not

counted

for Petitioners, Shaw and Locke.

50. Ballots Mistakenly, Erroneously

or

Fraudulently Counted. Numerous voters

cast ballotswhich, through mistake, error or fraudwereon information andbelief, counted by the

judges ofelection, but which were issued and cast contrary to the provisionsof the ElectionCode.

These personscast a votefor the office

of

Aldermanfor the 1st rd of the Cityof Chicago. In

each case, this Court should, to the extent that ballotswiththis deficiency can,with certainty, be

separatedand identified,validate such ballots and the party herein benefiting from such ballot

shouldhavehis or her total for the precinctdecreasedby each corresponding whole vote.


20/30

51. Voters

Were Impermissibly

and Pervasively Electioneered

at

the Polling Places

By the Moreno Campaign. Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for

Respondent Moreno at numerous polling places. Further, on information and belief, these persons

cast a vote in the race for Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. Because the

electioneering was specifically for Respondent, Moreno s, benefit, and no other candidate, the

appropriate legal remedy is to deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary

of

the

misbehavior. Respondent Moreno. In the altemative, such votes were impermissibly tainted and

should be subject to proportionate reduction. Specifically, but not limited to:

a Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the

polling places, by the distribution and placement of palm cards in the voting booths,

electioneering and promoting voters to cast ballots in favor of Respondent, Moreno;

b Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the

polling place by the placement

of

palm cards advocating votes for Moreno in the protective

envelopes in which the ballots were enclosed upon issuance;

c Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the

polling place, for example, in the 1st Ward, by walking and talking with voters within the

100 foot protective line specifically in promotionof Candidate, Moreno, and/or standingat

or near the inner door to the polling location, all the while, urging votersto support and vote

fo r

Moreno;

d Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the

polling place, for example, in the 1st rd by the placement

of

campaignsigns urginga vote

for Moreno and the distribution of campaign literature urging a vote for Moreno from within

the 100 foot protective line to the door of the polling place;

e Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the

polling place, for example, by poll watchers and Respondent candidate Moreno, himself, and

others, many of whom entered polling locations without presenting credentials and/or

exceeded the number

of

poll watchers permitted in a precinct, and acted improperly and

urged voters to support and vote for Respondent Moreno inside

of

the polling place.

52. Improper Handling Altering, Abandonment

and or

Removal of Ballots from

Precincts. Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled, altered,

abandoned and/or removed by persons in precinct locations who were not duly credentialed and

authorized to so handle, alter or remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices, and, for

20


21/30

example, a ballot application spindle was handled and altered in the 1stWardand 18thPrecinct,

and, on information and belief, ballot-application sized paper was observed being placed into a

purse. Similarly, on information and belief, at least one electronic vote counting device (memory

card) was not counted in the Board s vote totals, and election materials in at least one precinct

were abandoned by election judges and not promptly delivered to the receiving station. Such

unauthorized access to ballots by persons without authority to do so, tainted and altered the total

number

of

votes that were reported by the Board, and therefore the appropriate legal remedy is to

deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary of themisbehavior.Respondent Moreno. In the

alternative, such votes were impermissibly tainted and should be subject to proportionate

correction

53.

Equipment

Errors or Failures. Equipment at numerous locations used for

purposes of voting and tabulating votes wasdefective, erroneous and/ornot properly working for

periods of timeonFebruary 24,2015, including but notlimited to failing to geta zero reading

beforecommencing voting, recording anddisplaying onlytwo votesafterthe pollsclosed(one

vote for Shaw,one vote for Morenoin 1st

Ward

41st Precinct), calibration errors on touch

screen

voting

failing to consolidate all ballots cast,failing to printout sufficient number ofpaper

receipts for consolidated Precinct results, failing to count all

votes

cast,failing to haveequipment

delivered at polling locations, failure to

secure

and lockballotboxes ballotscanners not

working

electronicpoll book errors, no workingtouch screenmachines, andother equipmentfailures,

which

caused polling locations to eithernotopenon time,to be closedduring Election

ay

and/or

otherwisepreventedvoters fromcasting theirvotes andhavingtheir votes countedby the Board.

Such votes should be reviewed and corrected by this Court in its the final count.

54. Polling Places Not Staffed by Duly Qualified Judges. Numerous polling

locations in the 1stWard were notstaffed bydulyqualified elections judges,whohadread and

21


22/30

become familiar with the Board s 2015 Judge ofElection / Polling Place Administrator

Handbook, causing polling locations to either not open on time, to run inefficiently with lines out

the door (and turned away voters), and/or otherwise preventing voters from casting their votes and

having their votes counted by the Board.

55. Polling Place Relocated

and or

Closed Without dequateNotice to Voters. On

information and belief, some polling location for the 1st Wardwere moved to different locations,

than they had been at, for many years, without adequately and appropriately notifying all voters of

the changed location, due to lack of assistance from the Board. All such votes should be located

and counted, or the total should be adjusted proportionately.

56. Election Judges Who Were Not Properly Trained

Erred

In ConsolidatingAnd

Reporting Ballots

That

Were Cast. Numerous electionjudges in precincts throughout 1stWard

deviated from the Election Code and the Board s required procedures as documented in the

Board s 2015 Judgeof Election / PollingPlaceAdministrator Handbook, anderroneously and

inconsistently reported the total ballots cast in various precincts, failed to consolidate votes, and/or

failed to print paper printoutsof consolidated results fromnumerous precincts, raisingmany

questions regarding the credibility and reliability

of

the election results in the 1st Ward, and

requiring a recount of all ballots cast on Election Day in the 1st

ard

P rave r

o r Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioners,ANNE SHAWand RONDALOCKE, respectfully request

entry

of

an order as follows:

(a) enteringan expedited schedule for discoveryand an evidentiaryhearing in this

matter, prior to April 7, 2015;

(b) directing a full and complete recount of all ballots cast in the 1stWard, to determine

the validity

of

the City

of

ChicagoBoardof ElectionCommissioner s counting

of

ballotsand


23/30

proclamation, such recount to include, but not be limited to, an examination

of

the relevant

electronic poll books and corresponding electronic data and logs), voting devices, paper ballots,

voters applications for ballots, precinct binder cards and their computerized equivalent),

affidavits, and all other m aterials from said ward;

c) changing and correcting the results of the election as required by the allegations and

proofs

of

this petition; and

d) granting such other and further r elief in favor of Petitioners, as may bejust and

proper

Andrew Finko

RC

79

W

Monroe

St

/ Suite 2 3

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel 773) 480-0616

Fax 773) 453-3266

Attorney No. 30263

By:

Respectfully submitted:

A N N E

SHAW

and R O N DA L O CK E

Petitioners Attorney

23


24/30

State

of

Illinois

ss

County

of

Cook

VERIFI TTON

The undersigned having beenfirst duly

sworn

under oathdeposes andaffirms thatthe

facts stated in theforegoing Verified Petition forElection Contestare true andcorrectto thebest

of

herknowledge andbelief, as of thedatesigned, andas to statementsmadeon information and

belief,the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that sheverilybelievesthe sametobe true.

NNE SHAW ^

SubscrU}edandswomto

before

s Official Seal

rch 20 5 S Not ~SSl5ln ls

byAmeShaw.

J

MyCcmmteslonExpires02 1«a018

NotaryPublic SEAL

4


25/30

State ofIIHnois

ss

County

of

Cook

VEKPF IC T ION

The

underagaed

having been first duly sworn, under

oalfa

deposes and affirms, that the

facts stated in the

forgoing

Verified Petition for Election Contest are true and correct to the best

ofher knowledge and belief, as of the date signed, and as to statementsmade on information and

belief, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true.

Subscribed and

sworn

to before

me this SGddayof

March 2015

byRonda Locke.

NOTARyPUBLIC

ROND LO

: OFFI f LSE L

:::iyQTARyreBliC STATE


26/30

XHI IT

oard

o f

Election Commiss ioners

Unofficial Resul t s

February

24 2 15


27/30

Registration

Turnout

Total Registration an d Turnout

Con t e s t s

Mayor

RAHM

EMANUEL

WILLIE

WILSON

ROBERT

W.

BOB

FIORETTI

JESUS

CHUY GARCIA

WILLIAM

DOCK WALLS,

III

City

Clerk

SUSANAA. MENDOZA

City

Treasurer

KURT A. SUMMERS

Alderman 1s tWard

PROCO JOE MORENO

ANNE

SHAW

ANDREW

HAMILTON

RONDA LOCKE

Alderman 2nd

Ward

STEPHEN NIKETOPOULOS

BITA BUENROSTRO

BRIAN HOPKINS

ALYX S PATTISON

CORNELL WILSON

STACEY PFINGSTEN

Alde rman 3 r d

Ward

PA T DOWELL

PATRICIA HORTON

Printed:

Wednesday, February

25,2015

4:50

PM

Municipai Generai Eiection

February 24, 2015

City of

Chicago,

liiinois

Unofficiai Summary

Report

Registration

1,421,430

Turnout

471,464

2069 of 2069 precincts counted

211,597

49,612

34,488

157,526

12,954

Total 466,177


Tota l

382,175

382,175

2069

of

2069

precincts

counted

Tota l

44 of 44

precincts counted

Tota l

46

of 46 precincts counted

Tota l


Tota l

354,158

354,158

4,129

2,017

305

1,661

8,112

1,193

1,370

2,790

2,333

824

1,119

9,629

7,235

2,709

9,944

Data Re f re shed :

2/25/2015

4:49

PM

33.17

100.00

45.39

10.64

7.40

33.79

2.78

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

50.90

24.86

3.76

20.48

100.00

12.39

14 23

28.97

24.23

8 56

11.62

100.00

72.76

27.24

Page

of 2


28/30

EX f f l IT

oard o f Elect ion omm iss ioners

Unofficial Resul t s

March 1 2 15


29/30

http://www.chicagoelections.conVen/pctlevel3.asp?Ward=1 elec

Pe t V o tes

C a s t

PROCO JOE

MORENO

Alde rman

1 s t

Ward

ANNESHAW

ANDREW

HAMILTON

RONDALOCKE

1 187

1 4

55.61

46

24.60

4

2 .14

33

17.65

2 178

82

46.07V(

51

28.65

15

8.43

3

16.85

3

2 8

8

38.46«/<

56

26.92

3

1.44

69

33.17

4

222

7

31.53

44

19.82

6

2.70

1 2

45.95

S

163

82

50.31

13

7 .98

2

1.23

66

40.49

6

2 6

1 3

50.00

59

28.64

13

6.31

31

15.05

7 153

77

50.33

45

29 .41

3

1.96

28

18.30

8

21 1

147

69.67

32

15.17

7

3.32

25

11.85

9

196

136

69.39

39

19.90

5

2.55

16

8.16

1 178

86

48.31

34

19.10

7

3.93

51

28.65

11

175

65

37.14

46

26.29

5

2.86

59

33.71

12

215

1 5

48.84

43

20.00

2

9.30

47

21.86

13 99

49

49.49

31

31 .31

0

0.00

19

19.19

14

217

13 1

60.37

32

14.75

15

6.91

39

17.97

15

189

86

45.50

71

37.57

12

6.35

2

10.58

16

192

1 6

55.21

54

28.13

5

2.60

27

14.06

17

196

1 1

51.53

63

32.14

7

3.57

25

12.76

18

219

99

45.21

6

27.40

13

5.94

47

21.46

19

286

145

50.70

85

29.72

1

3.50

46

16.08

2

174

82

47.13

5

28.74

8

4.60

3 4

19.54

21

169

77

45.56

33

19.53

8

4.73

51

30.18

22 126

78

61.90

37

29.37

4

3.17

7

5.56

23

292

147

50.34

72

24.66

6

2.05

67

22.95

24

159

1 9

68.55

32

20.13

2

1.26

16

10.06

25

146

82

56.16

43

29 .45

6

4.11

15

10 .27

26 15

97

64.67

32

21.33

7

4 .67

14

9.33

27

162

88

54.32

4

24.69

8

4.94

26

16.05

28

125

1 5

84.00

11

8.80

3

2.40

6

4.80

29

215

114

53.02

56

26.05

6

2.79

39

18.14

3 246

12 9

52.44

75

30 .49

12

4.88

3

12.20

31

2 4

144

70.59

39

19 .12

4

1.96

17

8.33

32

192

92

47.92

36

18.75

15

7 .81

49

25 .52

33

23 1

1 5

45.45

5

21 .65

6

2.60

7

30.30

34 173

85

49.13

56

32.37

3

1.73

29

16.76


30/30

http;//www.cliicagoelections.coiTi/en/pctleveI3.asp?Ward=l

el

35

2 5

87

40 47

6

27 91

9

4 19

59

7 44 |

36

9

52

27 37

48

25 26

4

2 11

86

45

26

37

97

76

38 58

69

35 03

3

1 52

49

24 87

38

21 1

2 7

60 19

35

16 59

8

3 79

41

19 43

39

74

7

40 23

37

21 26

3

1 72

64

36 78

4

2 7

8

54 38

58

26 73

11

5 07

3

13 82

41

49

55

36 91

5

33 56

11

7 38

33

22 15

42

55

29

52 73

5

27 27

2

3 64

9

16 36

43

63

86

52 76

5

30 67

4

2 45

23

14 11

4 4

37

75

54 74

34

24 82

4

2 92

24

17 52

Total

8 62

4 63

51 00

2 22

24 77

3 9

3 79

668

20 44

Pet

Votes

Cast PROCO

JOE

MORENO NNE SH W N REW H MILTON

Alderman

st

Ward

Go Back

RONDALOCKE

Documents

2015 03 03 Petition Shaw 01 FILED