Response - Meroni V Candidates - July 15 2010 Libetarian Party

BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED
ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE HEARING AND PASS UPON OBJECTIONS

TO CERTIFICATES OF NOMINATION AND NOMINATION PAPERS
IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS BY
In re the Objections of )
)
Sharon Meroni, )
)
Petitioner-Objector )
)
vs. )
)
each of the following: )
)
Bill Malan ) No. 10 SOEB GE 526
James Pauly ) No. 10 SOEB GE 527
Josh Hanson ) No. 10 SOEB GE 528
Julie Fox ) No. 10 SOEB GE 529
Mike Labno ) No. 10 SOEB GE 530
Ed Rutledge ) No. 10 SOEB GE 543
Lex Green ) No. 10 SOED GE 544
)
Candidates-Respondents. )
Now here comes the Objector and Citizen, Sharon Ann Meroni appearing pro se as an individual, in
accordance with Election Code, in Response to the seven Respondents listed above, by their Attorney,
Andrew Spiegel, and pursuant to the Illinois Election Code, moves to dismiss the Motion to Strike and
Dismiss.
Introduction
1. It is within the obligation of the State Board of Elections, to deliver a fair and equal election and when
their authorities prevent them from doing so, to report such to the General Assembly.
2. Objector seeks to have the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and the laws of the State of
Illinois upheld
3. The Illinois General Assembly, in enacting the election statutes has determined that violations of the
election law causes irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
4. The State Board of Election has general supervision over the administration of voter registration and
election laws throughout the state, and certifies election results in Illinois.
A State Board of Elections is hereby established which shall have general
supervision over the administration of the registration and election laws throughout
the State…(10 ILCS 5/1A-1)
It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin
A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings
cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)
1
5. The ISBE Oath of office requires Board Members uphold Constitutional Mandates:
“I do solemnly swear that I will uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and
laws of the State of Illinois and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as a member of the Illinois State Board
of Elections to the best of my ability.”
6. Illinois Statute reinforced by ISBE procedures mandate and oversee the period of contest for
challenges to ballot placement by applicants.
7. The Objector has a fundamental interest and right to a ballot that has constitutionally qualified
contestants.
8. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: The ISBE lacks the legal cause to strike or dismiss this
objection without a ruling on the merits: A citizen‟s genuine inquiry, objects based on a lack of proof
of the Candidates‟ affirmation of his legal qualifications, and that inquiry is made within the 5 day
qualification period.
9. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: There is no Law or other legal limitation during the 5 day
contest period, restricting my rights to object based strictly on Constitutional qualifications, thus the
ISBE should deny the Motion to Strike and Dismiss (The enumeration in this Constitution shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual of the State Section 24 Rights
Retained )
10. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: There is no legal basis in law for any candidate to refuse to
prove their affirmation that they are legally qualified during the 5 day period of qualification.
11. It is well within the ISBE‟s mandate and ability to secure a constitutional ballot for upcoming
elections.
12. It is the nature of the 5 day qualification period for the candidate‟s application and qualifications to be
assessed – Specifically as in Apparent Conformity by election clerks, and as “legally qualified”
according to any objection of those qualifications, the petitions and other documents setting them
forth.
13. Barriers to contest citizenship are an extreme burden on the electorate.
14. It is natural to assume, most Americans believe their ballot is valid and constitutional. It is a „must
and shall‟ in their constitutions. The Objector believes most Illinois residents do not know there is no
checking for constitutional qualifications before ballot placement in Illinois.
15. This action is to prevent re-occurrence of harm already received from constitutionally unverified
ballots related to the 2008 Primary and general election.
16. The Objector understands the same processes to be in place that allowed for candidates to achieve
ballot placement without being verified for constitutional eligibility.
17. A constitutionally unstable or false ballot undermines the American electoral process with implications
at the county, state and federal level.
2
18. The Objector has a right to be represented, regardless of political affiliations or whether she likes any
particular elected official‟s policies, by a constitutionally qualified government. This right is core to
the authority and subsequent survival of our Republic.
19. The Objector has the right to legal process to establish the constitutionality of her government or the
codes, statutes, authorities, processes and tools used to elect that government.
20. The 5 Day Objection process provides that opportunity for legal process and redress. (10 ILCS 5/10-8)
21. When unqualified candidates are permitted on the ballot it forever changes that election‟s process.
Unqualified candidates, even when later proven as unqualified or if unsuccessful in their bid for office
- if permitted on the ballot - impact that election.
22. Deficient procedures and statutes create extreme vulnerabilities in the election process by allowing for
contestants to be certified for ballot placement without verification for constitutional eligibility.
23. It is the mandate of the ISBE to notify the General Assembly of these deficiencies (10 ILCS 5/1a-8 (7-
12)
24. Current election statutes and procedures violate the Illinois Constitutional requirement for uniform
elections and infringe on the Objector‟s right to free and equal elections. (Ill Constitution – Article III
Section 3and 4)
25. The Objector has a right to know by what definition Illinois uses to define legally qualified on the
Statement of Candidacy for all positions.
26. The question of constitutional eligibility is never irrelevant or moot to a candidate‟s right to office.
27. Equities: The burden of the loss is the Objector‟s (as a member of the voting public) and the voting
public, when the State Board of Elections certifies the ballot placement without verifying the eligibility
of the candidates on the ballot.
28. The burden of the loss is the Objector‟s and the voting public, should the State Board of Elections
permits candidates to refuse to prove the affirmation in their Statement of Candidacy that they are
“legally qualified” when the Objection was made in the legally prescribed manner for all objections to
candidate placement on a ballot.
29. There is no legal remedy to losses from prejudice, suspicion, and anger between the electorate and
their elected government caused because of questions about elected officials eligibility.
30. All American citizens are entitled to access rights related to registering to vote or becoming a
contestant for elected office, regardless of whether or not access is then denied by statute or objection.
(i.e. felons or residency restrictions)
31. After the age of 18, United States Citizenship, while not the only constitutionally mandated
requirement, is the only requirement that is unwavering across all later definitions of “legally
qualified” to participate in any aspect of the election process.
3
32. Proof of citizenship and constitutional eligibility is required for many other privileges in our society
and is not an undue barrier to the right to vote or the right to be on a ballot.
33. Without proof of citizenship, during the 5 day objection period, the electorate lacks sufficient
information to judge the veracity of a candidate. The deficiency creates civil right issues between voter
and contestant, and between contestants, especially where there is no way to ascertain if someone is
constitutionally eligible to vote or to hold office, except to look at things such as accents, or ethnicity.
This example is clearer shown in a recent related issue in Missouri ( Hector Maldonado candidate for US
Senate Letter on Scribd and Mr. Maldanado on video declaring his Civil Rights were violated )
34. The lack of correct procedures set up by the State Board of Elections places the Objector‟s civil rights
at jeopardy. If she should object to a candidate based on evidence available to her at the time, then she
might be charged with Civil Rights violations. (Maldanado Example and the Blank Worksheet – Exhibit 1)
35. A citizen cannot provide proof relating to facts or evidence that are not available in the public record.
36. Inadvertently, with the limited information available, a citizen is forced to rely on external information
that on its face statistically profiles characteristics such as ethnicity or native languages. This is a civil
rights violation against the Objector.
37. Therefore the Objector, to avoid potential civil rights violations or alleged violations, must object to all
candidates to prove their affirmation that they are legally qualified
Public Policy and Public Interest
38. Substantial Public Interest: Certifying candidates for elected office is of substantial public interest.
(North v Hinkle No. 91 MR 0004) This situation is likely to re-occur.
39. Issues relating to the integrity of the voter registration pool, when registration is required for all
processes related to electing our government, is of significant public interest.
40. The Objector and the public are at a loss to determine the damage to our Republic when non-citizen
and otherwise constitutionally ineligible voters or candidates participate in the electoral process. All
results of that election become eschewed, impacting the very faith the public has in the authority of
their government.
41. Constitutional deficiency, due process and civil rights issues related to voter registration and
certification of contenders for ballot placements will re-occur
42. Graph- Related to Standing diagrams the futility of any argument denying the Objector standing to
know if candidates applying for ballot position are constitutionally (legally) qualified. (Exhibit 5- Graph
– Related to Standing)
Standing in Law:
43. Free and Equal: In Illinois elections, Article III, section 3 is the measure by which the end result of
any election contest is entrusted, and through the word „shall,‟ is mandated. “All elections shall be free
and equal” (Article III. Section 4)
4
44. General and Uniform: The Illinois Constitution mandate general and uniform “shall be” the legal
standard governing voter registration and the conduct of election statutes and procedures. “ Laws
governing voter registration and conduct of elections shall be general and uniform. (Article III.
Section 4)
Definitions
45. Constitutional Eligibility: This Objection specifically refers to qualifications specifically mandated in
the US and Illinois Constitution to be eligible for office or to register to vote. These include
citizenship, age, residency requirements and the Public Disclosure Act. Sometimes certain other
qualifications as well, such as a license. These are mandated in constitutional terms of „must and
shall.‟
The Objectors stipulates that proof of residency is placed in the public record. The Objector
challenges candidates to prove their affirmation that they are constitutionally eligible for office based
on age and citizenship.
46. Two processes allow a contestant ballot access

Apparent Conformity is the standard used to certify candidates for ballot placement.
Specifically, the clerk s duty is to determine whether, upon the face of the
petition, it is in compliance with the law. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.
5 Day Objection Period:

shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5
business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination or
nomination papers or petition for a public question, with the following exceptions…(IL
Code 10/8)
47. Legally Qualified: The term signatory affirm to on the Statement of Candidacy. (IC 10/8 ( 8))
I, ...., being first duly sworn, say that I reside at .... street in the city (or
village of) .... in the county of .... State of Illinois; that I am a qualified voter
therein and am a qualified primary voter of .... party; that I am a candidate for
nomination to the office of .... to be voted upon at the primary election to be held
on (insert date); that I am legally qualified to hold such office and that I have
filed a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental
Ethics Act and I hereby request that my name be printed upon the official primary
ballot for nomination for such office.
FACTS
HIPAA: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191)
48. The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information. The
HIPAA Security Rule sets national standards for security of electronic protected health information
and for confidentiality provisions related to the Patient Safety Rule.
49. When a candidate refuses to provide certified proof of citizenship information to the public, HIPAA
privacy rights for individuals, infringes on the public‟s right to information in the public realm proving
or not, the constitutional eligibility of candidates for office . ( Site numerous issues related to the State of
Hawaii and repeated challenges for Mr. Obama‟s proof of Citizenship and the related issues with HIPAA)
5
50. Due Process Issue: The Objector cannot evaluate a candidate‟s credentials to serve, when required
information is withheld because of privacy rights afforded to everyday citizenry and not intended as a
barrier to public information required to assess eligibility of candidates
Voter Registration
51. Voter Registration in Illinois is not uniform as required in the Illinois Constitution, impacting all
election results.
52. The Citizen: The vast majority of Americans were born here; their forefathers (regardless to how
many generations past or how they originally arrived in America) were born here or became
naturalized. The vast majority of our citizens, 95%, are natural born citizens. Citizenship is easily
ascertained as a fact.
53. While America has many residents and visitors, access rights to the voter registration process is
constitutionally afforded to one group, American Citizens
54. Voter Registration is germane to this question because voter registration is a requirement for ballot
placement through „Apparent Conformity‟ and the „Statement of Candidacy. (10 ILCS 5/8-8))
55. Voter Registration is germane to this question because voter registration is the gateway to the entire
electoral process.
56. The current voter registration processes are not uniform. There are separate processes with varying
registration requirements prejudicing against a citizen registering by one process verses another.
57. The electorate is registered from the pool of Americans. Registered voters, who are not citizens,
change the election results in ways we cannot measure, since we do not track the issue and have no
authority to. (Meroni v Illinois State Board of Elections – 22nd Circuit Court - 03-2010 seeking Injunctive relief
– McHenry County Clerk - Willard Helander (Exhibit 4))
58. The current voter registration processes, not being uniform, are prejudicial against citizens registering
by one process verses another, each with varying requirements to certify. (Primary Sources – Meroni v
Illinois State Board of Elections – 22nd Circuit Court - 03-2010 seeking Injunctive relief – McHenry County
Clerk - Katherine Schultz (Exhibit 1) and Lake County Clerk - Willard Helander (Exhibit 4))
 No documents are required to register to vote with the NVRA form.

 There is no element of a source document or element of verification in the mail-in registration form
 The state maintains a required statewide registry of voters. It is managed on an ad hoc basis in the varying
jurisdictions and is not enforced uniformly, nor is it uniformly administered at the local level.
 Procedures for using statewide registry are not consistent or uniform across the state.
 According to the current system of document verification, someone cannot sit on a jury, (they verify
eligibility to be on the Jury) but can vote to elect to retain those managing the criminal justice system
without verification. (No verification to vote or get on the ballot)
 The process of voter registration allows registration with and without the registrants‟ knowledge allows
unqualified voters to register without knowing they have done so.
 Applicants registering by mail do not take an oath or show ID. They “self-certify”
 Current voter registration processes allow anyone to say they are an US Citizen, without fear of challenge.
One need not even say where they were born.
 Access to voter registration processes is not uniform. Voter Registration practices include at least these three
procedures with varying requirements.
6
 In person before a Deputy Registrar
 Agency based registration
 Registration by mail
 Voter Registration has changed because of other changes in our society. New scrutiny has been added to
other aspects of the voting process and allows for audit of voting systems, but not of those allowed access to
the system through registration.
 The current process assumes the voter‟s affirmation to citizenship, but has requirements for establishing the
lesser requirement of address.
 Resources are not allocated empowering the County Clerks to verify citizenship status of anyone that
registers to vote.
 Clerks are restricted in their ability to access government databases which would allow simple anonymous
access to determine voter eligibility, and thusly restricted in fulfilling the obligation to the electorate to
assure a fair voting database.
 At the Motor Voter State offices: requires individuals denied a State ID or Driver‟s License on the basis of
providing false ID - MUST be offered to register to vote and that registration is then verified despite proof of
identity fraud before that state official. The registration is certified as valid.
 The State refuses to run the statewide voter registration database against the list of illegal residents.
 The State refuses to authorize a voter registration system that has verified integrity.
 The State refuses to track or make known to the public any reliable data regarding the integrity of the voter
registration database making it conveniently impermissible for anyone to object to something which is not
tracked.
 Law enforcement rarely takes interest in or allocates investigators to voter registration issues.
 There is documentary evidence from County Clerks to instances where persons repeatedly voted and later
applied for citizenship.
 There are voter registration processes currently in use that do not require potential voters to swear to place of
birth and that they are US citizens authorized to vote.
59. Although not uniformly required, precedence for requiring qualifying documentation to register is part
of the current process.
60. In practical terms, voter registration is an honor system. This is not of sufficient substance to meet
constitutional mandates of must and shall as a tool for determining eligibility for ballot placement.
61. For all of these reasons, but not limited to only these, voter registration self certified statements do not
provide the Objector with sufficient proof of an applicant‟s affirmation of legally qualified as a US
Citizen.
62. Voter Registration as proof of citizenship is hearsay at best.
63. Voter Registration does attempt to confirm address and can do so because proof of address is required.
The Ballot
64. The ballot is the means by which We The People affirm our sovereign will in our Republic.
65. The sanctity of the ballot is statistically left to the luck of the draw or some mischievous candidate or
lawyer. It is too great of a burden to expect the citizens to reliably verify the constitutional veracity of
a ballot through the objection process, especially lacking access to sufficient information.
66. The ballot, representing all the voters‟ choices for the contest, is crucial to any determination of a free
and equal election.
7
67. Legally, the ballot must have two elements:
o Constitutional veracity
o In apparent conformity with other election standards
68. Requirements for ballot placements do not verify the constitutional eligibility of the contestants.
69. The ISBE does not certify the ballot as legal or constitutional (Quote their oath)
70. County Clerks and other election officials are empowered with deficient tools, authority and resources
to verify the ballot as constitutional.
71. No public record is available to prove constitutional eligibility of citizenship for any position voted on
in Illinois. No documents proving eligibility are requested, required, recorded or posted.
72. Re-occurring Civil Rights Issue: The Objector cannot ascertain if someone is constitutionally
eligible to be on the ballot except to look at things such as accents, or ethnicity. The electorate lacks
sufficient information to judge the veracity of a candidate‟s signature that they are legally qualified.
73. This creates a profound lack of faith between the electorate and their elected government, when there
are questions about eligibility and no way to gain remedy to that question.
74. Public records and documents are available for other constitutional requirements requiring licenses and
certifications –(Lawyer, etc)
75. It is a simple matter to produce proof of citizenship. The Military requires a raised seal birth
certificate. For election purposes naturalization papers would also be appropriate documents. These
documents prove age and citizenship status.
76. The Objector has a 1st Amendment Right to a constitutional ballot. The State has the obligation to
deliver a constitutional ballot. Currently it is statistically left to the „luck of the draw‟ and to whether
or not some candidate is challenged, to whether the ballot is a constitutional ballot
77. Once a contestant is placed on the ballot, legally, it is difficult to remove him and/or to change the
election results. This is why they have a 5 Day contest period for Objections
78. Once a candidate is elected, legal remedies are prohibitive and rarely taken, making redress for the
citizen impermissible. Law enforcement officials rarely get involved.
5 Day Objection Period
79. Public Notification: The 5 Day Objection (IL Code 10/8)

shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within
5 business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination or
nomination papers or petition for a public question, with the following exceptions…
80. The 5 day objection period is an impermissible legal barrier for the voting public when contestants are
not constitutionally verified, in effect making citizenship requirements governed by shifting apparent
8
conformity standards rather than „shall be‟ as constitutionally mandated.
81. The Objector, one intended recipient of the ballot, was not noticed of her right and obligation as
gatekeeper to assure candidates are constitutionally qualified for ballot placement.
82. During the 5 day period, the absence of any public documents establishing constitutional qualifications
available to her, deprives the Objector the opportunity to challenge contestants on the ballot based on
evidence.
83. Deny – Dismiss and Strike Motion: The absence of public documents shifts the legal burden from
the Objector to provide non-existent public records as evidence, to the Applicant to prove their
signature affirming they are legally qualified with evidence.
84. When past the 5 day period , the 5 day rule unjustly deprives the Objector of standing to challenge
must and shall requirements of the constitution for eligibility that have no time limit.
85. Currently, past the 5 day period, questions of constitutional eligibility, administratively and in the
courts, in the realm of standing, have impermissible barriers to resolution especially when there is no
public record to challenge the affirmation of legally qualified.
86. The 5 day notice law is unreasonable because the rules allow the Objector 5 days to object without:
a. Public posting of proof contestants are constitutionally qualified.

b. Being noticed of her right and duty to challenge these contestants during the objection period.
c. Being noticed that if she did not object, there could be unconstitutional candidates on her ballot.
d. Being noticed that the state does not verify constitutional eligibility only certifies ballot position.
e. Being permitted access to required information to ascertain eligibility.
f. Being noticed what constitutes apparent conformity, with evidence available during the contest period.
87. It is within the ISBE authorities and responsibilities to correct these deficiencies – It is within their
mandate as specified .
88. The process of election essentially involves contests. If a candidate is to be screened for ballot
position, it is left to the other contestants in the race and/or to engaged and alert citizens, to do so
through the 5 day objection process.
89. When there is only one person on the ballot, there is no natural predator of the unchallenged contestant
on the ballot, enhancing the statistical odds for an unconstitutional ballot.
90. The election code allows for public posting and verification of other less substantive requirements.
Statement of Economic Interest (10 ILCS 5/1/0-5)

Campaign Finance (ARTICLE 9. DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES)
91. The legal remedy of citizens, through the objection process, being gatekeepers to assure the uniform
constitutional integrity of the ballot, is too great of a burden and is not possible.
9
Statement of Candidacy
92. The form required of all applicants for office (10 ILCS 5/10-5)
93. “General and Uniform” - The Statement of Candidacy is too general imposing deficiencies in the
uniformity of the election.
94. Forms provided by the State Board of Elections do not specifically identify conformity with the state
or federal constitutional requirements.
95. The Statement of Candidacy has a self certifying obligatory statement with no way for the citizen to
challenge or receive proof of that statement after the 5 day objection period.
96. The Statement of Candidacy states they signer is in possession of any license required for office. To
be on the ballot it is required to be a US Citizen and there are plenty of documents that can be required
to prove it when called to by a challenge from an Objector. During the Objection Period, proof of these
can be requested even though they are not required for Apparent Conformity.
97. The Statement of Candidacy requires the signatory to affirm to “legally qualified to hold such office”
without clear definitions or public records proving affirmations of legally qualified, these subjective
statements deny the voter the opportunity to assess the veracity of that claim.
98. The oath on the Statement of Candidacy is subjective to the applicant‟s interpretation of what is legal.
Illinois statute lacks specific language to define “legally qualified.” Federal statues lack specific
language to define “legally qualified.”
99. The Statement of Candidacy allows for subjective statements. “Legally qualified to hold such office”
is relative to the office and requiring a subjective declaration to a legal term thereby leaving it up the
candidate‟s opinion of what legally qualified means.
100. The signatory on the Statement of Candidacy has the obligation to prove his claim of being legally
qualified. The Objector‟s right to that information is available to her during the Objection period.
The presumption is that the signer is telling the truth. The obligation is on the signer of the Statement
of Candidacy to prove eligibility to an Objector. After the 5 day objection period, the ISBE provides
no process by which a citizen can easily get remedy to compel the signer to prove the affirmation that
he/she is obligated to by signature.
101. The purpose of the 5 day period is to challenge signatures. Some challenge the signatures on a
petition. The ISBE lays out careful processes by which those signatures can be challenged. The ISBE
fails to provide similar process to the citizen when they wish to challenge the Candidates signature
affirming they are legally qualified.
102. The Objector has a right to know what the meaning of „legally qualified‟ is so she can assess the
veracity of the signatory on the Statement of Candidacy.
103. Unless the candidate provides proof of their legal qualifications the Objector cannot ascertain the
veracity of that signature.
10
104. While evidence of eligibility exists in the public record for other qualifications required for legally
qualified, it does not for citizenship.
105. Deny : Motion to Dismiss and Strike: The burden cannot be the Objector‟s to have proof for
suspicion; which is impossible when no evidence is provided.
106. It is possible to claim “legally qualified” subjectively, but without a definition to challenge, that
affirmation cannot be evaluated, creating a due process issue. One example is Natural Born Citizen.
There is no definition in the statutes defining legally qualified as pertains to the Presidency, except for
Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. Without a definition, anyone can claim they are a Natural
Born Citizen, depriving the Objector the right to a constitutional government. The affirmation of
legally qualified as pertains to the office of the Presidency, as in a Natural Born Citizen, is not
provable, depriving the Objector her right to object. (Note: 2012 issue to come)
107. All candidates for office essentially use the same form with the same words and the same oath. Thus
this phrase “legally qualified to hold such office” means different things to different signers of the
same form.
108. Legally qualified could mean registered to vote. A contestant can be registered to vote, but still not be
constitutionally eligible for the office.
109. No public record is required or available to prove the signature affirming constitutional eligibility to be
on the ballot for any position voted on in Illinois.
110. If no one challenges the candidate‟s Statement of Candidacy during the contest period, the candidate is
placed on the ballot, the Statement of Candidacy form signed or not. (Alan Keyes – Primary 2008)
111. Without notifying the public through public disclosure at the time of filing, the ISBE set a precedence
of permitting a candidate ballot placement without a signed Statements of Candidacy, creating
irreparable harm to the integrity of the Objector‟s 2008 Primary ballot and thus serving an
unconstitutional ballot to her. (Keyes - Republican Primary 2008)
112. The obligation on the Statement of Candidacy is on the signer. The legal remedy is different than ones
for apparent conformity (ie signatures on a petition) because constitutional qualifications to serve in
office cannot be legally usurped or placed a time limit on.
113. Without public record, there is no remedy at law when a candidate lies on their application. Illinois and
Federal law is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of „legally qualified to hold office.‟ Law
enforcement generally does not get involved. There is no way for the citizen to find redress.
114. Documents for „apparent conformity‟ as mandated by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, are
required allowing for legal remedy for later challenge, but information establishing constitutional
qualifications is not required or available.
Apparent Conformity
115. Apparent conformity is the standard clerks use before certifying a ballot
116. Apparent conformity requirements that do not include proof of constitutional qualifications are
deficient and deprive the Objector of due process to challenge what is not provided both during and
11
after the 5 day period.
117. Illinois State Board of Elections Apparent Conformity procedures are so lax that a candidate can
literally be certified for ballot placement without ever affirming being legally qualified, or signing a
Statement of Candidacy. (Alan Keyes 2008 Primary Election – granted ballot placement by the ISBE)
118. Voter registration rolls, that do not provide verified citizenship, are not of sufficient veracity to assure
candidates are legally qualified to be on the ballot and no other public documents proving citizenship
are required or made available.
119. County Clerks are not empowered to verify constitutional mandates for eligibility.
120. “Apparent conformity” is not of sufficient legal substance to meet the obligation of “must be” or
“shall be” as required by the US and Illinois Constitutions unless there is a reliable instrument
establishing constitutional eligibility, such that the clerk, through apparent conformity, can certify that
constitutional mandates have been met.
121. The County Clerks do not have information about candidates filing at the State Board of Elections
offices until certification occurs. This is especially important because Apparent Conformity rules vary
from one election authority to another.
122. Ministerial Roles: Apparent conformity prejudices the election towards a crafty contestant who may
lack constitutional qualifications, but because of appearance, clerks are “required‟ to certify him as
qualified for ballot placement.
123. There is no remedy at law when the same politician can refuse to post proof of their legal
qualifications.
Motions to Strike and Dismiss:
124. Sec. 10-8. Certificates of nomination and nomination papers…being filed as required by this Code, and being in apparent
conformity with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within
5 business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination or nomination papers ….
…Any legal voter of the political subdivision or district in which the candidate or public question is to be voted on… having
objections to any certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector's petition together
with a copy thereof in the principal office or the permanent branch office of the State Board of Elections, or in the office of
the election authority or local election official with whom the certificate of nomination, nomination papers or petitions are on
file.
125. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: The Respondent has failed to state a legal cause on why the
Objector should be denied her right to Object based on a lack of proof of eligibility.
126. The Respondents have failed to identify any rule of law forbidding the Objector the right to proof of
the signatory affirming they are legally qualified for the office.
127. The Respondent failed to prove Petitioner‟s Objection is outside of the law or to name any specific
legal cause to justify the Motion to Strike and Dismiss.
128. Nothing in the law about the 5 day objection period restricts objections to allegations with proof,
especially when the documents for proof are not publically available. The Respondent fails to provide
12
any proof of his claim that the objection is restricted to what is asked for on the Statement of
Candidacy.
129. Proof of other items proving legal and constitutional qualifications are routinely provided if asked
during objection periods (I.e. licenses). These also are not required for filing the Statement of
Candidacy.
130. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: Respectfully stated, the ISBE lacks the legal cause to strike or
dismiss this objection without a ruling on the merits: A citizen‟s genuine objection based on a lack of
proof of the Candidates‟ affirmation of his legal qualifications, and that inquiry is made within the 5
day qualification period.
131. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: There is no Law or other legal limitation during the 5 day
contest period, restricting Petitioner‟s rights to object based strictly on Constitutional qualifications,
thus the ISBE should deny the Motion to Strike and Dismiss (The enumeration in this Constitution
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual of the State Section 24
Rights Retained )
132. Deny Motions to Strike and Dismiss: There is no legal basis in law for any candidate to refuse to
prove their affirmation that they are legally qualified during the 5 day period of qualification.
133. Deny – Dismiss and Strike Motion: The absence of public documents available to use in any
allegation shifts the legal burden from the Objector to provide non-existent public records as evidence,
to the Applicant to prove their signature affirming they are legally qualified with evidence.
134. Deny : Motion to Dismiss and Strike: When no public document is presented, the burden cannot be
the Objector‟s to have proof for suspicion which leads to civil rights violations; This places an
impermissible barrier on the Objector‟s rights. This burden creates fundamental due process issues
without legal remedy.
135. The Respondent failed to provide any proof of Constitutional eligibility other than unverified but
certified affirmation.
136. Unverified Voter Registration does not provide proof of Citizenship. In this hearing, voter registration
is hearsay evidence.
137. Respectfully, the State Board of Elections fails in their procedures when they provide processes for
resolution to contest petition signatures affirming they are qualified and in support of the candidate,
but fail to do so for contest of Candidate‟s signatures affirming they are legally qualified. (Appendix A
ISBE Rules Adopted 7-06-10)
138. All citizens have the right to know if a ballot is constitutional. Yet when the citizen asks, the candidate
says they have no legal cause to ask. This is indefensible!
Prayer For Relief
WHEREFORE, Objector prays for relief as follows:
139. The Objector, to reflect her true motive to have a legal ballot and not to frustrate legally qualified
candidates from ballot access, offers the following remedy – For any Candidate that submits a certified
13
raised seal birth certificate or Naturalized papers for the public record, the Objector will withdraw her
Objection. (See Exhibit 3)
140. A number of candidates, clearly understanding the public interest in knowing they are constitutionally
qualified, have provided such proof and the Objections have been withdrawn.
141. That the Candidate will provide proof of Legal qualifications specifically as relates to citizenship
and age as required by the US and Illinois Constitutions and laws.
142. That the Motions to Strike and Dismiss be denied.
143. For any and all other relief that is equitable and just.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________________
SHARON A MERONI PRO SE
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Blank Worksheet – Demonstrates the futility of the Objector to discern legally qualified
affirmations based on Constitutional requirements of Citizenship and age.
Exhibit 2 – Letter to the Board of Elections 03-09-2010
Exhibit 3 – Letter to All Candidates Objected to
Exhibit 4 – Letter to all Candidates on the Ballot (Except those Objected to)
Exhibit 5 – Graph – Related to Standing
Exhibit 6 – Filled out Worksheet for Candidate
14

Response - Meroni V Candidates - July 15 2010 Libetarian Party

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response - Meroni V Candidates - July 15 2010 Libetarian Party

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED

ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE HEARING AND PASS UPON OBJECTIONS

IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS BY

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

13. Barriers to contest citizenship are an extreme burden on the electorate.

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

Public Policy and Public Interest

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

46. Two processes allow a contestant ballot access

5 Day Objection Period:

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

 No documents are required to register to vote with the NVRA form.

62. Voter Registration as proof of citizenship is hearsay at best.

5 Day Objection Period

79. Public Notification: The 5 Day Objection (IL Code 10/8)

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

a. Public posting of proof contestants are constitutionally qualified.

Statement of Economic Interest (10 ILCS 5/1/0-5)

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

Motions to Strike and Dismiss:

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Objector prays for relief as follows:

142. That the Motions to Strike and Dismiss be denied.

SHARON A MERONI PRO SE

Exhibit 2 – Letter to the Board of Elections 03-09-2010

Exhibit 3 – Letter to All Candidates Objected to

Exhibit 5 – Graph – Related to Standing

Exhibit 6 – Filled out Worksheet for Candidate

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

You might also like