2015 03 03-Petition SIGCHO PetitionFILED

8/9/2019 2015 03 03-Petition SIGCHO PetitionFILED

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2015-03-03-petition-sigcho-petitionfiled 1/26

IN T H E CIRCUIT C O U RT O F C O O K C O U NT Y

COUNTY DEPARTMENT COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS

BYRON SIGCHO,Petitioner,

CITY O F C H I C A G O B O A R D O F ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS as the election authorityand the canvass authority for the ChicagoMunicipal Election held on February 24 2015LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,

MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, CommissionerRICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner an d

DANIEL DANNY SOLIS, CandidateED HERSHEY Candidate JORGE MUJICA,

Candidate ROBERTO BETO MONTANO,

Candidate,

Respondents.

C o u r t N o .

i 5 C E L 3 6

C A L E N D A R / R O Q H 8T I H E O O s O O

E i e c L CojTtes l r ed

o

o • v ^:r .

r • ^

VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION ^ ^ A

Petitioner BYRON SIGCHO individually and by his attorneys Andrew Finko P.C. and

Vemor Moran LLC andherebyfileshis verified election contest petitionpursuant to 65 ILCS

20/21-27 and Article 23 of the Illinois Election Code contesting the results of the Chicago

Municipal GeneralElectionheld on February24 2015 for the office of alderman in the 25thWard

in Chicago as follows.

P r e f a c e

1. This election contest is filed before the Respondent Board of Election

Commissioners has proclaimed the results of the election for alderman of the 25th Ward in

Chicago based uponinformation availableasofthe date of filing and without the benefit ofa

petition for discovery or a recount. Necessarily inthe situationpresented herein where 65 ILCS

20/21 27 requires an election contestpetition be filed within five days of the election the parties

must plead withgeneralities subjectto later amendmentafter further discoveryor a court ordered



recount. See, Evans v Preckwinkle, 259 Ill.App.3d 187, 636 N.E.2d 730 (25th Dist. 1994), and

O'Neal Shaw, 248 Ill.App.3d 632, 618 N.E.2d 780 (25th Dist. 1993).

r t i e s , a c k g r o u n d

2. Petitioner, BYRON SIGCHO( Sigcho ), is a duly qualified electorin the 25th

Wardin Chicago, anda candidatefor election to the officeofaldermanfor the 25th Ward in the

CityofChicago, with his nameprinted upon the ballot for said office and voted uponin the 25th

Ward Chicago municipal general electionheld on February 24, 2015.

3 Respondent,City of Chicago Boardof Election Commissioners( Board ), is the

election authority that conductedthe Chicago municipal generalelection held on February 24,

2015, and is the canvassing board thatwill perform the official countof the ballots and render a

final proclamationof results of the election for the office of alderman for the 25th Wardin

Chicago, Illinois.

4. Respondents, Langdon Neal, MariselA Hernandezand Richard Cowen, are each

Commissionersand members of the Board, andare named in their official capacities as

Commissioners o f th e oard

5 Respondents, DANIEL DANNY SOLIS ( Solis ) ED HERSHEY, ( Hershey ),

JORGE MUJICA,( Mujica ), and, ROBERTO BETO MONTANO, ( Montano ), were

candidatescompeting for election to the office of alderman for the 25th Ward in the Cityof

Chicago,and their name was printed upon the ballot said office and voted upon in the 25th Ward

Chicago municipal generalelection held on February 24,2015.

6 Initially, on election day, February 24, 2015, and then on February 27,2015, the

Board posted at its website updated unofficial results that stated thatSigcho garnered 1 382votes,

or 18.60 of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election,that Solis garnered3,785

votes, or50.95 of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election, thatHershey



garnered 612 votes, or 8.24 of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election,that

Mujica garnered904 votes, or 12.17 of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward aldermanic election,

and that Montano garnered 746 votes, or 10.04 of the total votes cast in the 25th Ward

aldermanic election, suchthata runoff election would not occur betweenSigcho and Solis. Copy

of the February 24, 2015 unofficial election results (by precinct) for the officeof alderman in the

25th Ward in Chicago are attached and incorporatedherein as ExhibitA.

7. The Board s unofficial revised results posted on or about March 1 2015 report

Respondent, Solis,purportedlyat three votes above50 ofall votes cast in the 25th ard election

held on February 24 2015.

8. The Board continues counting additional ballots, and will issue a final proclamation

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

AT L G T I O N S O F R R O R S

9. Petitioner, Sigcho, votedin the election for alderman of the 25th Ward and his

campaign had volunteers observing electionday procedures at precinctsthroughout the 25th ard

As set forth more fully and specificallybelow, in good faith and based uponreasonable inquiry

which continues, Sigchoalleges that, and believes that, mistakes and fraud have beencommitted

in the casting and countingof ballots for the office ofaldermanof the 25th Ward in the City of

Chicago at the electionon February 24 2015.

10. When the results of the full recount and other discoverybecome available further

information will come to the attention the Petitioner Sigcho that there were mistakes errors or

frauds in the counting of the ballots for the subject election, and/or fraud committed regardingthe

election, such that the count of votes must be revised in the favor of the petitioner, Sigcho.

11. As set forth more fully and specifically below, the Board s count of the election

totals for theelection of alderman in the 25th Ward for the City of Chicago was performed in



derogationofthat Board s statutoryduties in that their determinationand anticipatedproclamation

of results embody results in which numerousinvalid ballotswere wronglycounted,numerous

valid ballotswere wronglynot counted, numerous dulyqualified votersof the 25th Ward in theCity of Chicagowere wronglydenied their right to vote in the election,and numerouspersons

who were (on the electionday) not duly qualifiedvotCTS of the 25th Ward in the Cityof Chicago

were wronglypermitted to vote inthe election. Basedon the facts alleged herein developed

through investigation,and as will bemore fiilly developed,a correct and lawfixl countof the votes

which wereproperlycast, andwhich should have beenproperlycast, in the 25thWard in the City

ofChicago showsa result different from that reportedby the Judges ofElection and proclaimed by

the Board; andshould show that Solis wasNOTelected as aldermanof the 25thWard of the City

ofChicagoby over 50 ofall votes cast in theFebruary24,2015 Chicagomunicipalgeneral

electionand that a supplemental orrunoffelection is required on April7,2015 to determine the

true correctand lawful successfulcandidate

r opo r t iona l educ ti on

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

limits of the Cityof Chicago unless otherwisenoted.

4 Sigcho requests that, exceptas otherwise specified, any such votes found invalid by

virtue of this petitionbe remediedby proportional reductionor (as the case may be)addition.The

effect of the proportionalreductions and other changes in votes necessitatedby the allegationsin

this petition is that Sigcho s vote total shouldbe increased,and Solis s shouldbe decreased, as

required by the methodologyof proportional reductionand addition.

15. Voters Living Outside the 25thWard. Numerous voters havemoved their legal

residence to outside the 25th Ward, or never lived withinthe 25th Ward, but voted inthe subject

election by virtue ofan applicationfor ballot which borean address in the 25th Ward. Further, on



informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th

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

10 ILCS 5/5 2 and other applicable law.

16. Voters Voting From AddressesWhich Are CommercialEstablishments And/Or

Do NotContain Residential Living Units. Numerous voters were registered at addresses within

die 25th Ward ofthe City of Chicagobut these addresses werenot their true residenceaddresses

the purportedresidenceaddress beinga commercial establishment and/ornot containing

residential living units thereon. Further on informationand belief these personscast a vote in the

race for the office Alderman for the 25th Ward the City Chicago. In each case this Court

shoulddeclare the vote invalidas violative of 10 ILCS 5/3 2 and 5 2 and otherapplicable

provisions.

17. Voters Voting froma Different Address in the 25thWardofthe Cityof

Chicago. Numerousvoters have voted in the election by virtueof an application for ballot which

bore a particularaddress inthe 25thWard of the Cityof Chicago in Cook County. However thesevoters actually residedat a different address in the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago in Cook

County. Further on informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office of

Alderman forthe 25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe

vote invalid as violative 10 ILCS 5/5 2 and other applicable law.

18. Voters NotRegistered to Vote. Numerous voters were illegally permittedto vote

fi om the addresses inthe precincts stated notwithstanding theirnot being registeredto vote at any

address in the 25th Ward of theCityof Chicago. Further on information andbelief these persons

casta votein the racefor the office of Alderman for the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each

case this Court should declarethe vote invalid as violativeof 10 ILCS 5/5 2 17 9 and other

applicable law.



19 Voters ho Voted r om An Address At Which They Were Not Registered

um TOus voters were registered at addresseswithin the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicagobut

voted from a different address in 25th Wardof

the Cityof Chicago the votingaddress beingonefrom which they were not registered. Further on informationand belief these personscast a vote

in the racefor the officeofAlderman for the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In eachcase this

Courtshoulddeclarethe vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/5 2 and other applicable law.

20 Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified Numerousvoters

voted by absentee ballot and their absentee ballot applicationswere not dulycertified.

Nonetheless thevoters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot asan absent voter. Further on

informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th

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

of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 andother applicable law. Inthe case in which absenteeballot areso numerous

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

from other absenteeballots proportionate reduction shouldbe applied. However to the extent thatballots from voters withthis deficiency can with certainty be separated and identified the

specificballotshould be invalidatedand the partyherein benefitingfrom such ballotshouldhave

his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote

21 Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot and their absenteeballot applicationswere falsely certified and not true.

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

information and belief thesepersons casta vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 25th

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

of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 and other applicable law. Inthe case in which absentee ballot areso numerous

in the particularprecinct that the ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be separated



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

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

specific ballotshould be invalidatedand the party herein benefitingfrom such ballot should havehis or her total for the precinctreduced by a whole vote.

22. Absentee Ballot Carrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters votedby absentee

ballot but apparentlydid not execute theaffidaviton the envelope in which the absenteeballot was

mailed. Further on informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the officeof

Alderman forthe 25th Ward ofthe City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe

vote invalidas violative 10ILCS 5/19-5 and otherapplicable law. In the case in whichabsentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct thatthe ballot relatingto such voter can not with

certainty be separated from other absenteeballots proportionatereduction should beapplied.

However to the extent that ballots from voters with thisdeficiencycan with certainty be

separated and identified the specificballot should be invalidatedand the party herein benefiting

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

23. Signature on Applicationfor Absent Voter s Ballot Differentfrom Signatureon

Absentee Ballot Envelope.Numerous voters purportedlyvoted by absentee ballot but the

signature on the applicationfor absenteeballot on informationand belief was executedbya

different person thanthe personwho executed the affidaviton the absenteeballot carrier envelope.

Further on informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office of Alderman

for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe vote invalid

as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicable law. In the case in whichabsentee

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

certainty be separated from other absenteeballots proportionate reduction should beapplied.

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



separatedandidentified the specificballotshouldbe invalidatedand the party herein benefiting

from suchballotshouldhaveher total for theprecinctreduced by a wholevote

24 AbsenteeVoters Who FaUed To SignThe Absentee BallotEnvelope Numerousvoters purportedlyvoted by absenteeballot butthey did not signthe affidavit on theabsentee

ballot mailing envelope. Further oninformationandbelief these p TSonscast a vote inthe race

forthe office of Alderman forthe25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each case this Court

should declarethe vote invalid as violativeof 10ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicable law. In

the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous inthe particular precinct thatthe ballot relating

to such votercan not with certainty be separated from other absenteeballots proportionate

reduction shouldbe applied. However to the extent thatballots from voters with thisdeficiency

can with certainty be separatedand identified the specificballot shouldbe invalidatedand the

party herein benefitingfromsuchballotshould have hisorher total for the precinctreducedby a

w o l v o t

25. Absentee Voters Who FailedTo Certify Their Address On theAbsentee BallotEnvelope.Num^ousvoters purportedlyvotedby absenteeballot butthey failedto indicatetheir

residence/registrationaddress on theaffidavit on the absenteeballotearner ^velope. Further on

informationand belief these persons castavote in the race for theoffice ofAlderman forthe 25th

Ward of the CityofChicago. In each case this Court shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicablelaw. In the case in which absenteeballots are so

numerousin the particular precinct thatthe ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be

separatedfromotherabsenteeballots proportionatereductionshould be applied.Howeverto the

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

the specificballot shouldbe invalidatedand the partyherein benefitingfrom such ballot should

havehis orher total for the precinctreduced by a wholevote



26. Absentee BallotsNot Properly Delivered Numerous voters votedby absentee

ballot but by mistake and/orfraud their absenteeballots were not properly delivered to the

Chicago Board of Election Commissioners thusinvalidatingthe ballots. Further on informationand belief thesepersons cast a vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 25thWard of the

City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the voteinvalid as violativeof 10ILCS

5/19 6 19 8 and other applicablelaw. In the case in which absenteeballots are so numerous in the

particularprecinct that the ballot relatingto such voter can not withcertainty be separatedfrom

other absentee ballots proportionatereduction shouldbe applied. However to the extent that

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

specific ballot shouldbe invalidatedand the partyherein benefitingfrom such ballot shouldhave

his or her totalfor the precinct reducedby a whole vote

7 Voters Who Voted n A Precinct n Which he y were Not Registered

Numerous voters wereregisteredto vote from a particular address and precinct but actuallyvoted

at another precinctin which theyneither resided norwere registered.Further on informationandbelief these persons cast a vote inthe race for the ofi e ofAlderman for the 25thWard of the City

of Chicago. In each case this Court shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violativeof 10 ILCS 5/17 9

and other applicable law

28. No Application forAbsenteeBallot. Numerousvoters voted by absentee ballot but

apparentlydid not submita signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot.Further on

informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office ofAlderman forthe 25th

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

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

numerousin the particular precinct thatthe ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be

separated from otherabsenteeballots proportionatereduction shouldbe applied.However to the



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

the specificballot should be invalidated nd thepartyherein benefitingfrom such ballot should

have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a wholevote.29. No Record of Voter Voting Absentee.Numerousvoters purportedlyvoted by

absenteeballot but the recordsof the RespondentChicago Board ofElectionCommissionersdo

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

these persons casta vote inthe race for the office ofAldermanfor the 25th rd ofthe Cityof

Chicago. In each case this Court should declare the vote invalid as violativeof10ILCS 5/19 3

19 5 and other applicablelaw. In the case inwhich absenteeballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct thattheballot relatingto such votercan not withcertainty be separatedfrom

other absenteeballots proportionatereductionshouldbe applied. However to the extentthat

ballots from voters with this deficiencycan with certainty be separated and identified the

specificballotshould beinvalidated nd the partyhereinbenefiting from suchballotshould have

his orher total for theprecinct reduced by a whole vote.30. VoterFailed to SignApplication forAbsentVoter sBallot. Numerous voters

purportedly votedby absentee ballot butthey failed to sign the applicationfor absenteeballot.

Further on informationandbelief thesepersons cast a vote in the racefor the officeofAlderman

for the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe vote invalid

as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 19-5 and other applicable law. Inthe casein which absentee

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

certainty be separatedfrom other absenteeballots proportionatereduction should beapplied.

However to the extentthat ballots from voters with this deficiencycan with certainty be

separatedand identified the specificballot should beinvalidatedand the partyhereinbenefiting

from suchballot shouldhavehis or her total for theprecinctreduced by a whole vote.



31. Legal Voters DeniedThe Right To Vote. Numerousregistered and qualified voters

in the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago wereillegallydenied their rightand opportunityto vote by

mistakeorfiraud

includingbut not limited to errors in Board documents late opening equipmentfailure lockeddoors electionjudge errors et al. Further on information and belief thesepersons

would have casta vote inthe race for the office of Alderman for the 25th Ward ofthe City of

Chicago. In each case this Court should proportionatelyadd such votes.

32. Voters Improperly Permittedto Vote. Numerous registeredand qualified voters

in the 25thWard of the City of Chicagowere illegallypermitted to vote in the precinct polling

place on ElectionDayeven though suchvoters names appearedon listings as having been issued

a grace period absenteeor earlyballot without submittingtheir absenteeballots for cancellation

or otherwise compljdngwith 10 ILCS 5/17-9 and other provisionsof the ElectionCode in this

regard. In the case in whichthese ballots are so numerous in theparticular precinct thatthe ballot

relating to such voter can not with certaintybe separated from otherballots proportionate

reductionshould be applied. However to the extent that ballots fi om voters with thisdeficiencycan with certainty be separatedand identified the specificballot should be invalidatedand the

party hereinbenefiting firom suchballot should have his or her total for the precinct reducedby a

w h o l v o t

33. mproper Handling Alteringand/or Removalof Ballots from Precincts.

Ballots and electronicvote counting devices were improperly handled altered and/or removedby

persons in precinct locationswho were not duly credentialedand authorized to so handle alteror

remove ballots and electronicvote counting devices and for example at least three ballots that

were cast by votersand/or at least one electronicvote countingdevice were illegallyand

improperly removedfrom precinct locationswithoutbeingcountedin the Board svote totals. Such

actions of unauthorizedpersons so tainted the counting of the votes in numerous precincts as to



render all such results inthe precinct unreliableand subject to full review bythe Court, and the

party hereinbenefiting i om such actions should haveher total for the precinctreduced by a whole

vote for each such tampered ballot.

Allegations Requir ing Modificat ion of Whole Votes

34. ApplicationsFor Ballots WhichDo NotBearInitials Of Any Election Judge.

Numerous votes werecast whichshouldnot havebeen counted sincethe application forballot did

not bear on its face theinitials of an election judge. Further, on information andbelief ballots

were issued for such applicationsand votes were cast in the race for the officeof Alderman for the

25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court shoulddeclare the particular ballot

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

accordance with the ElectionCodeand the Board s requiredprocedures as documented in the

Board s 2015 Judge of Election / Polling Place Administrator Handbook.

35. BaUots Which Do Not Bear Initials Of An y Election Judge Numerous votes

were cast whichshouldnot havebeen coimted sincetheballot didnotbear on its face the initialsof an election judge.Further, on informationand belief, such votes were cast in the race for the

office of Alderman for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago. In eachcase this Court should

declare the particular ballotinvalid as violativeof 10ILCS 5/17-9 and 10 ILCS 5/17-11, and the

Board s required proceduresas documented in the Board s 2015 Judge of Election/ PollingPlace

Adminis t ra to r Handbook

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

voted by absentee ballot, and their absenteeballot applicationswere not dulycertified.

Nonetheless, the voters were illegallypermitted to cast a ballot asan absent voter. Further, on

information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 25th

Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court shoulddeclare the vote invalid as violative

12



of 1 ILCS 5/19 3 and other applicable law. Inthe case in which absentee ballots areso numerous

in the particularprecinct thatthe ballot relating to such voter can not with certainty be separated

from other absentee ballots proportionate reductionshould be applied. However to the extent thatballots from voters with this deficiencycan with certainty be separated and identified the

specificballotshould beinvalidatedand the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have

his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote.

37 Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified Numerous voters

voted by absenteeballot and their absenteeballot applicationswere falsely certified and not true.

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

informationand belief these personscast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 25th

Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Courtshould declarethe vote invalid as violative

of 1 ILCS 5/19 3 and other applicablelaw. Inthe case in which absentee ballotsareso numerous

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

from other absenteeballots proportionatereductionshould be applied. However to the extent thatballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be separated and identified the

specific ballotshould beinvalidatedand theparty herein benefitingfrom such ballot should have

his or hertotal for theprecinct reduced by a whole vote.

38 AbsenteeBallot Carrier Envelope Missing Numerous voters votedby absentee

ballot butapparentlydid not execute theaffidavit on the envelopein which the absenteeballot was

mailed. Further on information and belief these persons casta vote in the race for theoffice of

Alderman forthe 25th Ward oftheCityof Chicago. In each case this Court shoulddeclare the

vote invalid as violative of 1 ILCS 5/19 5 and otherapplicable law. In the casein which absentee

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

certainty be separatedfrom other absenteeballots proportionate reduction should beapplied.



However to the extent that ballotsfrom voters with this deficiencycan with certainty be

separated and identified the specificballot should beinvalidatedand the party herein benefiting

from suchballot shouldhave his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.39 Signature onApplication forAbsent Voter s BallotDifferent from Signature on

Absentee Ballot Envelope Numerous voters purportedlyvoted by absenteeballot butthe

signatureon the applicationfor absenteeballot on informationand belief was executed bya

different personthan the person who executed the affidavit on the absenteeballot carrierenvelope

and was not genuine Further on informationand belief thesepersons cast a vote for the office of

Alderman forthe 25th Ward oftheCityof Chicago In each case this Court should declare the

vote invalidas violative 10ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5 and other applicable laws. In the case in

which absentee ballots areso numerous in theparticular precinct that theballot 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 thisdeficiencycan with

certainty be separatedand identified the specificballot shouldbe invalidated and the party hereinbenefiting from such ballot should havehis or her total for the precinctreducedbya whole vote

40. Absentee Voters Who FaUed To Sign The Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous

voters purportedlyvoted by absentee ballot but they did not sign the affidaviton the absentee

ballot mailingenvelope Further on informationand belief these personscast a vote for the office

of Alderman forthe25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago In each case this Court should declarethe

vote invalid as violative 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5 and other applicablelaws. In the case in

whichabsentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that theballotrelating 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 thisdeficiencycan with

certainty be separated and identified the specific ballot should be invalidatedand the party herein



benefiting fi om such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reducedbya whole vote.

4 Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify Their Address On the Absentee Ballot

Envelope.Numerous voters purportedlyvoted by absenteeballot but theyfailed to indicate theirresidence/registrationaddress on the affidaviton the absenteeballot earner envelope. Further on

informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office ofAlderman forthe 25th

Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case thisCourt shoulddeclare the voteinvalid as violative

of 10ILCS 5/19 3 and 19 5 and other applicable laws. Inthe case in which absenteeballots are so

numerous in the particularprecinct that the ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be

separated fi om other absenteeballots proportionatereduction should be applied.However to the

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

the specificballot shouldbe invalidatedand the party herein benefitingfrom such ballot should

havehis orher total for the precinctreduced by a wholevote

42. Absentee Ballots NotProperly Delivered.Numerous voters votedby absentee

ballot but by mistake and/orfraud their absenteeballots were notproperly deliveredto theChicago BoardofElection Commissioners thus invalidatingtheballots. Further on information

and belief these persons casta vote in the racefor the office ofAldermanfor the 25thWard of the

CityofChicago. In each case thisCourt should declare the vote invalid as violativeof 10 ILCS

5/19 6 and 19 8 and other applicablelaws. Inthe case in which absenteeballots are so numerous

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

fi om other absenteeballots proportionatereductionshould be applied. However to the extent that

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

specific ballotshould be invalidatedand the party herein benefiting fi om such ballot should have

his or her total for the precinctreduced by a whole vote.



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

Numerousvoters were registered to vote jfrom a particular address and precinct butactually voted

at another precinctin which they neither resided nor were registered. Further oninformationandbelief these persons cast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 25th Ward of the City of

Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe vote invalid as violativeof 10ILCS 5/17 9

and other applicable law.

44. NoApplicationfor Absentee Ballot. Numerousvoters voted by absentee ballotbut

apparentlydid not submit a signed applicationto entitle them to receive that ballot.Further on

information and belief these personscast a vote in the race for the officeof Alderman for the 25th

Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case this Court should declarethe vote invalidas violative

of10 ILCS 5/19 3 19 5 and other applicablelaw. Inthe case in which absentee ballotsareso

numerous in the particularprecinct that the ballot relatingto such voter can not with certainty be

separatedfrom otherabsenteeballots proportionate reductionshould be applied. However tothe

extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can with certainty be separated and identifiedthe specificballot should beinvalidated and the party herein benefitingfrom such ballot should

have his or her total for the precinctreducedby a whole vote.

45. NoRecord of Voter Voting Absentee. Numerous voterspurportedlyvoted by

absentee ballot but the records of the Respondent Chicago Board of Election Commissionersdo

not show that the absenteeballot was processedby that office. Further on informationand belief

these persons cast a vote in the race for theoffice ofAldermanfor the 25thWard ofthe City of

Chicago. In each case thisCourt should declare the voteinvalid as violativeof 10 ILCS 5/19 3

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

particular precinctthat the ballot relating such voter can not with certainty be separated from

other absenteeballots proportionate reductionshould be applied. However to the extent that



ballots from voters withthis deficiency can with certainty be separatedand identified the

specificballot should be invalidatedand the party herein benefitingfrom such ballot should have

his or her totalfor the precinctreduced by a whole vote46 Voter Failed to Sign Application for Absent Voter s Ballot Numerous voters

purportedly votedby absentee ballot but theyfailed to sign the applicationfor absentee ballot.

Further on informationand belief these persons casta vote in the race for the office ofAlderman

for the 25th Ward of the Cityof Chicago. In each case this Court should declare thevote invalid

as violative of 10ILCS 5/19 3 and 19 5 andother applicable laws. Inthecasein which absentee

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

certainty be separatedfrom other absenteeballots proportionatereductionshould beapplied.

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

separated and identified the specificballot should be invalidatedand the party hereinbenefiting

from suchballot shouldhave his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote

47. Election Judges Issued BaUots Without Comparing Signatures on BallotApplication. Numerous voterswere issued ballots and allowed to cast ballots but were not the

named dulyregisteredvoters because such signatureswere not genuineand proper signaturesof

the respective voters and o such signaturesor corresponding ballotsshouldbe counted s valid

in all similar Precinctsin which signatureswere not validated as being genuine by election judges.

48. Ballots MistakenlyNot Counted. Numerous voters votedon ballots which

through mistake error orfraud were notcounted bythe judgesofelection.Further oninformation

and belief thesepersons casta vote in the race for the office ofAldermanfor the 25thWard of the

City of Chicago. In each case thisCourt should to the extent that ballots with this deficiencycan

with certainty be separatedand identified validatesuch ballots and theparty herein benefiting

from suchballot should havehisorher total for theprecinct increased by each corresponding



whole vote. Specifically, but not limited to:

a) Provisional ballotswere improperly issuedby election judgesto persons who were registeredin a different precinctof 25th Ward, and voters were erroneously issued a provisionalballot

instead of being directed to travel to their correct precinctbyan election official and/or wereby mistake, erroror fi-aud deposited in the ballot box counting device for the wrongprecinctand therefore were not counted, and the Board should be estopped firom striking or notcounting votes) provisional ballots thatwere castin reliance upon the statementsof electionofficials and/or election judges;

b) Votes on touchscreenmachines assigned to a different precinctwhich may have been locatedin the same room for which a ballot authorization card was properly issued and the votes castby registered and qualified voters which weretherefore not counted by mistake, errororfraud because theywerecaston a touchscreen device for a different precinct;

c) Ballots which wereproperly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which wereby mistake, error or fraud depositedin the spoiled ballot envelope and not d^osited in theballotbox counting device, andtherefore werenot counted;

d) Ballots which wereproperly issuedand cast by registered and qualified voterswhich wereby mistake, error or fraud wronglydeterminedto have identifying or distinguishing )m a rk s a nd therefore were no t counted;

e) Ballotswhich wereproperly issuedand cast by registered and qualified voters which wereby mistake, erroror fraud determined notto clearly displaythe intent of the voter, but were,in fact, clearly intended to vote for PetitionerSigcho, but was not counted;

f) Ballots which wereproperly issuedand cast by registered and qualified voterswhich wereby mistake or error ofa counting device not counted, includingbut not limited to calibration errors on touchscreenvoting machines, wherein a votecastfor PetitionerSigcho was erroneouslycounted as a vote for Respondent, Solis,and was not counted forPetitioner, Sigcho.

50. Ballots Mistakenly, Erroneously or Fraudulently Counted. Numerous voters

cast ballots which, through mistake,error or fraud were oninformation and belief, countedby the

judges of election,but which were issued and cast contrary to the provisionsof the ElectionCode.These personscast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 25thWard of the City of Chicago. In

each case, this Court should,to the extent that ballots with thisdeficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, validatesuch ballots and theparty herein benefitingfrom such ballot

should have hisorhertotalfor theprecinct decreased by each correspondingwhole vote.



51 Voters WereImpermissibly and Pervasively Electioneered at the PollingPlaces

By the Soils Campaign.Numerousvoters were impermissiblyelectioneeredto vote for

Respondent Solis at numerous pollingplaces. Further,on informationand belief, these personscast a vote in the race for Alderman for the 25th Ward of the City of Chicago Because the

electioneeringwas specificallyfor Respondent, Solis s,benefit, and no other candidate,the

appropriate legalremedy is to deduct whole votesfrom the intendedbeneficiaryof the

misbehavior. Respondent Solis.In the altemative, such voteswere impermissiblytainted and

should be subject to proportionatereduction. Specifically,but not limited to:

a Numerous voters wereimpermissibly electioneeredto vote for Respondent Solisat thepolling places,by the distributionand placementof palm cards in the voting booths,electioneeringand promotingvoters to cast ballots in favor of Respondent, Solis;

b Numerous voterswere impermissibly electioneeredto vote for Respondent Solis at thepolling place bythe placementofpalm cardsadvocatingvotes for Solis in the protectiveenvelopes in which Ae ballots were enclosed upon issuance;

c Numerousvoters were impermissibly electioneeredto vote for Respondent Solisat thepolling place,for example, inthe 25thWard, by walkingand talking with voters withinthe

100 foot protectiveline specificallyin promotionof Candidate, Solis, and/or standingatornear the inner door to the polling location, allthe while, urging votersto supportand vote forSolis;

d Numerous voters wereimpermissibly electioneeredto vote for Respondent Solisat thepolling place,for example, in the 25th Ward by the placementofcampaign signs urging avote for Solis and the distributionof campaign literatureurging a vote for Solis from withinthe 100 footprotective lineto thedoorof thepolling place;

e Numerousvoters were impermissibly electioneeredto vote for Respondent Solis at thepollingplace, for example,by poll watchersand Respondent candidate Solis, himself,and

others, manyof whom entered polling locations without presenting credentials and/orexceeded the number of poll watchers permitted in a precinct, and acted improperlyandurged voters to support and vote for Respondent Solis insideof the pollingplace.

52. Improper Handling,Altering,Abandonmentand or Removal of Ballots from

Precincts Ballots andelectronic votecounting devices wereimproperly handled, altered,

abandoned and/or removed by persons in precinct locationswho were not duly credentialedand

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



example, a ballot application spindlewas handled and altered in the 25th Ward and 18th Precinct,

and, on informationand belief, ballot-applicationsized paperwas observedbeing placed into a

purse. Similarly,on information and belief, at least one electronic vote countingdevice (memorycard) was not counted in the Board s vote totals, and election materialsinat least one precinct

were abandonedby election judgesand not promptly deliveredto the receivingstation. Such

unauthorizedaccess to ballots by persons without authorityto do so, tainted and altered the total

number of votes that were reportedbythe Board, and therefore the appropriate legal remedy isto

deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary of the misbehavior. Respondent Solis. Inthe

alternative, such votes were imperrmssiblytainted and should be subject to proportionate

o r r e t i o n

53. Equipment rrors or Failures. Equipmentat numerous locationsused for

purposesofvoting and tabulatingvotes was defective, erroneous and/ornot properlyworking for

periods oftime onFebruary24,2015, including butnot limited to failing to get a zero reading

before comm^cingvoting, recordingand displayingerroneousballot total results, calibrationerrors on touch screen voting, failingto consolidate all ballots cast, failing to print out sufficient

numberofpaper receiptsfor consolidated Precinct results, failingto count all votes cast, failing to

have equipmentdeliveredat polling locations, failureto secure and lockballot boxes, ballot

scanners not working, electronic pollbook errors, no working touch screen machines,and other

equipment failures,which causedpolling locationsto either not openon time, to be closed during

ElectionDay, and/or otherwise preventedvoters from casting theirvotes and having their votes

countedby theBoard. Such votesshould be reviewedand correctedby this Court in its the final

c o u n t

54. Polling Places Not Staffed by Duly Qualified Judges. Numerouspolling

locations in the 25th Ward were not staffed by duly qualified electionsjudges, who had read and

2



become familiarwith the Board s 2015 Judge of Election / Polling PlaceAdministrator

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

the door (and turned away voters), and/or otherwise preventingvoters from casting theirvotes andhaving their votes counted by the Board.

55. Polling Place Relocatedand/or Closed Without Adequate Notice to Voters. On

information and belief, some polling locationforthe 25th Ward were moved to different locations,

than they had been at, for many years, without adequatelyand appropriatelynotifying all voters of

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

and counted, or the total shouldbe adjusted proportionately.

56. Election Judges Who Were NotProperly Trained Erred In ConsolidatingAnd

ReportingBallotsThat Were Cast. Numerous electionjudges in precincts throughout 25thWard

deviated from the Election Code and the Board s required procedures as documentedin the

Board s 2015 Judge of Election / Polling Place AdministratorHandbook, and erroneouslyand

inconsistentlyreported the totalballots cast in various precincts,failed to consolidatevotes, and/orfailed to print paper printoutsof consolidatedresults from numerous precincts, raisingmany

questions regardingthe credibilityand reliabilityof the election results in the 25th Ward, and

requiring a recount of all ballots cast on Election Dayin the 25thWard.

r a v e r o r R e l i e f

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, BYRON SIGCHO,respectfully requests entryof anorderas

f o l l o w s :

(a) entering an expedited schedulefor discovery and an evidentiary hearingin this

matter, prior to April 7, 2015;

(b) directing a full and complete recountof all ballots cast in the 25th Ward, to

determinethe validity of the City of Chicago Boardof Election Commissioner scounting of



ballots and proclamation, such recountto include, but not belimited to, an examinationof the

relevant electronicpoll books (and corresponding electronic dataand logs), voting devices,paper

ballots, voters applications for ballots, precinctbinder cards (and their computerized equivalent),affidavits, and all other materials fromsaidward;

(c) changing and correctingthe results ofthe election s requiredby the allegations n

proofsof this petition; and

(d) granting such other and further reliefin favor ofPetitioner, s may bejust andprope r.

A n d r ew F i nk o P.C.

79 W. Monroe St. / Su it e 1213

Chicago, IL 60603Tel 773 480-0616Fa x 773 453-3266Attomey No. 30263

and

Vemor Moran LLC27 North Wacker Dr ive

Sui te 2 00 0

Chicago, IL 60606-2800Tel 312 264-4460Fax 312 264-4461Attomey No. 43022

By:

Respectfully submitted:B Y R O N S I G C H O

On e o f his attomey (lyUC



State o f Illinoisss

County o f Cook

V E R I F I T I O N

The undersigned having been first dulysworn under oath deposesand affirms that thefacts stated in the foregoingVerified Petition for Election Contestare true and correct to the bestof his knowledgeand belief as of the date signed and as to statements made oninformationandbelief the undersigned certifiesas aforesaid that he verily believesthe same tobe true

Subscribed an d sworn to beforeme thisSro day ofMarch 2015by Byron Sigcho.

NotaryPublic Y

Byron Sigcho

SEAL

23

NICHOLAS C. KEFALOSOFFICIAL SEAL

Notary Public State of IllinoisMyCommission Expires

December 12 2015



http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/pctleveI3.asp?Ward=25 elec_code.

2015 Municipal General - 2/24/15 -> Alderman 25th Ward

Pe t V o t e s C a s tE D HERSHEY DANIEL DANNY S O U S J O R G E M U J I C A R O B ERT O B E T O MONTANO BY R ON S IG C H O

1 23 22 3

9 . 9 199

4 2 . 6 73 4

1 4 . 6 63 2

13.7944

18.97

2 24 3

1 3

5.3590

3 7 . 0 45 5

2 2 6 338

1 5 . 6 447

1 9 3 4

3 1 89

23

12.1710 1

53.442 0

1 0 . 5 8

1 4

7.4131

16 .40

4 18 19

4 .9710 8

59 .675

2 7 61 0

5 .5249

27 .07

5 23 921

8 .7910 0

41 .844 0

1 6 . 7 43 0

12.5548

20 .08

6 10 46

5 . 7 780

7 6 9 21

0 .963

2 .8814

13 .46

7 26 111

4 . 2 195

36 .4058

2 2 2 22 8

10.7369

26 .44

8 26 12 4

9 .2010 9

41 .7636

1 3 . 7 94 4

1 6 . 8 648

18 .39

9 2 7 420

7 . 3 01 22

44 .533 0

10.953 6

13.1466

2 4 . 0 9

1 0 16 51 6

9.7010 1

61 .219

5 .4513

7 .8826

15 .76

1127 0

1 6

5 .93

86

31 .85

62

2 2 . 9 6

3 3

12.22

73

27 .04

1 2 2 4 41 9

7 . 7 99 2

3 7 7 0

3 9

1 5 . 9 83 3

1 3 5 261

2 5 . 0 0

1 3 27 43 0

1 0 . 9 51 20

43 .802 6

9 .491 9

6 .9379

28 .83

1 4 18 0

1 2

6 .6713 0

72 .228

4 . 4 41 9

1 0 5 611

6 .11

1 5 26 01 3

5 . 0 01 59

61 .153 7

1 4 2 31 5

5 .7736

13 .85

1 6 1 5 83 5

2 2 . 1 578

4 9 3 70

0 .001 5

9.4930

18 .99

1 7 2 892 5

8 . 6 513 2

4 5 6 739

1 3 4 93 9

1 3 . 4 954

18 .69

1 8 29 11 2

4 . 1 221 9

7 5 . 2 68

2 .751 2

4 . 1 240

13 .75

1 9 2 6817

6.3410 6

39 .5550

18.662 7

10.0768

25 .37

20 1 861 7

9 1 4

14 3

76 .882

1 .082 0

1 0 . 7 54

2 .15

21 23 629

1 2 2 91 56

66 .1011

4 . 6 62 3

9 .7517

7 . 2 0

22 2 4829

11 .691 02

4 1 . 1 343

1 7 . 3 42 5

10.0849

19 .76

2 3 2 9 21 2

4 . 1111 5

3 9 3 8

5 7

1 9 . 5 22 8

9 .598 0

2 7 . 4 0

2 4 2 6 21 2

4 .581 00

38 .1755

2 0 . 9 92 3

8 .7872

27 .48

2 5 2 5 221

8 . 3 31 89

7 5 . 0 01 0

3 . 9 71 7

6 .7515

5 . 9 5

26 26 333

1 2 5 51 09

4 1 4 4

391 4 8 3

29

11 .03S3

2 0 . 1 5

2 7 1 5 726

1 6 5 688

5 6 0 5

1 3

8 . 2 811

7 . 0 119

1 2 1 0

2 8 2 6 91 5

5 . 5 810 4

3 8 6 6

54

2 0 . 0 736

1 3 . 3 860

2 2 . 3 0

29 24 016

6 . 6 71 80

75 .009

3 7 52 2

9 .1713

5 . 4 2

30 23 6

239 7 5

1 16

4 9 . 1 53 3

1 3 . 9 82 8

11.8636

1 5 . 2 5

31 1 7120

1 1 7 011 0

6 4 . 3 34

2 .341 2

7 .0225

14 .62

3 2 2 3 41 4

5 .981 4 6

62 .391 7

7 . 2 61 2

5 .1345

19 .23

To t a l7 4 2 9 6 12

8 2 4

3 7 8 55 0 9 5

9 0 41 2 1 7

7 461 0 0 4

1 3 8 2

18 .60

P e t V ot es C as tE D H E R S H E Y DANIEL DANNY S O U S J O R G E M U J I C A R O B ERT O B E T O MONTANO

2015 Municipal General - 2 /24/15 - Alderman 25th Ward B Y R O N S I G C HO

EX HI B ITA



INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTYCOUNTY DEPARTMENT COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS

BYRON SIGCHOPetitioner

CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONCOMMISSIONERS as the election authorityand the canvass authority for the ChicagoMunicipal Election heldon February 24 2015LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, Commissioner,RICHARDA. COWEN, Commissioner, andDANIEL DANNY SOLIS, Candidate,ED HERSHEY Candidate, JORGE MUJICACandidate ROBERTO BETO MONTANOCandidate

Respondents.

C o ur t N o .

N O T f r O I L I N G

To: See attached Service List.

Pleasetakenoticethaton March3 201S theundersigned causedto befiled wiA the ClerkoftheCircuitCourtofCookCounty50W. Washington St.ChicagoILtheattachedVerifiedElection Contest Petitiona copy of which is attached and served upon you.

Andrew Finko P.C.79 W. Monroe St. / Sui te 1213Chicago, IL 60603Tel 773 480-0616Attorney No. 30263

By:Attorneyfor Petitioner

N i ch o la s K e fa l os

Ve m or M o ra n LL C

27 N. Wacker Dr. Su ite 2000

Chicago, IL 60606Attorney No. 43022

r e r t i f i c a t e o f S e r v i c e

heundersignedanattomey certifiesthathecauseda copyof the foregoingNoticeof ^referenced pleadingstobeserveduponthe oardofElection Commissionersandeachofits ^DELIVERYand upon every party on the attachedServiceList by placing copieso sa p p yaddressedpostagepre paidCERTIFEIDMAILenvelopesandplacingsame into theUS PostalServicematreceptacleinChicago Illinoisat or before5:00pmon March 3 2015.

Andrew Finko



S e r v i c e i s t

To: CITYOFCHICAGOBOARDOFELECTIONCOMMISSIONERS

69 W. Washington St. / 8 FloorChicago IL 60602

LANGDON D. NEAL Chairman69 W. Washington St. / FloorChicago IL 60602

RICHARD A. COWEN Commissioner69 W. Washington St. / 8 FloorChicago IL 60602

MARISEL A. HERNANDEZ Commissioner69 W. Washington St. / ^ FloorChicago IL 60602

Jorge Mujica1322 W 18th PI Apt IFChicago IL 60608

R o b er to M o n t an o

1914 S Throop Unit 2Chicago IL 60608

Danie l S Solis

1531 W I thPlApt IEChicago IL 60608

Edward F Hershey

1701 W Ist St Apt RChicago IL 60608

c c JamesScanlon, GeneralCounselforChicagoBoardofElectionCommissioners69 W. Washington St. / 8 ^ FloorChicago IL 60602

2015 03 03-Petition SIGCHO PetitionFILED

Documents

Transcript of 2015 03 03-Petition SIGCHO PetitionFILED