Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush
| Decision Date | 02 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-3514,16-3514 |
| Citation | 842 F.3d 1053 |
| Parties | Thaddeus Jones, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michelle Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, et al., Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Keri-Lyn J. Krafthefer, Tiffany Nelson-Jaworski, Attorneys, Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, Dicianni & Krafthefer, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
John B. Murphey, Attorney, Rosenthal, Murphey, Coblentz & Donahue, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Michelle Markiewicz-Qualkinbush.
Burton S. Odelson, Attorney, Odelson & Sterk, Ltd., Evergreen Park, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Nyota Figgs.
James P. Nally, Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Magdalena L. Wosczynski and Ramonde D. Williams.
Marie D. Spicuzza, Attorney, Office of the Cook County State's Attorney, Civil Actions Bureau, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee David D. Orr.
Before Wood, Chief Judge, Ripple and Williams, Circuit Judges.
This case, which arises out of our motions practice, is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction in a dispute among the parties about the placement of certain referendum propositions on the November ballot. These propositions principally concern the local mayoral election in Calumet City and term limits on candidates for that office.
Steven Grant and Calumet City Concerned Citizens (together, the "Petition Plaintiffs") sought to place on the ballot a proposition that, if approved by the voters, would impose mayoral term limits. The County Clerk refused to place the proposition on the ballot on the ground that Calumet City's current administration already had placed three other propositions on the ballot, and state law permitted no more than three propositions in any single election.
The City's new ballot initiatives appeared to target specifically Thaddeus Jones, an alderman who had announced he was running for mayor. Mr. Jones therefore also brought suit against the city officials. Together, the Petition Plaintiffs and Mr. Jones (together, the "plaintiffs") sought injunctive relief in the district court, claiming that the actions of the city officials violated the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Constitution of Illinois. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed. Because preparations for the election were underway, we granted expedited review and, after considering the submissions of the parties, affirmed summarily the order of the district court. At that time, we also indicated that we would issue an opinion in due course.
On June 18, 2016, plaintiffs Mr. Grant and Calumet City Concerned Citizens began to circulate a referendum petition to impose mayoral term limits. The petition specifically asked:
Shall ... Calumet City be subject to a term limit prohibiting all people from serving more than three (3) terms of office as Mayor, where a term of office includes partial terms of office of two years or more, including all past terms of office served and any term of office currently being served, effective immediately upon approval and passage of this binding referendum? Yes [or] No.[1 ]
Notably, if this proposition were approved by the voters, it would have disqualified the incumbent mayor from running for reelection in April 2017.
At the time of the initial circulation of the plaintiffs' petition, the defendant mayor and city council members apparently had not discussed imposing term limits on the mayoral office and had no immediate plans to place any referenda on the ballot. Referendum propositions had not been used frequently.2 Nonetheless, on June 23, 2016, the City Council passed a resolution, placing the following propositions on the November 2016 general election ballot:
If approved by the voters, the first two propositions would be advisory; the final one would be binding.
On August 25, 2016, the City Council also voted to place three additional referenda questions on the February 28, 2017 primary ballot. The plaintiffs filed their petition with the City Clerk on August 8, 2016. The petition was timely and contained the necessary number of signatures. The County Clerk determined that this proposition could not appear on the ballot because the Illinois Election Code contains a provision, referred to as the "Rule of Three," which reads as follows:
10 ILCS 5/28–1. Therefore, by operation of the Rule of Three, no additional items could be placed on the ballot. The County Clerk did not directly notify the Petition Plaintiffs that their referenda item was blocked.
Having heard nothing regarding the status of their proposed ballot referendum, the plaintiffs contacted the County Clerk on September 6 to inquire as to the status. They were informed that the referendum had not been certified because it had been preempted by the City Council referenda items under the Rule of Three. The Petition Plaintiffs accordingly brought this action.
Thaddeus Jones, a State Representative and five-term Calumet City Alderman, is the only person to have declared his intention to compete against incumbent Mayor Markiewicz-Qualkinbush in the April election. He also is affected uniquely by two of the City's ballot referenda. First, one proposition asks the voters whether "any Calumet City elected official" should be able to receive two pensions by "being allowed to participate in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund if they are a member of the Illinois General Assembly Retirement Fund?"6 The second question asks whether individuals who have served as "Alderman of the city of Calumet City for [four] or more consecutive full four (4) year terms" should "be eligible to seek election to, or hold the office of, mayor?"7 As a State Representative and Alderman, Mr. Jones is affected directly by these referenda propositions and would be prohibited from serving as mayor if the propositions were approved. Accordingly, Mr. Jones also brought suit.8
On September 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed this action. The named defendants included: Michelle Markiewicz-Qualkinbush (the current mayor and candidate for reelection); Nyota Figgs (the city clerk); Ramonde Williams (an alderman); Roger Munda (an alderman); Nick Manousopoulos (an alderman); Samuel Bullocks (an alderman); and David Orr (the Cook County clerk).
The underlying allegations are best understood as consisting of three separate sets of interrelated accusations. First, the Petition Plaintiffs assert that their right to freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment, is violated when the Rule of Three is applied on a first-come-first-served basis. Second, Mr. Jones claims that the defendants impermissibly targeted him as a class of one in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and also deprived him of his First Amendment political association rights. Finally, all of the plaintiffs contest the ability of municipalities to amend their officer qualifications at the local level.
On September 16, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. On September 19, defendant Mayor Markiewicz-Qualkinbush responded in opposition. The plaintiffs replied on September 21. On September 22, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In an oral ruling, the court emphasized the significance of the plaintiffs' delay, more than two months after receiving notice, as a deciding factor in the case.
We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola , 809 F.3d 317, 324 (7th Cir. 2015). Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Id.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must show that (1) they will suffer irreparable harm in the period before final resolution of their claims; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) the claim has some likelihood of success on the merits. Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc. , 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). If the plaintiffs make this showing, we then will weigh the factors against one another, assessing whether the balance of harms favors them or whether the harm to other parties or the public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should be denied. ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez , 679 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2012).
We turn first to the contentions of the Petition Plaintiffs.
Of the three primary elements needed to warrant a preliminary injunction, the Petition Plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits is the most crucial in this context. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koss v. Norwood
...whether the harm to other parties or the public sufficiently outweighs the movant's interests." Id. (citing Jones v. Markiewicz–Qualkinbush , 842 F.3d 1053, 1058 (7th Cir. 2016) ).B. Likelihood of Success Earlier in this opinion, the court dismissed plaintiffs' ADA claims and their claims f......
-
Trump v. Biden
...an untimely election challenge. This principle appears to be recognized and applied universally. See, e.g., Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 842 F.3d 1053, 1060–61 (7th Cir. 2016) ("The obligation to seek injunctive relief in a timely manner in the election context is hardly a new concept."......
-
Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ.
...We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for the abuse of discretion, reviewing legal issues de novo , Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush , 842 F.3d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 2016), while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Advocate Health Care Network , 841 F......
-
Candy Lab Inc. v. Milwaukee Cnty.
...traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) the claim has some likelihood of success on the merits. Jones v. Markiewicz–Qualkinbush , 842 F.3d 1053, 1058 (7th Cir. 2016) ; Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc. , 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). ......