Ghiles v. Mun. Electoral Bd./Comm'rs of Chi. Heights
| Decision Date | 26 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-1775 |
| Parties | SEBASTIAN GHILES; JOHN DANIEL; JR.; JASON AMOS; and ANGELA MATTIO, Plaintiffs, v. MUNCIPAL ELECTORAL BOARD/COMMISSIONERS OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS; DAVID GONZALEZ; LORI WILCOX; WANDA ROGERS; VINCENT ZARANTI; DENNIS GILANOPOLUS; TOMAS SOMER; MICHAEL STEBEL; RUBEN REYNOSO; RICARDO CASTANEDA II; SHEILA FREEMAN; NATHAN DAVID; ERICA HUNTER; THE ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS; KAREN YARBROUGH; and RACHEL VEGA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM) OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiffs Sebastian Ghiles,1 John Daniel, Jr., Jason Amos, and Angela Mattio ("Plaintiffs") bring suit against the Municipal Electoral Board/Commissioners of the City of Chicago Heights, Illinois and various municipal, county, and state officials and entities for alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") arising out of the City of Chicago Heights' local elections in April 2019. Currently before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, [11], [18], [37], and [40]. For the following reasons, motions [11], [18],and [37] are granted and motion [40] is granted in part and denied in part. By March 24, 2020, the parties shall file supplemental briefs addressing the questions below concerning whether Gonzalez, Vega, Wilcox, and Somer are entitled to qualified immunity on Ghiles' and Daniel's equal protection claim to the extent that claim is based on the rejection of Ghiles' and Daniel's objections to candidates in the April 2019 election. All other parties and claims are dismissed. This case will be set for status hearing after the Court receives the parties' supplemental briefs. No answers to the complaint will be required until further order of the Court.
Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Chicago Heights ("City"). Their complaint arises out of alleged corruption in the City's municipal elections, and in particular in the lead-up to the April 2, 2019 election. Ghiles ran as a candidate for mayor but, for reasons explained below, was removed from the ballot after objections were filed to his candidacy. Daniel ran as a candidate for Alderman of the 7th Ward, but also was removed from the ballot based on objections. Amos and Mattio are not specifically identified in the complaint, but Ghiles' responses to the motions to dismiss explain that Amos was a candidate for Alderman for the 4th Ward in the April 2019 election, while Mattio ran as a write-in candidate for mayor. See [55] at 10.
Defendants fall into four categories. The first, which the Court will refer to as the "City Defendants," is composed of Mayor David Gonzalez; Clerk Lori Wilcox; Deputy Clerk Rachel Vega; Alderpersons Wanda Rogers and Vincent Zaranti; and the attorney for the City's Municipal Electoral Board/Commissioners, Dennis Gilanopolus. According to the complaint, all of the City Defendants are members of the "Unity Party," which was created by the merging of local Republicans and Democrats. Gonzalez, Rogers, Zaranti, and Wilcox are also members of theCity's Electoral Board. Vega was appointed by and, according to the complaint, is controlled by, Gonzalez. See [1] at 3. The second group of Defendants is composed of individuals who objected to Ghiles' and Daniel's candidacies in the April 2019 election, and includes Michael Stebel, Ruben Reynoso, Ricardo Castaneda II, Sheila Freeman, Nathan Davis, and Erica Hunter (the "Objectors"). Defendants also bring suit against the Cook County Clerk, Karen Yarbrough, and the Illinois Board of Elections.
On December 3, 2018—the last day for the Clerk's office to accept objections to candidates for the April 2019 election—Ghiles and Daniel appeared in the Clerk's Office around 4:30 p.m. to present Ghiles' objections to Gonzalez's candidacy for Mayor and Wilcox's candidacy for City Clerk, as well as Daniel's objection to Kelli Merrick's candidacy for Alderman of the 7th Ward. See [1] at 6. Wilcox saw Ghiles and Daniel but, when Daniel spoke to her, she avoided acknowledging the two men and did not come to the counter to help them. Id. at 7. A few minutes later, Vega came to the counter and inquired if she could help. Id. Ghiles and Daniel stated that they were there to file objections. Ghiles put his objection on the counter. Vega looked at it and "said that she would not accept Ghiles' and Daniel's objections." Id. Another individual, Denise Manual, was between Ghiles and Daniel in line. Vega rejected her objection, too, but after Manual called her attorney, Vega accepted Manual's objection. Vega summoned Somer, who informed Ghiles and Daniel that "whatever Ms. Vega said goes." Id. at 8. The next day, December 4, 2018, Vega accepted a late-filed objection from "Mr. Wiggins" to 4th Ward Alderman and mayoral candidate Joshua Deabel. Id.
Subsequently, the City's Electoral Board convened hearings to consider challenges to candidates for the April 2019 election. According to the complaint, "the Board made sure that only the Unity Party people spoke freely" at the hearings, even though the Board's rules allowedcandidates 15 minutes to speak. [1] at 10. The Board also "made sure all non-Unity Party people were challenged and there was no audience participation in violation of the Open Meeting Act." Id. The Board ruled that Ghiles, Daniel, and Deabel would not be on the ballot for the April 2019 election. The Board rejected Daniel's petition to be put on the ballot on the basis that it left out or misspelled his name. See id. at 8. Yet, the Board voted to remove Deabel from the ballot based on a late-filed objection that misspelled Deabel's name. See id. at 8-9. The Cook County Circuit Court and the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the Board's decision to keep Ghiles, Daniel, and Deabel off the ballot. Id. at 8.
The complaint also makes a number of allegations concerning corruption in the City's election process and the City more generally. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that after Gonzalez took office in 2015, he and other Unity Party officeholders voted to raise the Mayor's salary from $25,000 per year to $40,000 per year, but then lowered the salary to only $1,000 per year in 2018 to discourage challengers in the 2019 election. Plaintiffs also allege that on voting days, polling places in the City are monitored only by members of the Unity Party (with four members of the unity party as election judges) and their supporters (including observers and City police), even though state law requires election judges to come "from the two major political parties." [1] at 6, 11. Plaintiffs further allege on information and belief that "dead people voted in Chicago Heights in 2015 in order to defeat ... Daniel for Alderman who officially lost by one vote," id. at 3; and that Gonzalez's administration allowed library employees to give library cards to non-residents of the City in order to allow them to vote in the City's elections, id. at 4. Moreover, according to the complaint, Gonzalez's administration "routinely obtains homes by forcing property owners to walk away from their properties due to excessive code violations and turning water off for late payment of garbage or water billing then evicting the residents because they are without runningwater," with the City later "tak[ing] ownership of the propert[ies] and sell[ing] them to [Unity Party] supporters for one Dollar." Id. at 4. Unity Party officeholders in the City also allegedly gave raises of between $32,000 and $64,000 to Unity Party police officers, without the knowledge of taxpayers or the one non-Unity Party Alderperson in the City. Id.
Plaintiffs request that the Court order the following relief:
[1] at 13.
Currently before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by the four groups of Defendants.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' 12(b)(1) arguments are premised on Plaintiffs' alleged lack of standing to bring this lawsuit. A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is achallenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). See Scanlan v. Eisenberg, 669 F.3d 838, 841 (7th Cir. 2012). In considering a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court "accept[s] as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw[s] reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff[]." Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chicago v. Nielsen, 878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017). Allegations made in response to a motion to dismiss may be considered in assessing whether standing exists. See Gould v. Schneider, 448...
To continue reading
Request your trial