Background
Proponents Caren Van Slyke and Jesse Simon Bauer submitted a petition bearing 3,504 signatures to place an advisory question on Oak Park’s November 3, 2026 ballot. The question asked whether Illinois should repeal laws barring state investment in businesses that boycott Israel.
Objectors Alan H. Peres and Piergiorgio Uslenghi argued that the petition was invalid because the circulator’s certification on each sheet did not expressly state that the signatures “are genuine,” as required by section 28-3 of the Illinois Election Code. The circulators did certify that the signatures were made in their presence, that the signers were qualified electors and registered village voters, and that their addresses were correctly stated. The objectors presented no evidence that any signature was inauthentic. The electoral board overruled the objection by a 2-1 vote, and the circuit court affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court affirmed the electoral board. The majority held that section 28-3’s circulator-certification requirements are subject to substantial compliance and that omission of the precise phrase “are genuine” was a technical defect under the circumstances, rather than a failure requiring invalidation of the petition.
Reading each petition sheet as a whole, the majority concluded that the prefatory description of the signers as the “undersigned” qualified electors, together with the circulator’s sworn statements that the signers signed in the circulator’s presence, were registered voters, and correctly listed their respective addresses, substantially served the genuineness requirement’s purposes of preventing forgery and ensuring circulator accountability. The majority emphasized the absence of evidence of fraud or inauthentic signatures but cautioned circulators to follow the statutory language strictly rather than rely on substantial compliance.
Justice Hyman dissented. He reasoned that the statute separately requires certifications of presence and genuineness, that none of the petition’s language actually certified genuineness, and that treating the other statements as sufficient rendered the genuineness requirement superfluous.
Key Takeaways
- A public-question petition may substantially comply with section 28-3 even when its circulator certification omits the express statement that signatures “are genuine.”
- Courts may evaluate the petition sheet as a whole to determine whether its representations and sworn certifications fulfill the statutory requirement’s purpose.
- The absence of fraud evidence supported the majority’s conclusion, but the court warned that circulators should still use all language required by the Election Code.
Why It Matters
The order preserves ballot access for an Oak Park advisory referendum supported by 3,504 signatures and treats this omission as a technical defect rather than grounds for disenfranchising the petition’s supporters. It also illustrates the tension between enforcing statutory election safeguards and avoiding ballot exclusion for defects that do not demonstrably compromise election integrity.
Because the order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, it may not be cited as precedent except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).