
Jerry Yeager Jr. reads Alderman Peyton Bernot’s objection letter (archived photo).
A Macoupin County Circuit Judge on Tuesday entered a written order affirming the decision of the Benld Electoral Board to exclude Jerry L. Yeager, Jr., Gillespie, from the April 4 consolidated election ballot as a candidate for Benld Mayor. Circuit Judge Kenneth Diehl entered the order shortly before noon Tuesday after hearing arguments Monday afternoon on an appeal filed by Yeager earlier this month.
Not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and therefore, the Electoral Board’s decision is hereby affirmed
Judge Diehl said the Electoral Board’s decision was “not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and therefore, the Electoral Board’s decision is hereby affirmed.” The judge also denied a motion by Benld City Attorney Rick Verticchio to void Yeager’s petition to sue as a poor person and require him to pay court filing fees.
Yeager filed the appeal Jan. 11 after the Benld Electoral Board handed down a decision on Jan. 5 to exclude him from the ballot. At the time of the filing, Yeager also submitted an affidavit to sue as an indigent person, affirming that he has no income and is unable to work due to an injury. Judge Diehl allowed the affidavit at the time of the filing, waiving filing fees normally required when a lawsuit is filed.
Yeager, who lists his address as 1460 Staunton Road, Gillespie, filed nominating petitions to be a candidate for Benld Mayor, claiming he could run for municipal office even though he resides in an unincorporated area of the county. During the Jan. 5 hearing before the Electoral Board, Yeager and attorney Peter Maag, argued that a resident of an unincorporated area could run for office in the municipality whose post office delivers the candidates mail. Yeager’s mail is delivered by the Gillespie post office, which also delivers mail to Benld, which Yeager claimed entitled him to run for office in Benld. Benld Ald. Peyton Bernot filed the objection, claiming state statute requires municipal elected officials to reside within the municipal limits a minimum of one year before serving.
During Monday’s hearing before Judge Diehl, Yeager’s attorney of record, Thomas Maag of Wood River, argued that Bernot’s objection was invalid because it did not specifically identify Bernot as a qualified elector in Benld. He cited a 2015 decision from Cook County in which an objection was ruled invalid for several reasons, including the objector’s failure to identify herself as a registered voter in the jurisdiction.
The only issue before the court, “is whether or not the objection is properly made,” Maag argued. “The answer to that is ‘no’.”
Maag also claimed the Benld Electoral Board improperly attempted to “correct” the form of the objection by allowing testimony during the Jan. 5 hearing in Benld to confirm Bernot is a registered voter in the city. “The city cannot correct the objection after filing to bring it into compliance,” Maag said. In addition to failing to identify Bernot as a qualified elector, Maag said the objection fell short in failing to specifically state “the interest of the objector” to file the objection.
Yeager’s attorney also complained that the Electoral Board’s order was prepared prior to the Jan. 5 hearing. Verticchio had expected Maag to attend the hearing and had prepared an order with Maag’s name incorporated. When Maag’s brother attended the hearing instead, city officials struck out Maag’s name and substituted the name of Peter Maag.
“Quite literally, before hearing any evidence, the order was drafted,” Maag complained. “It would be the equivalent of going to court and the judge having typed out an order the night before.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel must not like attorneys who are prepared,” Verticchio said in response. “I prepared two orders for that day. That’s what attorneys do. I have the other order with me today if anyone wants to see it.”
Addressing Maag’s primary argument, Verticchio cited two cases from 1994 and 1995 in which electoral boards and subsequent appeals courts specifically indicated that objections to nominating petitions are not required to state the objector is a voter in the district and, further, allowing the objector to affirm his status as a voter if the issue is raised. “That is what happened in this case,” he said.
The administrative report from Cook County that Maag cited, Verticchio told the court, cites numerous problems with the objection among which the objector’s voting status is a minor issue.
The administrative report from Cook County that Maag cited, Verticchio told the court, cites numerous problems with the objection among which the objector’s voting status is a minor issue. “The board did not say how the board would have ruled if voting status was the only issue,” Verticchio argued. He also argued there are no provisions in the state statutes to require an objector to specifically include his or her status as a registered voter in the jurisdiction.
“There is no legal question on this issue,” Verticchio said. “The objection is valid.”
Additionally, Verticchio attacked Yeager’s right to be on the ballot, arguing that state statute requires municipal officers to be legally registered voters within the city limits of the municipality. Since that issue was the crux of the Electoral Board’s order, “(Yeager’s) complaint is void of any legal basis to overrule the board,” Verticchio said.
Rebutting Verticchio’s argument, Maag said the cases Verticchio cited were two decades old and suggested the statute regarding the form of objections “may have been amended” in the meantime.
“The question is not whether Mr. Yeager should be removed from the ballot,” Maag said. “The question is whether the objection is valid as it was made.”
Maag conceded there could be a statutory prohibition against Yeager actually serving as mayor if he were elected, but insisted that is a separate question from whether or not he could be on the ballot.
There may be a question about whether or not he can be sworn in
“If Mr. Yeager is placed on the ballot and Mr. Yeager wins the election, there may be a question about whether or not he can be sworn in,” Maag told the court.
Before the hearing adjourned, Verticchio again raised the question of whether or not Yeager should have been allowed to file his appeal as a pauper.
“Mr. Yeager filed as an indigent and shows up here today with a very distinguished attorney,” Verticchio said. “Unless Mr. Maag is willing to file an affidavit that he is representing Mr. Yeager, pro se,” the court should rescind Yeager’s status as an indigent plaintiff.
Maag, however, affirmed to the court that “Mr. Yeager is not paying me, has not paid me, doesn’t intend to pay me and I do not intend to bill him.” Maag said Yeager has a constitutional right to access the court and has a constitutional right to an attorney. He indicated he is representing Yeager as “a courtesy.”
Share this story
Comments
comments