Bonnie's Residency

Electoral boards are suppose to be fair and unbiased in a court of law.  So we started by researching the actual law regarding residency.

65 ILCS 5/3 states "A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment."

This means the date in question to establish a residency is April 5, 2010 to April 5, 2011.  The question to her residency is "was she a legal resident on April 5, 2010."

However, due to poorly written election laws, no where in the law does it state what constitutes residency.  It does not state you have to have a place to lay your head.  It does not state you have to have a drivers license, plates, or even a voters card.  Since there is no law, it cannot be proved someone is not a resident, unless they do not have an address that they can register to be a voter and receive mail.

So unless Bonnie did not have an actual residence, she should have won this case in a fair court of law.

Another well used law in IL for elections is the Pope vs. Board of election commissioners 370 iii.  This states "Where a person leaves his residence and goes to another place, even if it be another state, with an intention to return to his former abode, or with only a conditional intention of acquiring a new residence, he does not lose his former residence so long as his intention remains unconditional.

If we took this previous law into consideration, Bonnie took a temporary leave to Florida and returned.  She left to another state with the intention to return to her former abode and acquire a new residence, therefore she did not lose her former residence.

When asked if she had her license, plates, and voting rights registered in Florida, she responded that no, they were registered to her Bolingbrook address.  This showed that she had every intention of returning. Her home was insured, taxes being paid, and people watching over her home in her absence.  She never rented out her home. She never abandoned her home.  She temporarily left for an extended work trip of 12 weeks...  She is a traveling consultant, isn't she?  She maintained her residency.

Therefore, she still qualified to be on the ballot, since she never lost her former residence and was in fact an 8 year resident on Bothwell Lane.

Her drivers license, according to our MVR report that she authorized today, shows that she registered her drivers license in June, right after the sale of her Bolingbrook home.  Her move across town does not bar her from running for office, as they are both Bolingbrook addresses. 

Her plate registration was current as a Bolingbrook resident and Jesse White certified she was a resident.

Election documents state that she never lost her residency and she is listed as residing in Bolingbrook for many years. 

So the Secretary of State's opinion, the Election officials, and the taxes she paid for her property do not qualify her to be a resident according to Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar.  So what does make a resident to him?  Someone that donates to his campaign?

Remember, she does not even need these to prove residency, yet she supplied it anyhow.

She did not deny the fact she was in Florida for three months over the winter.  According to Fielding V Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, "residence" is not synonymous with "domicile", through the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more that one residence."

Therefore, your main residence is established by where you pay taxes, register your vehicles, and vote.  I know that this decision of the board will infuriate many people who own second homes or take vacations, as the board basically stated that these individuals lose their residency when they do so... despite the laws you see above.

So why would Mr. Claar, Ms. Swinkunas, or Ms. Penning think it is okay to ignore the laws as stated above, and use a court document to remove Bonnie?  Fear...

Bonnie asked the board for anyone to prove there is a law that establishes "Court documents establish residency".  No one on the board or even the other attorney had a response.  This is no surprise, as NO Documents qualify residency.  (See info on the law above). 

Even if Bonnie had filed a lawsuit against Bolingbrook, Fielding vs. Casualty clearly states someone can have more that one residence.  If any illegal immigrant could file a lawsuit and establish residency, we would be in serous trouble with immigration laws.

Furthermore, to rule someone off a ballot for residency based on a document that does not establish residency is very biased and unfounded by any law. 

If Bonnie had a residence to send mail and register to vote, she was a resident.  On April 5, 2010, Bonnie was a homeowner of 8 years on Bothwell Lane.  In June she sold her home and transferred her mail and drivers license to Forest.  She was and has always been a Bolingbrook resident.

Since Mr. Claar, Ms. Swankunas, and Ms. Penning did not abide by IL election laws and failed to offer a decision based on fact, but meer feeling, it will be no wonder this will get hard publicity. 

This is the second year in a row that they have not allowed Bonnie ballot access.  They have used the same attorney to remove her.  They have publically called her a contributor to a stoke victims death that sent her to a temporary residence to protect her threatened family.  It makes me wonder if they did this on purpose to run her out of town so that they could launch this objection this year. 

I liked her statement when Carol Penning asked her if she still wanted to own a home in Bolingbrook with the high taxes, and Bonnie replied "I can do something about that".  Penning replied, "I am sure you could".  Isn't this why they ultimatly want her to be removed?

Mr. Claar also publically took the opportunity to criticize her over the lawsuit that was filed, calling it frivilous and that Bonnie cost the taxpayers $27, 000.00.  At which point Bonnie retorted, "Let's set the record straight, I did not cost the tax payers money, Mr. Lawler did by publically calling me responsible for Ms. Bielawski's death.  In turn, people tried to break into my house, threatened my family and caused me to leave." 

Ya, I think that backfired on him.  I am sure Claar does not wish for people to find out he caused her so much trouble and grief and she pointed out how "wrong this statement was" of them.

Her final statement to her objection was that she was a proud resident of 32 years, she would like to be on the ballot, so the residents have a choice.

This is one tough, witty, and smart lady.  She conducted herself well, was clearly spoken and educated with the laws.  She used some humor, was honest and forthcoming, and very humble despite the fact that the fix was in before the hearing.

Now, if the court would have recessed to discuss their decision then maybe they would have realized they booted her off the ballot with no law to support them.  Maybe they would have made a different choice.  However, since the court was pre-determined and personal grudges present with the board, ad none of them removed themselves due to conflict of interest, there is not much hope for any qualified or good candidate to run or they will be booted off as well. 

We hope Bonnie appeals and wins, like Rham Emanuel did.  He was placed on a ballot with the words... "Having a place to sleep is not a touchstone of continued residence."  Therefore qualifying him to run for election with nowhere to even call home... So federal judges know there is no proof to kick someone off a ballot for residency.  Roger must be better trained then those judges... or maybe just more pompous...