Objections to Steve Quigley Petitions

Steve Quigley, chair of the 365U school board just raised our property taxes in December... again.

He is also under fire for not abiding by election law when filing his petitions for office.  Mr. Quigley turned in only 90 signatures.  Minimum is 50.  The election is April 5, 2011.  His objector's statement lists specifics:

1.      The minimum number of signatures to gain ballot access for the school board election in Bolingbrook for April 5, 2011 is 50.  (See sheet detail below). Steven Quigley does not meet this requirement for 5 reasons:

a.     Some voters are not registered voters

b.    Some names cannot be verified due to illegible address.

c.     Some signatures are invalid by means of “not their signature”, or “printed instead of signed”.

d.    A registered voter must sign the petition in his own person. He may not sign for someone else, such as another member of his or her own family. [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]The law states that “ No signature shall be valid or be counted in considering the validity or sufficiency of such petition unless the requirements of this Section are complied with”.Therefore, both signatures must be struck. (See sheet detail below.)

e.     Under the same law it states [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]”At the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a circulator's statement, signed by a person 18 years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States; stating the street address or rural route number, as the case may be, as well as the county, city, village or town, and state; certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are genuine; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly registered voters under Articles 4, 5 or 6 of the Code of the political subdivision or district for which the candidate or candidates shall be nominated, and certifying that their respective residences are correctly stated therein. Such statement shall be sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths in this State.”  Since the signature gatherer allowed persons to write in other voters names, this would void the oath that the signature gatherer made and void the entire sheet of signatures.

This would mean that pages 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 would be voided, leaving only 6 valid signatures of the 50 required signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. 

This objection clearly states that Quigley was not abiding by the law when he had his petitions signed.  His objection hearing is on Monday Jan. 3 at 2 p.m..  He already has a Kangaroo court in his favor. 

As a resident, what do you think about Quigley being allowed on the ballot?  What do you feel about the type of person you see above being the one setting the 365U budgets and repeatedly raising our property taxes?