IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION - ELECTIONS

ANNE SHAW, Candidate, and

RONDA LOCKE, Candidate,
Petitioners,
Court No.

20i5C0EL000035
CALENDAR/ROQH 10
TIHE OOSOO
EX set: Cars ires tied

CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTION

COMMISSIONERS as the election authority

and the canvass authority for the Chicago
Municipal Election held on February 24,2015,
LANGDON D. NEAL, Commissioner,
MARISEL A. HERNADEZ, Commissioner,
RICHARD A. COWEN, Commissioner, and
PROCO "JOE" MORENO, Candidate,
ANDREW HAMILTON, Candidate,

Respondents.
VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION

NOW COME the Petitioners, ANNE SHAW and RONDA LOCKE, individually ai^y
p-,o

.'1

their attorney, Andrew Finko PC., and hereby file this verified election contest petitioh puri^^t tO "\

65 ILCS 20/21-27 andArticle 23 of the Illinois Election Code, contesting the results ()fthe

co

election for the office of Alderman for the P' Ward of the City of Chicago that was votetopoi^t '
the Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24, 2015, as follows.
Preface

1.

This election contest is filed prior to the time that the Respondent, Board of

Election Commissioners, is scheduled to proclaim the results of the election for Alderman for the

1st Ward of the City of Chicago, based upon information available as of the date of filing, and
without the benefit of a discovery recount which, under the Illinois Election Code, can not even be

requested until after the proclamation. Indeed, some late arriving absentee ballots and qualified
provisional ballots have not yet been counted as of the last statutory day for the filing of this
action. Necessarily, in the situation presented herein, where 65 ILCS 20/21-27 requires an
1

election contest petition be filed within five days of the Election Day, the parties must plead more
generally subject to later amendment after the proclamation, further discovery or a recount. See,

Evans v. Preckwinkle, 259 Ill.App.3d 187, 636 N.E.2d 730 (P' Dist. 1994), and O'Neal v. Shaw,
248 Ill.App.3d 632, 618 N.E.2d 780 (1^ Dist. 1993).
Parties & Background

2.

Petitioners, ANNE SHAW ("Shaw") and RONDA LOCKE ("Locke"), are duly

qualified electors in the P' Ward of the City of Chicago, and were candidates for election to the

office ofAlderman for the P' Ward in the City of Chicago, with their names printed upon the
ballot for said office and voted upon in the 1st Ward Chicago Municipal General Election held on
February 24, 2015.

3.

Respondent, City of Chicago Board of Election Commissioners ("Board"), is the

election authority which conducted the Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24,
2015, and sits as the canvassing board that will perform the official count of the ballots and render
a final proclamation of results of the election for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the

City of Chicago, Illinois. In addition. Respondent, Board, is named in its capacity as the election
authority that will conduct all supplemental or runoff elections in the City of Chicago on April 7,
2015, and for purposes of subjecting the Board to orders of this Court.
4.

Respondents, Langdon Neal, Marisel A. Hernandez and Richard Cowen, are each

Commissioners and members of the Board, and are named in their official capacities as
Commissioners of the Board.

5.

Respondents, Proco "Joe" Moreno ("Moreno") and Andrew Hamilton

("Hamilton"), were candidates competing for election to the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward in

the City of Chicago, and their names were printed upon the ballot for said office and voted upon in
the 1st Ward Chicago Municipal General Election held on February 24, 2015.

6.

Initially, on Election Day, February 24,2015, the Board posted at its website

unofficial results that stated that Shaw garnered 2,017 votes, or 24.86% of the total votes cast in
the 1st Ward Aldermanic election, that Moreno garnered 4,129 votes, or 50.90% of the total votes
cast in the 1st Ward Aldermanic election, and that Locke garnered 1,661 votes, or 20.48% of the

total votes cast in the 1st Ward Aldermanic election, and that Hamilton garnered 305 votes, or

3.76% of the votes cast in the 1st WardAldermanic Election, such that a supplemental or runoff

election would not occur. Copy ofthe February 24, 2015 unofficialelection results (byprecinct)
for the office ofAlderman in the 1st Ward ofthe City ofChicago are attached and incorporated as
Exhibit A.

7.

As of March 1,2015, the Board posted at its website unofficial revised results that

stated that Shaw garnered 2,022 votes, or 24.77% of the total votes cast in the 1st Ward

Aldermanic election, that Moreno garnered 4,163 votes, or 51.00% of the total votes cast in the 1st

WardAldermanic election, and that Locke garnered 1,668 votes, or 20.44% of the total votes cast
in the 1st WardAldermanic election, and that Hamilton garnered 309 votes, or 3.79% of the votes

cast in the 1st WardAldermanic Election, such that a supplemental or runoff election would not

occur. Copyofthe March 1, 2015 unofficial election results (byprecinct)for the office of
Alderman in the 1st Ward ofthe City ofChicago are attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.
8.

The Board's unofficial revised results posted on or about March 1, 2015, report

Respondent, Moreno, purportedly 82 votes above 50% of all votes cast in the 1st Ward election
held on February 24,2015.

9.

The Board continues counting additional ballots, and will issue a final proclamation

of results fourteen days after the February 24,2015 Election, on March 12,2015.
ALLEGATIONS OF ERRORS

10.

Petitioners, Shaw and Locke, voted in the election of the Alderman for the 1st Ward

and their respective campaigns had volunteers observing Election Day procedures at precincts

throughout the 1st Ward. As set forth more fully and specifically below, in good faith and based
upon reasonable inquiry which continues, Shaw and Locke allege that, and believe that, mistakes
and fraud have been committed in the casting and counting of ballots for the office ofAlderman
for the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago at the election on February 24,2015.
11.

When the results of the full count and other discovery become available, further

information will come to the attention of the Petitioners, Shaw and Locke, that there were

mistakes, errors or fraud in the counting of the ballots for the subject election, and/or fraud
committed regarding the election, such that the count of votes must be revised in the favor of the
Petitioners, Shaw and Locke.

12.

As set forth more fully and specifically below, the Respondent Board's count of the

electiontotals for the electionof Alderman for the 1stWard for the City of Chicago was performed
in derogation of the Board's statutory duties in that its determination and anticipatedproclamation
of results embody results in which numerous invalid ballots were wrongly counted, numerous

valid ballots were wrongly not counted, numerous duly qualified voters of the 1stWard in the City
of Chicago were wrongly denied their rightto vote in the election, and numerous persons who
were (on the Election Day) not duly qualified voters of the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago but

were wrongly permitted to vote in the election, and overshadowedthroughout the ward by
pervasive electioneering from one candidate. Respondent, Moreno. Based on the facts alleged

herein developed through Petitioners' investigation, and as will be more fully developed and pled,
the true, correct and lawful count of the votes which were properly cast, and which should have
been properly cast, in the 1st Ward in the City of Chicago should show a result different from that
reported by the Judges of Election and thus far unofficially announced by the Board; and should

show that Moreno fVas Not elected as Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago by in

excess of 50% of all votes cast in the February 24, 2015 Chicago Municipal General Election and
that a supplemental or runoff election is required on April 7, 2015 to determine the true, correct
and lawful successful candidate.

Proportional Reduction

13.

All allegations of street address below refer to street addresses within the corporate

limits of the City of Chicago unless otherwise noted.

14.

Shaw and Locke request that, except as otherwise specified, any such votes foimd

invalid by virtue of this petition be remedied by proportional reduction or (as the case may be)
addition. The effect of the proportional reductions and other changes in votes necessitated by the
allegations in this petition is that Shaw's and Locke's vote total should be increased, and Moreno's

should be decreased, as required by the methodology of proportional reductionand addition.

15.

Voters Living Outside the 1st Ward. Numerous voters have moved theirlegal

residence to outside the 1stWard, or never lived within the 1stWard, but voted in the subject
election by virtue of an application for ballotwhich bore an address in the 1stWard. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/5-2 and other applicable law.

16.

Voters Voting From Addresses Which Are Commercial Establishments And/Or

Do Not Contain Residential Living Units. Numerous voters were registered at addresses within

the 1St Ward of the City of Chicago but these addresses were not their true residence addresses, the

purported residence address being a commercial establishment and/or not containing residential
living units thereon. Further, on information and belief,these persons cast a vote in the race for the
office of Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare

the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/3-2 and 5-2, and otherapplicable provisions.

17.

Voters Voting from a Different Address in the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago.

Numerous voters have voted in the election by virtue of an application for ballot which bore a

particular address in the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago in Cook County. However, these voters

actually resided at a different address in the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago in Cook County.
Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman
for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative of 10 ILCS 5/5-2 and other applicable law.

18.

Voters Not Registered to Vote. Numerous voters were illegally permittedto vote

from the addresses in the precincts stated, notwithstanding theirnot being registered to vote at any
address in the 1stWard of the City of Chicago. Further, on information and belief, these persons
cast a vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each
case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/5-2, 17-9, and other
applicable law.

19.

Voters Who Voted From An Address At Which They Were Not Registered.

Numerous voters were registered at addresses within the 1stWard of the City of Chicago but voted
from a different address in 1stWard of the City of Chicago, the voting address being onefrom
which they were not registered. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the
race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court
should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/5-2 and other applicable law.
20.

Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballotapplications were not duly certified.
Nonetheless, the voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballot are so numerous
in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the

specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

21.

Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified, and not true.
Nonetheless, such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballot are so numerous

in the particular precinct that the ballotrelating to suchvoter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the

specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
22.

Absentee Ballot Carrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope in which the absentee ballot was
mailed. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office of

Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote
invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with

certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.

However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
23.

Signature on Application for Absent Voter's Ballot Different from Signature on

Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but the

signature on the application for absentee ballot, on information and belief, was executed by a

different person than the person who executed the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope.
Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman

for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as
violative of 10ILCS 5/19-3, 19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots
are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with

certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballotshould be invalidated and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
24.

Absentee Voters Who Failed To Sign The Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous

voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee

ballot mailing envelope. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race
for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should

declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3, 19-5, and other applicable law. In the case

in which absentee ballotsare so numerous in the particular precinctthat the ballot relating to such
voter can not, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction

should be applied. However, to the extent that ballotsfrom voters with this deficiency can, with

certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein

benefitingfrom such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
25.

Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify Their Address On the Absentee Ballot

Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to indicate their
residence/registration address on the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so
numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be
separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the

extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should
have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

26.

Absentee Ballots Not Properly Delivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot, but, by mistake and/or fraud, their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the
Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, thus invalidating the ballots. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the

City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS
5/19-6,19-8, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated from
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that

ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

27.

Voters Who Voted In A Precinct In Which They were Not Registered.

Numerous voters were registered to vote from a particular address and precinct, but actually voted
at another precinct in which they neither resided nor were registered. Further, on information and

belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City
of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/17-9
and other applicable law.

28.

No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted by absentee ballot but

apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further, on

information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3, 19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so

numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be
separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the

extentthat ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should
have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

29.

No Record of Voter VotingAbsentee. Numerous voters purportedly voted by

absentee ballot, but the records of the Respondent Chicago Board of Election Commissionersdo
not show that the absentee ballot was processed by that office. Further, on information and belief,

these persons cast a vote in the race for the office of Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,
19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct that the ballot relating to suchvotercan not, with certainty, be separated from
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that

10

ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the

specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
30.

Voter Failed to Sign Application for Absent Voter's Ballot. Numerous voters

purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.
Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman
for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative of 10ILCS 5/19-3,19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots

are so numerous in the particularprecinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with

certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to the extent that ballots from voters withthis deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated andthe party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

31.

Legal Voters Denied The Right To Vote. Numerous registered and qualified voters

in the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago were illegally denied their right and opportunity to vote by

mistake orfraud, including but not limited toerrors inBoard documents, late opening, equipment
failure, locked doors, election judge errors, et al. Further, on information and belief, these persons
would have cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should proportionately add such votes.

32.

Voters Improperly Permitted to Vote. Numerous registered and qualified voters

in the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago were illegally permitted to vote in the precinct polling place
on Election Day even though such voters' names appeared on listings as having been issued a
grace period, absentee, or early ballot, without submitting their absentee ballotsfor cancellation,
or otherwise complyingwith 10 ILCS 5/17-9 and other provisions of the Election Code in this

11

regard. In the case in which these ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot
relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated from other ballots, proportionate
reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency
can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the
party herein benefiting from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a
whole vote.

33.

Improper Handling, Altering and/or Removal of Ballots from Precincts.

Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled, altered and/or removed by
persons in precinct locations who were not duly credentialed and authorized to so handle, alter or

remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices, and, for example, at least three ballots that

were cast by voters and/or at least one electronic vote counting device, were illegally and
improperly removed from precinct locations without being counted in the Board's vote totals. Such

actions of unauthorized persons so tainted the counting of the votes in numerous precincts, as to
render all such results in the precinct unreliable and subject to full review by the Court, and the

party herein benefiting from such actions should have her total for the precinctreduced by a whole
vote for each such tampered ballot.
Allegations Requiring Modification of Whole Votes

34.

Applications For Ballots Which Do Not Bear Initials OfAny Election Judge.

Numerous votes were cast which should not have been counted since the application for ballot did

not bear on its face the initials of an election judge. Further, on information and belief, ballots
were issued for such applications and votes were cast in the race for the office ofAlderman for the

1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the particular ballot
invalid as lacking the requisite integrity and assurances that applications for ballots were issued in
accordance with the Election Code and the Board's required procedures as documented in the

12

Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling Place Administrator Handbook."

35.

Ballots Which Do Not Bear Initials OfAny Election Judge. Numerous votes

were cast which should not have been counted since the ballot did not bear on its face the initials

of an election judge. Further, on information and belief, such votes were cast in the race for the
office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should
declare the particular ballot invalid as violative of 10ILCS 5/17-9 and 10ILCS 5/17-11, and the

Board's required procedures as documented in the Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling Place
Administrator Handbook."

36.

Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Not Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were not duly certified.
Nonetheless, the voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative
of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particular precinct that the ballotrelating to suchvoter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

37.

Absentee Voters Whose Applications Were Falsely Certified. Numerous voters

voted by absentee ballot, and their absentee ballot applications were falsely certified, and not true.
Nonetheless, such voters were illegally permitted to cast a ballot as an absent voter. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

13

of 10ILCS 5/19-3 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
38.

Absentee Ballot Carrier Envelope Missing. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot but apparently did not execute the affidavit on the envelope in which the absentee ballot was
mailed. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office of
Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote

invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-5 and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with

certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
39.

Signature on Application for Absent Voter's Ballot Different from Signature on

Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but the

signature on the application for absentee ballot, on information and belief, was executed by a

different person than the person who executedthe affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope,
and was not genuine. Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote for the office of
Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote

invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in which

absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can

14

not, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be

applied. However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

40.

Absentee Voters Who Failed To Sign The Absentee Ballot Envelope. Numerous

voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they did not sign the affidavit on the absentee

ballot mailing envelope. Further, on informationand belief, these persons cast a vote for the office
ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the

vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in

which absentee ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such
voter can not, with certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction

should be applied. However, to the extentthat ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with

certainty, be separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein
benefiting from such ballotshould have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
41.

Absentee Voters Who Failed To Certify Their Address On the Absentee Ballot

Envelope. Numerous voters purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to indicate their

residence/registration address on the affidavit on the absentee ballot carrier envelope. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee ballots are so

numerous in the particular precinct that the ballotrelating to suchvoter can not, withcertainty, be
separated from otherabsentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the

extent that ballots from voters withthis deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,
the specific ballot shouldbe invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should

15

have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

42.

Absentee Ballots Not Properly Delivered. Numerous voters voted by absentee

ballot, but, by mistake and/or fraud, their absentee ballots were not properly delivered to the

Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, thus invalidating the ballots. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the
City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10ILCS
5/19-6 and 19-8, and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous

in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separated
from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that

ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

43.

Voters Who Voted In A Precinct In Which They were Not Registered.

Numerous voters were registered to vote from a particular address and precinct, but actually voted
at another precinct in which they neither resided nor were registered. Further, on information and

belief, these persons cast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago.
In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/17-9 and other

applicable law.

44.

No Application for Absentee Ballot. Numerous voters voted by absentee ballot but

apparently did not submit a signed application to entitle them to receive that ballot. Further, on
information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st
Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative

of 10 ILCS 5/19-3, 19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so

numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be

16

separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the
extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified,

the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should
have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
45.

No Record of Voter Voting Absentee. Numerous voters purportedly voted by

absentee ballot, but the records of the Respondent Chicago Board of Election Commissioners do
not show that the absentee ballot was processed by that office. Further, on information and belief,

these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of
Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3,

19-5, and other applicable law. In the case in which absentee ballots are so numerous in the

particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, with certainty, be separatedfrom
other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied. However, to the extent that
ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be separated and identified, the
specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting from such ballot should have
his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.
46.

Voter Failed to Sign Application for Absent Voter's Ballot. Numerous voters

purportedly voted by absentee ballot, but they failed to sign the application for absentee ballot.
Further, on information and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman
for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should declare the vote invalid as

violative of 10 ILCS 5/19-3 and 19-5, and other applicable laws. In the case in which absentee

ballots are so numerous in the particular precinct that the ballot relating to such voter can not, Avith

certainty, be separated from other absentee ballots, proportionate reduction should be applied.
However, to the extent that ballots from voters with this deficiency can, with certainty, be

separated and identified, the specific ballot should be invalidated and the party herein benefiting

17

from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct reduced by a whole vote.

47.

Election Judges Issued Ballots Without Comparing Signatures on Ballot

Application. Numerous voters were issued ballots and allowed to cast ballots, but were not the
named duly registered voters, because such signatures were not genuine and proper signatures of

the respective voters, and no such signatures or corresponding ballots should be counted as valid

in all similar Precincts in which signatures were not validated as being genuine by election judges.
48.

Respondent Moreno's Campaign Workers Improperly Influenced Dozens of

Ballots. On dozens upon dozens of occasions, voters at Lathrop Homes, 2717 N. Leavitt, were

improperly influenced in casting their ballots, or had ballots signed and cast for them, without
their knowledge. Voters who were defauded of their ballots include Priscilla Ramos, Aida

Ramirez, Ana Cruz, Isa Zulu, Lillian Hart, Brenda Harper, Betty Carlson, Benabe Carmen,
Gerardo Ponce de Leon, Maribel Lopez, In Son, Juan Licor, Carme Torres, Antonio Yates, Pedro

Cervantes, Emilia Colon, Jose Pinero, and many others, who had ballots cast without their

knowledge, input or direction, and such ballots were improperly manipulated to favor Respondent
Moreno, were the choices of the misbehaving public officials, and not of the voice and free will of
the voters. Therefore the appropriate legal remedy is to deduct whole votes from the intended
beneficiary of the misbehavior. Respondent Moreno. In the alternative, such votes were

impermissibly tainted and should be subject to proportionate reduction.

49.

Ballots Mistakenly Not Counted. Numerous voters voted on ballots which,

through mistake, error or fraud were not counted by the judges of election. Further, on information
and belief, these persons cast a vote in the race for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the

City of Chicago. In each case, this Court should, to the extent that ballots with this deficiency can,

with certainty, be separated and identified, validate suchballots and the party herein benefiting
from such ballot should have his or her total for the precinct increased by each corresponding

18

whole vote. Specifically, but not limited to:

a) Provisional ballots were improperly issued by election judges to persons who were registered
in a different precinct of 1st Ward, and voters were erroneously issued a provisional ballot
instead of being directed to travel to their correct precinct by an election official and/or were
by mistake, error or fraud deposited in the ballot box counting device for the wrong precinct
and therefore were not counted, and the Board should be estopped from striking (or not
counting votes) provisional ballots that were cast in reliance upon the statements of election
officials and/or election judges;

b) Votes on touchscreen machines assigned to a different precinct which may have been located
in the same room for which a ballot authorization card was properly issued and the votes cast
by registered and qualified voters which were therefore not counted by mistake, error or
fraud because they were cast on a touchscreen device for a different precinct;

c) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were
by mistake, error or fraud deposited in the spoiled ballot envelope and not deposited in the
ballot box counting device, and therefore were not counted;

d) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were
by mistake, error or fraud wrongly determined to have identifying (or "distinguishing")
marks and therefore were not counted;

e) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were
by mistake, error or fraud determined not to clearly display the intent of the voter, but were,
in fact, clearly intended to vote for Petitioners Shaw and Locke, but were not counted;

f) Ballots which were properly issued and cast by registered and qualified voters which were
by mistake or error of a counting device not counted, including but not limited to
"calibration" errors on touch screen voting machines, wherein a vote cast for Petitioners
Shaw and Locke was erroneously counted as a vote for Respondent, Moreno, and was not
counted for Petitioners, Shaw and Locke.

50.

Ballots Mistakenly, Erroneously or Fraudulently Counted. Numerous voters

cast ballotswhich, through mistake, error or fraud were on information and belief, counted by the
judges of election, but which were issued and cast contrary to the provisions of the Election Code.

These persons cast a vote for the office ofAlderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. In
each case, this Court should, to the extent that ballots with this deficiency can, with certainty, be
separated and identified, validate such ballots and the party herein benefiting from such ballot

should have his or her total for the precinct decreased by each corresponding whole vote.

19

51. Voters Were Impermissibly and Pervasively Electioneered at the Polling Places

By the Moreno Campaign. Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for
Respondent Moreno at numerous polling places. Further, on information and belief, these persons
cast a vote in the race for Alderman for the 1st Ward of the City of Chicago. Because the
electioneering was specifically for Respondent, Moreno's, benefit, and no other candidate, the

appropriate legal remedy is to deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary of the

misbehavior. Respondent Moreno. In the altemative, such votes were impermissibly tainted and
should be subject to proportionate reduction. Specifically, but not limited to:
a) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the
polling places, by the distribution and placement of palm cards in the voting booths,
electioneering and promoting voters to cast ballots in favor of Respondent, Moreno;

b) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the
polling place by the placement of palm cards advocating votes for Moreno in the protective
envelopes in which the ballots were enclosed upon issuance;
c) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the
polling place, for example, in the 1st Ward, by walking and talking with voters within the
100 foot protective line specifically in promotion of Candidate, Moreno, and/or standing at
or near the inner door to the polling location, all the while, urging voters to support and vote
for Moreno;

d) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the
polling place, for example, in the 1st Ward by the placementof campaignsigns urging a vote
for Moreno and the distribution of campaign literature urging a vote for Moreno from within
the 100 foot protective line to the door of the polling place;
e) Numerous voters were impermissibly electioneered to vote for Respondent Moreno at the
polling place, for example, by poll watchers and Respondent candidate Moreno, himself, and
others, many of whom entered polling locations without presenting credentials and/or
exceeded the number of poll watchers permitted in a precinct, and acted improperly and
urged voters to support and vote for Respondent Moreno inside of the polling place.
52.

Improper Handling, Altering, Abandonment and/or Removal of Ballots from

Precincts. Ballots and electronic vote counting devices were improperly handled, altered,
abandoned and/or removed by persons in precinct locations who were not duly credentialed and
authorized to so handle, alter or remove ballots and electronic vote counting devices, and, for
20

example, a ballot application spindle was handled and altered in the 1st Ward and 18th Precinct,
and, on information and belief, ballot-application sized paper was observed being placed into a

purse. Similarly, on information and belief, at least one electronic vote counting device (memory
card) was not counted in the Board's vote totals, and election materials in at least one precinct

were abandoned by election judges and not promptly delivered to the receiving station. Such
unauthorized access to ballots by persons without authority to do so, tainted and altered the total

number of votes that were reported by the Board, and therefore the appropriate legal remedy is to
deduct whole votes from the intended beneficiary of the misbehavior. Respondent Moreno. In the
alternative, such votes were impermissibly tainted and should be subject to proportionate
correction.

53.

Equipment Errors, or Failures. Equipment at numerous locations used for

purposes of voting and tabulating votes was defective, erroneous and/ornot properly working for
periods of time on February 24,2015, including but not limited to failing to get a "zero" reading
before commencing voting, recording and displaying only two votes after the polls closed (one
vote for Shaw,one vote for Moreno in 1st Ward, 41st Precinct), "calibration" errors on touch

screenvoting, failing to consolidate all ballots cast, failing to print out sufficient number of paper
receipts for consolidated Precinct results, failing to count all votes cast, failing to haveequipment
delivered at polling locations, failure to secure and lock ballotboxes, ballotscanners not working,
electronic poll book errors, no working touch screen machines, and other equipmentfailures,

which caused polling locations to either not open on time, to be closedduring Election Day, and/or
otherwise prevented voters from casting their votes and having their votes counted by the Board.
Such votes should be reviewed and corrected by this Court in its the final count.

54.

Polling Places Not Staffed by Duly Qualified Judges. Numerous polling

locations in the 1st Ward were not staffed by duly qualified elections judges, who had read and

21

become familiar with the Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling Place Administrator
Handbook," causing polling locations to either not open on time, to run inefficiently with lines out

the door (and turned away voters), and/or otherwise preventing voters from casting their votes and
having their votes counted by the Board.

55.

Polling Place Relocated and/or Closed Without Adequate Notice to Voters. On

information and belief, some polling location for the 1st Ward were moved to different locations,

than they had been at, for many years, without adequately and appropriately notifying all voters of
the changed location, due to lack of assistance from the Board. All such votes should be located
and counted, or the total should be adjusted proportionately.

56.

Election Judges Who Were Not Properly Trained Erred In Consolidating And

Reporting Ballots That Were Cast. Numerous election judges in precincts throughout 1st Ward
deviated from the Election Code and the Board's required procedures as documented in the

Board's 2015 "Judge of Election / Polling PlaceAdministrator Handbook," and erroneously and
inconsistently reported the total ballots cast in various precincts, failed to consolidate votes, and/or

failed to print paper printouts of consolidated results from numerous precincts, raising many
questions regarding the credibility and reliability of the election results in the 1st Ward, and

requiring a recount of all ballots cast on Election Day in the 1st Ward.
Praver For Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioners, ANNE SHAW and RONDA LOCKE, respectfully request

entry of an order as follows:

(a)

entering an expedited schedule for discovery and an evidentiary hearing in this

matter, prior to April 7, 2015;

(b)

directing a full and complete recount of all ballots cast in the 1st Ward, to determine

the validity of the City of Chicago Board of Election Commissioner's counting of ballots and

22

proclamation, such recount to include, but not be limited to, an examination of the relevant
electronic poll books (and corresponding electronic data and logs), voting devices, paper ballots,
voters' applications for ballots, precinct binder cards (and their computerized equivalent),
affidavits, and all other materials from said ward;

(c)

changing and correcting the results of the election as required by the allegations and

proofs of this petition; and

(d)

granting such other and further relief in favor of Petitioners, as may be just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted:
ANNE SHAW and RONDA LOCKE

By:

Petitioners' Attorney
Andrew Finko RC.

79 W. Monroe St. / Suite 1213

Chicago, IL 60603
Tel (773) 480-0616
Fax (773) 453-3266
Attorney No. 30263

23

State ofIllinois )
)ss

CountyofCook )
VERIFICATTON

The undersigned, having beenfirst dulysworn, under oathdeposes andaffirms, thatthe

facts stated in the foregoing Verified Petition for Election Contestare true and correctto the best
ofher knowledge and belief, as of the date signed, and as to statements made on information and
belief,the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believesthe same to be true.

ANNE SHAW

SubscrU}ed andswomto before

byAmeShaw.

March 20,5

Notary Public

Official Seal

S Not.~SSl5ln.ls

J MyCcmmteslonExpires02(1a018

(SEAL)

24

State ofIIHnois )
)ss
County ofCook )
VEKPFICATION

The underagaed, having been first duly sworn, under oalfa deposes and affirms, that the
facts stated in the forgoing Verified Petition for Election Contest are true and correct to the best
ofher knowledge and belief, as ofthe date signed, and as to statements made on information and
belief, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true.

RONDALO

Subscribed and sworn to before

me this SGdday ofMarch 2015

by Ronda Locke.

OFFICfALSEAL

:::iyQTARyreBliC-'STATE<ya iatnte
(SEAL)

NOTARyPUBLIC

25

EXHIBIT A

Board of Election Commissioners

Unofficial Results

February 24,2015

Municipai Generai Eiection

February 24, 2015

City of Chicago, liiinois

Unofficiai Summary Report
Registration & Turnout
Total Registration and Turnout

Registration

Turnout

1,421,430

471,464

33.17%

Contests
Mayor

2069 of 2069 precincts counted

100.00%

211,597

45.39%

WILLIE WILSON

49,612

10.64%

ROBERT W. "BOB" FIORETTI

34,488

7.40%

157,526

33.79%

12,954

2.78%

RAHM EMANUEL

JESUS "CHUY" GARCIA

WILLIAM "DOCK" WALLS, III

Total

City Clerk

2069 of 2069 precincts counted

Total

100.00%

354,158
Total

100.00%

382,175

2069 of 2069 precincts counted

KURT A. SUMMERS

Alderman 1st Ward

100.00%

382,175

SUSANAA. MENDOZA

City Treasurer

466,177

100.00%

354,158

44 of 44 precincts counted

100.00%

PROCO "JOE" MORENO

4,129

50.90%

ANNE SHAW

2,017

24.86%

ANDREW HAMILTON
RONDA LOCKE
Total

Alderman 2nd Ward

305

3.76%

1,661

20.48%

8,112

46 of 46 precincts counted

100.00%

STEPHEN NIKETOPOULOS

1,193

BITA BUENROSTRO

1,370

14.23%

BRIAN HOPKINS

2,790

28.97%

ALYX S. PATTISON

2,333

24.23%

CORNELL WILSON

824

8.56%

1,119

11.62%

STACEY PFINGSTEN
Total

Alderman 3rd Ward

12.39%

9,629

41 of 41 precincts counted

100.00%

PAT DOWELL

7,235

72.76%

PATRICIA HORTON

2,709

27.24%

Total

Printed: Wednesday, February 25,2015 4:50 PM

Data Refreshed: 2/25/2015 4:49 PM

9,944

Page 1 of 12

EXfflBIT

Board of Election Commissioners

Unofficial Results

March 1,2015

http://www.chicagoelections.conVen/pctlevel3.asp?Ward=1&elecj

On

- Alderman 1st Ward

Pet

Votes Cast

PROCO "JOE" MORENO

104

208

222

163

206

153

10

11

175

12

215

13

99

14

217

15

189

16

192

17

196

131

32

71

86

45.50%

145
19

20

174

21

169

22

126

23

292

24

159

25

146

26

150

77

147

28

114

29

215

30

246

31

204

32

192

39

144

70.59%

34

173

49.13%

70

2.60%

32.37%

25.52%

30.30%

29

56

85

49

7.81%

21.65%

45.45%

231

8.33%

1.96%
15

50

105
33

12.20%
17

18.75%

47.92%

18.14%

30

4.88%

19.12%

36

92

2.79%

30.49%

52.44%

39

12

75

129

4.80%

2.40%

26.05%

53.02%

56

10.27%

16.05%

4.94%
3

8.80%

84.00%

125

10.06%

26

11

105

22.95%

9.33%

4.67%

24.69%

54.32%

162

5.56%

14

40

88
27

4.11%

21.33%

64.67%

15

32

97

1.26%

29.45%

56.16%

16

43

82

2.05%

20.13%

68.55%

67

24.66%
32

109

3.17%

29.37%
72

30.18%
7

37

50.34%

51
4.73%

19.53%

61.90%

19.54%

4.60%
8

33

78

34

28.74%

45.56%

16.08%

3.50%

29.72%

47.13%

21.46%
46

10

50

82

47

5.94%

27.40%

50.70%

286

12.76%

3.57%
13

85

14.06%
25

60

45.21%

219

10.58%

27

2.60%

32.14%

51.53%
99

18

6.35%
5

63

101

20

12

28.13%

55.21%

17.97%

6.91%

37.57%

54

106

19.19%
39

15

14.75%

60.37%

21.86%

0.00%

31.31%

49.49%

33.71%

19

31

49

28.65%

47

9.30%

20.00%

48.84%

59

20

43

105

51

2.86%

26.29%

37.14%

11.85%

8.16%

2.55%

46

65

18.30%

16

3.93%

19.10%

48.31%

178

25

34

86

28

3.32%
5

19.90%

69.39%

196

15.05%

1.96%
7

39

136
9

31

15.17%

69.67%

40.49%

6.31%

29.41%
32

147

66

13

45

45.95%

1.23%

28.64%

50.33%

33.17%
102

59

77

69

2.70%

7.98%

50.00%

16.85%

1.44%
6

13

103

211

19.82%

50.31%

17.65%
30

8.43%

26.92%
44

82

15

56

31.53%

33
2.14%

28.65%

38.46/<
70

RONDALOCKE

24.60%

46.07V(
80

ANDREW HAMILTON
4

51

82
178

46

55.61 V<

187

ANNE SHAW

1.73%

16.76%

>n

http;//www.cliicagoelections.coiTi/en/pctleveI3.asp?Ward=l&elec

35

215

36

190

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Total

Pet

87

27.37%

211

60.19%
70

174

40.23%
118

217

54.38%
55

149

36.91%
29

55

52.73%
86

163

52.76%
75

137

54.74%
4163

51.00%

Votes Cast

PROCO "JOE" MORENO

25.26%

35.03%

19.43%

64

1.72%

58

36.78%

11

26.73%

30

5.07%

50

13.82%

11

33.56%

33

7.38%

15

22 15%

27.27%

3.64%

50

16.36%

30.67%

23

2.45%

34

14.11%

24.82%

24

2.92%

2022

309

24.77%

Go Back

41

3.79%

21.26%

- Alderman 1st Ward

24.87%

16.59%

49

1.52%

37

ANNE SHAW

45 26%

35

3.79%

ANDREW HAMILTON

27 44%|

86

2.11%

69

38.58%

59

4.19%

48

76

127

27.91%

52

197

8162

60

40.47%

17.52%
1668

20.44%

RONDALOCKE