The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DARIN WHITTEN, LISA C. KAISER, )
WILLIAM D. KAISER, DOROTHY )
TAFT, and JARED KERWIN, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 21-3023
)
ROCHESTER TOWNSHIP REPUBLICAN )
CENTRAL COMMITTEE; Rochester )
Township Republican Central )
Committeepersons THOMAS K. )
MUNROE, MARK C. WHITE, ANTHONY )
SAPUTO, MATTHEW BUTCHER, and )
DAVID ARMSTRONG, in their official )
Capacities as Committeepersons for the )
Rochester Township Republican Central )
Committee; LYNN CHARD, in her official )
Capacity as Clerk of Rochester Township; )
DON GRAY, in his official capacity as )
Clerk of Sangamon County; and DARRELL )
MAXHEIMER, )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge:
In an Opinion and Order entered on February 1, 2021, the Court dismissed
this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Pending is the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of that
Order.
I.
The Court’s Order dismissed the Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against Defendants on the basis that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs’ allegations centered on the
conduct of a Caucus of the Rochester Township Republican Central Committee to
nominate candidates on behalf of the party for the April 6, 2021 consolidated
election.
Before filing this case, the same Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief and an emergency motion for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction on December 23, 2020 in the Sangamon County
Circuit Court, Case Number 2020-CH-201. The Defendants in the Sangamon
County case are identical to the Defendants in this case. The Plaintiffs’ prayer for
relief is almost exactly the same in both cases.
On January 5, 2021, Sangamon County Circuit Judge Gail Noll dismissed the
Plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that Plaintiffs had not first raised objections before the
appropriate election board as is required under the Illinois Election Code. Judge
Noll concluded the court lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claims were not
brought pursuant to judicial review of an election board’s decision.
The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and that appeal is pending before the
Appellate Court of Illinois.
In Count I of the federal complaint, Plaintiffs seek Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief under 10 ILCS 5/29-1, asking the Court to declare the December 1, 2020
Rochester Republican Caucus invalid and void because it violated the Illinois
Township Code along with the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions. The Plaintiffs also
seek injunctive relief enjoining the certification of Defendant Darrell Maxheimer as
the Republican Candidate for Rochester Township Road Commissioner or printing
his name on the ballot for the April 6 election, and ask the Court to order Defendant
Rochester Township Republican Central Committee to hold a second Republican
Caucus or a revote for the Republican nomination for Road Commissioner.
Th Plaintiffs seek the same relief in Count II of the federal complaint. The
only difference from Count I is that Plaintiffs in Count II do not invoke the Illinois
Township Code.
In the state court complaint, the Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the
December 1, 2020 Rochester Township Republican Party Caucus was invalid and
void regarding the nomination for Road Commissioner because it violated the
Illinois Township Code and Illinois Constitution. The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive
relief enjoining the certification of Defendant Darrell Maxheimer as the Republican
Candidate for Rochester Township Road Commissioner or printing his name on the
ballot for the April 6 election, and ask the Court to hold a second Republican Caucus
for the purpose of nominating a candidate for Road Commissioner that complies
with the Township Code and the Illinois Constitution.
In Count II, the Plaintiffs seek the same relief while claiming that the Caucus
violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
determined that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court
of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies
when the state court’s judgment is the source of the injury of which plaintiffs
complain in federal court.” Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C., 768 F.3d 732, 733
(7th Cir. 2014) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 293 (2005)). “A state litigant seeking review of a state court judgment must
follow the appellate process through the state court system and then directly to the
United States Supreme Court.” Kelley v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 548 F.3d 600, 603
(7th Cir. 2008).
II.
In its motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the
Plaintiffs claim that the Court erred in its construction of Charchenko v. City of
Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 1995) when this Court stated:
A crucial distinction between this case and Charchenko is that Plaintiffs here
sought the same relief on both counts in state court and federal court—
specifically enjoining certification of the purported Republican candidate for
Rochester Township Road Commissioner and ordering a second Republican
Caucus for nominating a Road Commissioner.
d/e 12, at 11. In Charchenko, the state court had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for
lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not petition for a writ of certiorari as
required for a terminated public employee to obtain review of her termination in a
Minnesota state court. See id. at 983. The Eighth Circuit found that although
Rooker-Feldman precluded plaintiff’s state law claims in federal court because she
had not first obtained a writ of certiorari, her § 1983 claims were not barred. See id.
at 984.
The Plaintiffs contend that, as in Charchenko, the Court need not address
whether the state court had jurisdiction over the claims in order for Plaintiff Darrin
Whitten and the other Plaintiffs to proceed. The Court could determine the merits
of the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims under the assumption that the Illinois state courts
lack jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs assert that the deprivation of Illinois state court
subject matter jurisdiction in § 1983 suits does not affect the Court’s federal
jurisdiction.
“[T]o determine whether Rooker-Feldman bars Charchenko’s federal suit
requires determining exactly what the state court held and whether the relief
requested by Charchenko in his federal action requires determining the state court
decision is wrong or would void its ruling.” Charchenko, 47 F.3d at 983.
In finding that the Circuit Court of Sangamon County lacked jurisdiction and
dismissing the case under 735 ILCS 5/2-619, Judge Noll noted that “[t]he Illinois
Election Code, 10 ILCS 5/10-8, and 5/10-9, provides Plaintiffs with a process to
challenge procedures used during a caucus election.” [d/e 7-2]. Judge Noll’s Order
further states, “Pursuant to the Election Code, Plaintiffs are first required to raise any
objections before the appropriate election board. Thereafter, Plaintiffs may seek
judicial review of the Board’s decision.” Id.
Because the Plaintiffs had not raised their objections to the Caucus procedures
before the appropriate election board, Judge Noll determined she could not hold that
the Rochester Township Republican Party Caucus was invalid and void regarding
the nomination for Road Commissioner and she thus was unable to grant injunctive
relief enjoining the Rochester Township Clerk and Sangamon County Clerk from
certifying Darrell Maxheimer as the Republican Candidate for Road Commissioner
or printing his name. For the same reason, Judge Noll could not order the Rochester
Township Republican Central Committee to hold a second Republican Caucus for
the purpose of nominating a candidate for Road Commissioner or a revote where
voters could cast a secret paper ballot containing the names of Maxheimer and
Whitten.
The Plaintiffs are asking the Court to expressly or implicitly reverse Judge
Noll’s order and issue injunctive relief enjoining the Sangamon County Clerk from
certifying Maxheimer as the Republican candidate and ordering a revote in which
voters could decide between Maxheimer and Whitten, even though the Plaintiffs did
not raise their objections to the Caucus procedures before the appropriate election
board. The nature of the relief sought by the Plaintiffs makes it clear they are asking
the Court to overrule or ignore that ruling and hold that Plaintiffs need not first raise
objections before the appropriate election board before seeking judicial review.
Because this Court would have to determine that the state court’s decision was
wrong and/or void its ruling in order to enjoin certification of the purported winner
and order a second Republican Caucus or a revote for Road Commissioner, the Court
concludes that all of the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman.
The Plaintiffs’ complaint include numerous citations to the Illinois Compiled
Statutes for a very good reason—administrators at the state and local level run
elections. This Court cannot simply ignore those requirements under Illinois law.
The Appellate Court of Illinois is the appropriate tribunal to review Judge Noll’s
Order. Because this Court continues to conclude it lacks jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the Court has no basis to depart from its previous ruling.
Ergo, the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for reconsideration [d/e 14] is
DENIED.
ENTER: February 12, 2021
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge