Gill v. Scholz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

DAVID M. GILL, DAWN MOZINGO, )

DEBRA KUNKEL, LINDA R. GREEN, )

DON NECESSARY, and GREG PARSONS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:16-cv-03221-SLD-EIL

)

CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, IAN K. )

LINNABARY, WILLIAM J. CADIGAN, )

LAURA K. DONAHUE, WILLIAM R. )

HAINE, WILLIAM M. MCGUFFAGE, )

KATHERINE S. O’BRIEN, AND )

CASSANDRA B. WATSON,1 )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff David M. Gill aspired to represent the 13th Congressional District of Illinois in

the United States House of Representatives. To achieve that goal, he filed nominating petitions

to be an independent candidate in the November 2016 election. Although he collected more than

the required number of signatures, an objection was filed, and the Illinois State Officers Electoral

Board found that the number of valid signatures fell below the requirement. He brings suit,

alleging that certain provisions of Illinois’s election laws, individually and in combination with

the characteristics of the 13th Congressional District, violate the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. Before the Court is Defendants Charles W. Scholz, Ian K. Linnabary, William J.

Cadigan, Laura K. Donahue, William R. Haine, William M. McGuffage, Katherine S. O’Brien,

1 The members of the Illinois State Board of Elections (“ISBE”) are sued in their official capacities. See Compl. 1,

ECF No. 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the new members of the ISBE, Ian K. Linnabary,

Laura K. Donahue, William R. Haine, and Katherine S. O’Brien, are substituted for their predecessors, Andrew K.

Carruthers, Betty J. Coffrin, Ernest L. Gowen, and John R. Keith. See Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 1 n.1, ECF No.

58. The Clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly.

and Cassandra B. Watson’s renewed motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 58, and Gill and

fellow Plaintiffs Dawn Mozingo, Debra Kunkel, Linda R. Green, Don Necessary, and Greg

Parsons’s renewed cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 62. For the following reasons,

Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ renewed

cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND2

I. Factual Background

Gill is a resident of Bloomington, Illinois. In advance of the 2016 election, he filed

nominating petitions to be an independent candidate for a position representing the 13th

Congressional District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mozingo, Kunkel,

Green, Necessary, and Parsons are registered voters in the 13th Congressional District who

wished to vote for Gill in the election. They circulated and/or signed Gill’s petition. Scholz,

Linnabary, Cadigan, Donahue, Haine, McGuffage, O’Brien, and Watson are the current

members of the Illinois State Board of Elections (“ISBE”). When an objection to nomination

papers is filed, these same parties constitute the State Officers Electoral Board (“SOEB”).

For an independent candidate to appear on a ballot in Illinois, he must submit a total

number of signatures from registered voters in his district that equals or exceeds five percent of

the voters who voted in the most recent general election, 10 ILCS 5/10-33; all signatures must be

2 At summary judgment, a court must “constru[e] the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Payne v.

Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). Unless otherwise noted, the factual background of this case is drawn

from Defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 3–12; Plaintiffs’ response to

Defendants’ statement, Pls.’ Resp. Statement Material Facts 1–22, ECF No. 61-1; Plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed

material facts, Pls.’ Statement Undisputed Material Facts 1–17, ECF No. 62-1; Defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’

response and their response to Plaintiffs’ additional material and immaterial facts, Defs.’ Reply & Resp. to Mots.

Summ. J. 3–11, ECF No. 67; Plaintiffs’ reply to Defendants’ response, Pls.’ Reply to Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 69;

and exhibits to the filings.

3 For the first election following a redistricting of congressional districts, the number of signatures required shifts to

5,000. 10 ILCS 5/10-3. The five percent requirement applies in all other elections.

collected during the 90 days preceding the last day for filing the petition, 10 ILCS 5/10-4. At the

bottom of each sheet of the petition, the collector of the signatures must add a statement

certifying that the signatures were signed in his presence and are genuine; the statement must be

notarized by an officer authorized to administer oaths. Id.

Per the five percent requirement, Gill was required to collect and submit a minimum of

10,754 signatures from voters in the 13th Congressional District between March 29, 2016 and

June 27, 2016. On June 27, 2016, Gill filed petitions containing approximately 11,350

signatures; he had personally gathered nearly 5,000 signatures himself. Eighteen other petition

circulators worked with him to gather signatures.

Any legal voter of the relevant district may file an objection to the nominating papers of a

candidate within five business days of the last day for filing nominating papers; nominating

papers that are “in apparent conformity with the [signature requirements], shall be deemed to be

valid” unless such an objection is made. 10 ILCS 5/10-8. On July 5, 2016, Jerrold Stocks, a

voter in the 13th Congressional District, filed an objection to Gill’s nominating papers. After

reviewing the records and conducting administrative proceedings, the SOEB determined that

8,593 of the signatures submitted by Gill were valid. It revised that number to 8,491 after further

review. Because Gill had fewer than the 10,754 required to appear on the ballot, the SOEB

decided that his name would not be printed on the ballot for the November 2016 election.

II. Procedural History

Plaintiffs initiated this suit on August 2, 2016. Compl., ECF No. 1. They bring four

claims. In Count I, they allege that the notarization requirement, standing alone, violates the

First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially

and as applied to the 13th Congressional District. Id. at 7–12. In Counts II and III, they allege

that the five percent minimum signature requirement, standing alone, violates the First

Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as

applied. Id. at 12–18. In Count IV, they allege that cumulatively, the notarization requirement,

the five percent minimum signature requirement, the 90-day signature gathering period, and the

rural nature and splitting of population centers in the 13th Congressional District violate the First

Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV). Id. at

18–21. Plaintiffs request declaratory and injunctive relief, along with costs and expenses of the

suit. Id. at 11–12, 14, 18, 21.

After Plaintiffs filed their complaint, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,

Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 4, which Judge Sue E. Myerscough4 granted on August 25, 2016,

Aug. 25, 2016 Order, ECF No. 15. The preliminary injunction enjoined Defendants from

enforcing the signature requirement against Gill and, as such, “require[d] that Gill remain on the

ballot.” Id. at 26. Defendants appealed, Aug. 26, 2016 Not. Appeal, ECF No. 16, and the

Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction pending resolution of the appeal, Sept. 9, 2016 Order, ECF

No. 21. The Seventh Circuit subsequently mooted the appeal, as the election had already taken

place. Dec. 6, 2016 Order, ECF No. 24.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on July 26, 2018, Pls.’ First Mot. Summ.

J., ECF No. 41, and Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on August 20, 2018,

Defs.’ First Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 42. Judge Colin S. Bruce denied Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dec. 18, 2018

Order 1, ECF No. 47. He found that the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Tripp v. Scholz, 872 F.3d

4 Judge Myerscough was originally assigned to this case, but it was reassigned to Judge Colin S. Bruce on

November 8, 2018. See Nov. 8, 2018 Text Order. It was then reassigned to Judge Harold A. Baker, see Aug. 30,

2021 Text Order, before being finally reassigned to this Court, see Sept. 7, 2021 Text Order.

857 (7th Cir. 2017), was directly on point, and he resolved the summary judgment motions on

each count according to that decision. Id. at 8, 17–21. Plaintiffs appealed. Jan. 17, 2019 Not.

Appeal, ECF No. 49.

On June 18, 2020, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Bruce’s decision and remanded the

case. Gill v. Scholz, 962 F.3d 360, 361 (7th Cir. 2020). The court found that Judge Bruce had

“erred by automatically concluding that the holding in Tripp controls this case” instead of

applying the fact-based balancing test established by the Supreme Court in Anderson v.

Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). Gill, 962 F.3d at

365–66 (noting that “the facts in Tripp do not align with Gill’s challenge”). As such, it

remanded the case so the district court could carry out the test. Id. at 366–67.5 Defendants and

Plaintiffs have both filed renewed motions for summary judgment, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ.

J.; Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J.,6 which the Court will now resolve.

5 The Seventh Circuit held that, although the 2016 election had passed, “a justiciable controversy remained under the

‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine.” Gill, 962 F.3d at 363 n.3. “Under that well-recognized

exception to mootness, a claim still presents a justiciable controversy if (1) the challenged action is in its duration

too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same

complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The court found that

“[b]oth factors were met in this case: Gill was unable to litigate his claims before the November 2016 election was

held, and he has expressed his intent to run for office in 2020.” Id. For the same reasons, the Court finds that

Plaintiffs’ claims are not moot; Gill indicated as recently as March 2021 that he intends to run again as an

independent candidate for the House of Representatives in Illinois. See Gill Decl. ¶ 5, Pls.’ Reply Ex. A, ECF No.

69-1; see also Acevedo v. Cook Cnty. Officers Electoral Bd., 925 F.3d 944, 947–48 (7th Cir. 2019) (finding that

“[t]hough the election is over, [the candidate’s] claim is not moot because it is capable of repetition, yet evading

review”: the period prior to the previous election was too short to allow litigation of the action and the candidate

“has expressed his intention to run for office . . . again”); Lee v. Keith, 463 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding the

case to not be moot after the election was over because “[t]he statutes [the plaintiff candidate] challenges thwarted

his bid to appear on the ballot and continue to restrict potential independent candidacies for the Illinois General

Assembly”).

6 Defendants seek summary judgment on all four claims. Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 15–28. Plaintiffs appear to

reference only Count IV, regarding the cumulative effect of Illinois’s election regulations and the 13th

Congressional District’s geography. See Pls.’ Resp. Opp’n Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 11–24, ECF No. 61

(addressing only the regulations and other factors in combination); Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 10–18 (same).

Arguably, Plaintiffs have waived the issues in Counts I, II, and III. See Nichols v. Mich. City Plant Plan. Dep’t, 755

F.3d 594, 600 (“The nonmoving party waives any arguments that were not raised in response to the moving party’s

motion for summary judgment.”). The Court will nevertheless address Counts I, II, and III in full, as its analyses in

those sections will be relevant to its analysis as to Count IV. See, e.g., Tripp, 872 F.3d at 864–72 (examining the

challenged provisions individually before analyzing them in combination). The Court will, however, treat Plaintiffs’

motion as a motion for summary judgment on Count IV only.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(a). Where one party has properly moved for summary judgment, the nonmoving

party must respond “by identifying specific, admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine

dispute of material fact for trial.” Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017).

“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant’s] position will be

insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the

[nonmovant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Parties may not

merely refer to their own pleadings, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986), but must

instead “cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,

[and] . . . affidavits or declarations” or show “that the materials cited do not establish the absence

or presence of a genuine dispute,” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).7 The court is to “constru[e] the record

in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,” Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir.

2003), “resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of [the

nonmovant],” Grant, 870 F.3d at 568. However, the nonmovant “is not entitled to the benefit of

inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.” Nichols v. Mich. City Plant

Plan. Dep’t, 755 F.3d 594, 599 (7th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted).

“The ordinary standards for summary judgment remain unchanged on cross-motions for

summary judgment . . . .” Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2017). The court

simply “construe[s] all inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under

7 “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c)(3).

consideration is made.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 297 F.3d 558, 561–62 (7th Cir. 2002)

(quotation marks omitted).

II. Analysis

“It is well-settled that [t]he impact of candidate eligibility requirements on voters

implicates basic constitutional rights to associate politically with like-minded voters and to cast a

meaningful vote.” Stone v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs for City of Chi., 750 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir.

2014) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). However, “not all restrictions imposed

by the States . . . impose constitutionally-suspect burdens” on these rights. Anderson, 460 U.S.

at 788. “States may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and

ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related disorder.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New

Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997).

“[T]here is no litmus-paper test to separate valid from invalid restrictions.” Stone, 750

F.3d at 681 (quotation marks omitted). Rather, a court must conduct “a practical assessment of

the challenged scheme’s justifications and effects.” Acevedo v. Cook Cnty. Officers Election Bd.,

925 F.3d 944, 948 (7th Cir. 2019). Courts carry out this analysis using the Anderson-Burdick

balancing test, id., under which the court

must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights

protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to

vindicate. It must then identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by

the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule. In passing judgment,

the [c]ourt must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of those

interests; it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it

necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Only after weighting all these factors is

the reviewing court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is

unconstitutional.

Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. When the plaintiff’s rights “are subjected to severe restrictions, the

regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.”

Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (quotation marks omitted). “But when a state election law provision

imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions upon the First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights of voters, the State’s important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to

justify the restrictions.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has acknowledged

that deciding whether a provision is unconstitutional is “very much a matter of degree” and that

“[w]hat the result of this process will be in any specific case may be very difficult to predict with

great assurance.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (quotation marks omitted).8

a. Notarization Requirement, Individually (Count I)

The Court turns first to the question of whether the notarization requirement, standing

alone, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 10 ILCS 5/10-4 provides that

[a]t the bottom of each sheet of [a] petition [for nomination] shall be added a

circulator’s statement, . . . certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the

petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are

genuine; and either (1) indicating the dates on which that sheet was circulated, or

(2) indicating the first and last dates on which the sheet was circulated, or (3)

certifying that none of the signatures on the sheet were signed more than 90 days

preceding the last day for the filing of the petition; 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 . . . 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 statements shall be sworn to before

some officer authorized to administer oaths in this state.

8 Courts routinely cite Supreme Court cases predating Anderson and Burdick when addressing questions about the

constitutionality of state election laws, continuing to treat them as valid precedent. See, e.g., Libertarian Party of Ill.

v. Rednour, 108 F.3d 768, 773–75 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing to Anderson and Burdick along with a variety of Supreme

Court opinions predating those cases, including Storer). As the Sixth Circuit explained in Green Party of Tennessee

v. Hargett, 767 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2014):

[T]he Supreme Court has continued to treat [pre-Anderson and Burdick] cases as valid precedent.

[The court] understand[s] Anderson and Burdick to clarify the proper analysis a court should use

in evaluating an election-law claim, without calling into question the Supreme Court’s

determination[s] [in these earlier cases]. Furthermore, the Court’s older precedent is consistent

with Anderson and Burdick in acknowledging that the severity of a burden significantly influences

a court’s analysis.

Id. at 546 n.2 (citation omitted).

(emphasis added). In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that the notarization requirement “places a

severe burden” on the candidate and voters interested in seeing the candidate on the ballot

because “[n]otaries are not always available at times when circulators have an

opportunity to seek their services,” notarization often costs money, and repeat trips to the

notary might be necessary for circulators who gather more than a few sheets. Compl. 9.

They further assert that “no State interest . . . is served by this a priori notarization

requirement” because if an objection is filed, the SOEB has to compare the signatures on

the petition sheets to signatures obtained from various election authorities to determine

the signatures’ validity anyway. Id. at 8.

The Court finds that the notarization requirement, both facially9 and as applied, does not

pose a severe burden. First, Illinois does not strictly limit who can become a notary. See Notary

Public Application Checklist, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5, ECF No. 58-5 (noting that an

applicant must pay a $10 filing fee, obtain a $5,000 Illinois Notary Public Bond, provide a copy

of his driver’s license or state ID, and get his signature notarized by a current Notary Public);

Illinois Notary—Bonds and Insurance 1, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4, ECF No. 58-4

(indicating that a $5,000 Illinois Notary Public Bond can be purchased for $30.00). The situation

is therefore unlike that in Perez-Guzman v. Gracia, 346 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2003), in which the

First Circuit found Puerto Rico’s notarization requirement to pose a severe burden in part

because only licensed attorneys could become notaries, making the supply “inelastic.” Id. at

240. Indeed, there is nothing to stop one or several petition circulators for a candidate from

becoming a notary and notarizing the petition sheets. See Tripp v. Smart, Case No. 14-cv-0890-

9 A facial challenge “asserts that a statute is invalid on its face as written and authoritatively construed, when

measured against the applicable substantive constitutional doctrine, without reference to the facts or circumstances

of particular applications.” Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 698 (7th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).

MJR-PMF, 2016 WL 4379876, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2016), aff’d sub. nom. Tripp v. Scholz,

872 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding the Illinois notarization requirement to not pose a severe

burden because “the time and expense to become a notary in Illinois is not extreme” and so

“circulators could become notaries to ease things”).

Second, Plaintiffs do not argue or provide evidence that notarization is prohibitively

expensive or that a candidate is required to pay for notarization services, effectively constituting

a mandatory fee. Cf. Green Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 89 F. Supp. 3d 723, 743–44 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

(finding that a notarization requirement imposed a severe burden because of a mandatory

minimum fee of $5.00 per signature). Evidence regarding the cost of notarization or indicating

that such a cost dissuaded Plaintiffs from obtaining more signatures is absent from Plaintiffs’

briefing. See also Tripp, 2016 WL 4379876, at *5 (noting that many communities around the

country, including in Illinois, offer free notary services).

Third, Illinois requires one notary signature per page of a petition and does not set a

maximum number of voter signatures that can be contained on a page. See 10 ILCS 5/10-4.

This requirement is much less onerous than the one struck down in Perez-Guzman, which

required that each signature be notarized. See 346 F.3d at 239. Gill asserts that his standard

petition page contains spots for fifteen signatures. Gill Suppl. Aff. ¶ 15, Defs.’ Second Mot.

Summ. J. Ex. 8, ECF No. 58-8. With 10,754 signatures at fifteen per page, Gill would need

approximately 717 notarizations; if he modified his petition page to contain spots for twenty

signatures, he would need 538 notarizations. While certainly not easy, the Court does not

believe this to be so burdensome as to prevent Gill from accomplishing it—indeed, Gill does not

argue that he was unable to have each page of his petitions, containing nearly 11,350 signatures

in total, notarized. See Libertarian Party of Ky. v. Grimes, 835 F.3d 570, 574 (6th Cir. 2016)

(“The hallmark of a severe burden is exclusion or virtual exclusion from the ballot.”); see also

Tripp, 872 F.3d at 869 (“[A]lthough Illinois’s notarization requirement certainly imposes some

logistical burden on plaintiffs’ ballot access rights, it cannot be fairly characterized as

‘severe.’”).10

As the notarization requirement does not impose a severe burden, it need not be narrowly

drawn to advance a compelling state interest, Stone, 750 F.3d at 681; rather, it “need only be

justified by relevant and legitimate state interests sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation,”

Tripp, 872 F.3d at 869 (quotation marks omitted). Defendants assert that “[t]he notarization

requirement is an important antifraud measure that serves the vital state interest in maintaining

an honest election process.” Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 15. This is a legitimate interest

sufficient to justify the requirement. See, e.g., In re Armentrout, 457 N.E.2d 1262, 1267 (Ill.

1983) (detailing the harm caused by the forging of signatures on ballot petitions). “Notarization

ensures that circulators can be easily identified, questioned, and potentially prosecuted for

perjury.” Tripp, 872 F.3d at 869.11

Other federal courts evaluating similar requirements have come to the same conclusion.

See Richards v. Dayton, Civil No. 13-3029 (JRT/JSM), 2015 WL 1522199, at *16 n.17 (D.

Minn. Jan. 30, 2015) (collecting cases that “have upheld notarization requirements in the absence

of some evidence that the statute at issue is unusually burdensome”). For example, the Seventh

10 The Court also notes that the notarization requirement is not limited to independent candidates—candidates from

established parties must have each page of a petition notarized. See 10 ILCS 5/7-10.

11 Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the certification procedure contained in Illinois’s Code of Civil Procedure is

a better alternative to the notarization requirement. Compl. 8; see 735 ILCS 5/1-109 (providing that an individual

may certify in writing that the statements set forth in a document are true and correct “with the same force and effect

as though subscribed and sworn to under oath, and there is no further requirement that the pleading, affidavit, or

other document be sworn before an authorized person”). They do not make this argument in their briefing on the

instant motions. Regardless, because the notarization requirement does not impose a severe burden, it need not be

narrowly tailored, merely justified by a legitimate government interest. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434; see also Hall

v. Simcox, 766 F.2d 1171, 1174 (7th Cir. 1985) (“The courts may sometimes talk the language of least drastic means

but they only strike down ballot-access regulations that are unreasonable . . . .”).

Circuit found in Tripp that Illinois’s notarization requirement, as applied to the facts of that

particular case, did not violate the First Amendment, 872 F.3d at 866–70, and in American Party

of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974), the Supreme Court agreed with the district court that a

requirement that petition signatures be notarized was not “unusually burdensome” and that there

was “no alternative if the State was to be able to enforce its laws,” id. at 787.

The Court thus finds that Illinois’s notarization requirement, standing alone, does not

violate the First or Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

Count I.

b. Five Percent Requirement, Individually (Counts II and III)

The Court next considers the five percent requirement, standing alone. 10 ILCS 5/10-3

provides that

[n]ominations of independent candidates for public office within any district or

political subdivision less than the State, may be made by nomination papers

signed in the aggregate for each candidate by qualified voters of such district, or

political subdivision, equaling not less than 5%, nor more than 8% . . . of the

number of persons, who voted at the next preceding regular election in such

district or political subdivision in which such district or political subdivision

voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve its respective territorial area.

In Counts II and III of the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that this requirement, facially and as

applied to the 13th Congressional District, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Compl. 12–18. The theory underlying each count differs: in Count II, the focus is on the

geography of the district and its rural nature, which allegedly make it more difficult for

circulators to obtain signatures than in more compact and dense districts, id. at 12–14, while in

Count III, Plaintiffs assert that the five percent requirement is unconstitutional because

candidates from established parties need to obtain signatures from a lower percentage of prior

voters and because independent candidates for Senate need to obtain a proportionally lower

number of signatures compared to established-party candidates for Senate, unfairly imposing a

more severe burden on the independent candidates running for the House of Representatives, id.

at 14–18.

The Court first notes that many courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld state

election laws requiring certain candidates to obtain signatures from five percent of the entire

eligible voting base. See Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 433, 442 (1971) (upholding a

requirement that a candidate from an unestablished party obtain signatures from five percent of

the number of electors eligible to vote in the previous election to appear on the ballot); American

Party, 415 U.S. at 789 (requiring signatures that equal three percent or five percent of the vote is

not facially invalid); see also Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Rednour, 108 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir.

1997) (“In light of Jenness . . . and several other cases, the [plaintiff] cannot argue that the 5%

petitioning requirement is severe on its face.”). Moreover, the statute at hand limits the base to

voters who actually voted in previous elections, whereas in other cases approving similar

percentage rules, such as Jenness, “the base was all registered voters” and thus constitutes “a

larger base than actual voters in a particular election, as here.” Hall v. Simcox, 766 F.2d 1171,

1173–74 (7th Cir. 1985). While the Court must evaluate the facts of this case independently, it is

difficult, in the face of the repeated upholding of five percent requirements, to find that Illinois’s

five percent requirement here facially violates the Constitution.

The Court also does not find that limiting the five percent requirement to independent

candidates (and those from unestablished parties) without requiring established-party candidates

to do the same constitutes “invidious discrimination.” Jenness, 403 U.S. at 441. The Supreme

Court has held that “[t]here is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary

showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political

organization’s candidate on the ballot—the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception,

and even frustration of the democratic process at the general election.” Id. at 442. An

established party in Illinois must continually demonstrate such a “modicum of support,” id.—to

remain established, it must continually receive more than five percent of the entire vote cast for

Governor of Illinois, or, if it did not nominate a candidate for Governor, then it must continue to

receive more than five percent of all the votes cast for offices for which it nominated candidates

within a particular district or subdivision to remain an established party within that district or

subdivision. 10 ILCS 5/10-2. Moreover, an established-party candidate must obtain at least

5,000 signatures to appear as a delegate to a national nominating convention for a statewide

office, or at least 0.5% of the qualified primary electors of his party for congressional office. 10

ILCS 5/7-10.

Independent candidates, however, may appear on the ballot in the general election solely

by collecting the requisite number of signatures, and thus they need not continually demonstrate

community support, like established parties must do, or win a primary like candidates seeking to

represent established parties. See Jenness, 403 U.S. at 440 (finding that “the premise that it is

inherently more burdensome for a candidate to gather the signatures of 5% of the total eligible

electorate than it is to win the votes of a majority in a party primary . . . . cannot be uncritically

accepted” (footnote omitted)). With such vastly different requirements, “[c]omparing the

petitioning requirement for an ‘established’ party’s candidate in a primary election and a ‘new’

party’s [or an independent] candidate in a general election” is akin to “compar[ing] apples with

oranges.” See Rednour, 108 F.3d at 771, 776 (noting that in Illinois, candidates from

unestablished parties and independent candidates “must satisfy nearly identical nominating

requirements to appear on the general election ballot”); see also American Party, 415 U.S. at

782–83 (finding that since established parties must continuously demonstrate support from the

community in each election to maintain that status, “whereas the smaller parties need not, the

latter, without being invidiously treated, may be required to establish their position in some other

manner”); Jenness, 403 U.S. at 441–42 (acknowledging that “there are obvious differences in

kind between the needs and potentials of a political party with historically established broad

support, on the one hand, and a new or small political organization on the other” and finding that

the State was not “guilty of invidious discrimination in recognizing these differences and

providing different routes to the printed ballot”).12

As far as the difference between the number of signatures an independent candidate for

Senate must collect compared to an independent candidate for the House of Representatives,

neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit, in cases involving the differences between

petitions for Senate and House candidates, have expressed a general opposition to lack of

proportional equality between these two different races. In Illinois State Board of Elections v.

Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (1979), the Supreme Court addressed the objection of the

Socialist Workers Party, an unestablished party, to the requirement that statewide candidates had

to obtain 25,000 signatures but candidates for political subdivisions had to follow the five

percent requirement because it had resulted in a situation where a candidate for the subdivision

in Chicago needed more than 25,000 signatures—a greater number than a candidate for Senate, a

12 In 2008, the Seventh Circuit addressed a challenge to Illinois’s different signature requirements for years

following redistricting and years not following redistricting. In Stevo v. Keith, 546 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2008), the

plaintiff argued that the 5,000 signature requirement in years following a redistricting and the five percent

requirement in years not following a redistricting constituted disparate treatment. Id. at 407. The Seventh Circuit

rejected this argument, stating that redistricting can be “disorienting,” as “[c]andidates and voters alike must adjust

to the new political landscape,” and that therefore “[i]t is plausible that it would be more difficult for candidates to

obtain signatures in such circumstances, and so the required number is reduced” to 5,000. Id. at 408. It found that

the plaintiff’s proposal for making 5,000 the requirement for every election would be “as or more arbitrary”—“at

best [arguments in favor of a universal flat number] make[] the choice between number and percentage a standoff; it

does not justify invalidating the percentage approach.” Id.

statewide office. Id. at 175–77. Because the ISBE “advanced no reason . . . why the State needs

a more stringent requirement for Chicago” than for statewide elections, the Court held that “the

Illinois Election Code is unconstitutional insofar as it requires independent candidates and new

political parties to obtain more than 25,000 signatures in Chicago.” Id. at 186. The Seventh

Circuit addressed this case in Bowe v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago,

614 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1980), and disagreed with Bowe’s position that Socialist Workers Party

“stands for the broad proposition that a state may never impose a higher signature requirement

for an office of a smaller subdivision than the requirement imposed for any office of a larger

subdivision.” Id. at 1151. Thus, there is no obligation that the proportions between Senate and

House signature requirements remain the same from district to district, lest they be considered

invidious discrimination.

The Court turns next to the application of the five percent requirement, standing alone, to

the 13th Congressional District. While, as noted above, the percentage is relevant to whether the

requirement constitutes a severe burden, “to assess realistically whether the law imposes

excessively burdensome requirements upon independent candidates it is necessary to know other

critical facts,” in particular the actual number of signatures that needs to be obtained to achieve

that percentage. See Storer, 415 U.S. at 739. Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that, to appear on

the ballot in 2016, Gill needed to obtain 10,754 valid signatures. Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J.

4–5; Pls.’ Resp. Statement Material Facts 3, ECF No. 61-1.

The Court does not find that the requirement that Gill obtain 10,754 signatures, standing

alone, imposed a severe burden on him such that no reasonably diligent candidate could be

expected to achieve this number. See Stone, 750 F.3d at 682 (“What is ultimately important is

not the absolute or relative number of signatures required but whether a reasonably diligent

candidate could be expected to be able to meet the requirements and gain a place on the ballot.”

(quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiffs’ own expert, Richard Winger, testified that there have

been other independent and new party House of Representatives candidates who have collected

around this number of signatures. See Winger Dep. 28:7, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 9,

ECF No. 58-9 (Wendall Fant collected 16,292 signatures); id. (Franzier Reams collected 12,919

signatures); id. at 28:8 (Jack Gargan collected 12,141 signatures); id. at 28:18–19 (H. Douglas

Lassiter collected more than 8,593 signatures); id. at 37:17–18 (Cindy Sheehan collected 10,198

signatures); id. at 37:19–20 (Steve Kelly collected 10,186 signatures); id. at 38:6 (Stephen

Wheeler collected 10,191 signatures); id. at 38:12 (David Golding collected 9,803 signatures);

id. at 38:13 (Samuel Grove collected 9,100 signatures); id. at 38:16–17 (John Hager collected

9,758 signatures).13

In light of the fact that other House candidates across the country have obtained more

than 10,754 signatures or nearly that amount, it does not strike the Court that no reasonably

diligent candidate could collect this number of signatures. Gill himself came fairly close: he and

his circulators obtained nearly 11,350 signatures, 5,000 of which Gill himself collected. Gill

Suppl. Aff. ¶ 3. Although only 8,491 of these were ultimately deemed valid, Defs.’ Second Mot.

Summ. J. 5; Pls.’ Resp. Statement Material Facts 4, with a few more diligent petition circulators,

it is reasonable that he could have collected enough to satisfy the five percent requirement, even

accounting for a cushion in case of invalidations, see Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 859–60

(7th Cir. 2000) (“In reality a candidate needs a surplus of signatures, because they will likely be

challenged on any number of grounds, resulting in some, perhaps many, invalidations.”); see

13 As a reminder, at this point the Court is addressing only the issue of whether the five percent requirement,

standing alone, violates the Constitution. It will address whether the five percent requirement cumulatively with

other factors present in the 13th Congressional District violates the Constitution, including whether a reasonably

diligent candidate could succeed under those conditions, in the following section. See infra Section II(c).

also McDonald v. Cook Cnty. Officers’ Electoral Bd., No. 18 C 1277, 2018 WL 1334931, at *6

(N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2018) (stating that “what is relevant about [the plaintiff candidate’s] efforts is

how many signatures she obtained and how close she was to being placed on the ballot”). While

this would require perhaps more than the eighteen petition circulators he already had, it is well

recognized that “[h]ard work and sacrifice by dedicated volunteers are the lifeblood of any

political organization.” See American Party, 415 U.S. at 787. Moreover, the Illinois Election

Code allows candidates to hire paid circulators to gather petition signatures on their behalf, 10

ILCS 5/10-4, even if, as Winger argues, this may be harder than it seems because paid petition

circulators may not circulate petitions for both independent candidates and candidates from

established parties, see Winger Dep. 41:9–13 (“It is tough for independent candidates to hire paid

circulators because the odds are high that many of them will have already worked on a primary

petition and then they aren’t available to work on the independent’s petition.”); see 10 ILCS

5/10-4 (“[N]o person shall circulate or certify petitions for candidates of more than one political

party, or for an independent candidate or candidates in addition to one political party . . . .”).

Having found that the five percent requirement, standing alone, does not impose a severe

burden on Plaintiffs’ rights, the Court now looks to whether Illinois has a legitimate justification

for the requirement. See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. Defendants point to the need for States to

ensure that independent candidates “have some modicum of support before gaining ballot

access,” as “ballots are finite in size and elections are complicated and expensive to run,” and

assert that “[p]etition signature requirements are the main way to demonstrate this modicum of

support.” Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 20. A State’s interest in ensuring that its elections are

orderly—which includes making sure ballots are not overcrowded so that voters are not

confused—is well recognized by courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. See, e.g.,

Timmons, 520 U.S. at 366–67 (“States also have a strong interest in the stability of their political

systems . . . . [which] permits them to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice,

favor the traditional two-party system, and that temper the destabilizing effects of party

splintering and excessive factionalism.” (citations and footnote omitted)); Munro v. Socialist

Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193 (1986) (“It is now clear that States may condition access to the

general election ballot by a minor-party or independent candidate upon a showing of a modicum

of support among the potential voters for the office.”); Rednour, 108 F.3d at 776 (“[I]t is neither

irrational nor unfair to require a candidate from a new party [or an independent candidate] to

obtain a greater percentage of petition signatures to appear on the general election ballot than a

candidate from an established party for the primary election ballot” because the “new party [or

independent candidate] has not yet demonstrated a significant modicum of support[.]”). And the

Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not “require[] a State to make a particularized

showing of the existence of voter confusion, ballot overcrowding, or the presence of frivolous

candidacies prior to the imposition of reasonable restrictions on ballot access.” Munro, 479 U.S.

at 194–95. The Court finds that Defendants have presented a legitimate reason sufficient to

justify the five percent requirement.

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Counts II and III.

c. Cumulative Requirements (Count IV)14

Finally, the Court will address whether the challenged provisions, in combination and

along with the geographical characteristics of the 13th Congressional District, violate the

Constitution. Along with the notarization requirement, 10 ILCS 5/10-4, and the five percent

14 Plaintiffs argue that as Defendants “offer[] no defense against [Plaintiffs’] central claim that the challenged

provisions are unconstitutional as applied in combination, [they are] not entitled to summary judgment as to that

claim.” Pls.’ Resp. Opp’n Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 13. However, Defendants do address the provisions in

combination in their briefing and thus have not waived the issue. See Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 27–28.

requirement, 10 ILCS 5/10-3, Illinois’s election law provides that “no petition sheet shall be

circulated more than 90 days preceding the last day . . . for the filing of such petition, 10 ILCS

5/10-4. In Count IV, Plaintiffs allege that these requirements, plus the “splitting of population

centers” in the 13th Congressional District, cumulatively “constitute a regimen or scheme

imposed on . . . Plaintiffs by the Defendants to unconstitutionally limit ballot access to only two

established political parties.” Compl. 19.

The 13th Congressional District comprises over 5,793 square miles. Defs.’ Second Mot.

Summ. J. 9–10; Pls.’ Resp. Statement Material Facts 19–20. It includes the entire cities of

Champaign, Urbana, and Decatur and substantial portions of Springfield, Bloomington, Normal,

Edwardsville, Glen Carbon, and Collinsville. Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 9–10; Pls.’ Resp.

Statement Material Facts 19–20. As of 2020, it had a population density of 123.0 persons per

square mile. Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 9; Pls.’ Resp. Statement Material Facts 19.

Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he undisputed facts demonstrate that Gill was more diligent in his

effort to qualify for Illinois’s ballot than 99.9 percent of all congressional candidates in

American history” and “[t]hat he nonetheless fell short is, by itself, powerful evidence that the

challenged provisions are unconstitutionally burdensome.” Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 10.

They add that “the record is also replete with facts demonstrating that the challenged provisions

are severely burdensome by every other relevant metric.” Id. at 10–11.

As discussed above, the Court does not find that the five percent requirement, here

requiring 10,754 signatures, is severely burdensome. See supra Section II(b). While collecting

that number of signatures in 90 days is more challenging than collecting them in an unlimited

amount of time, the Court does not find that it is so onerous as to pose a severe burden on

Plaintiffs’ rights. Even assuming Gill needed to collect 15,000 signatures to allow him a cushion

in case of objections, see Winger Dep. 50:9–11 (recommending that candidates collect “at least

50 percent more raw signatures than the legal requirement”), if he engaged five more petition

circulators who collected an average of eight signatures per day, he would reach that amount.

See Gill Suppl. Aff. ¶¶ 3, 4 (noting that Gill and his eighteen petition circulators collected

approximately 11,350 signatures). Gill himself averaged approximately fifty-six signatures per

day. See id. ¶ 3. This does not seem unreasonable to the Court. See Stone, 750 F.3d at 684

(“Ninety days does not strike [the court] as an excessively short time to gather 12,500

signatures.”); see also Jenness, 403 U.S. at 433 (addressing a requirement that a candidate collect

signatures totaling five percent of registered voters in 180 days).

Moreover, while collecting signatures in a larger and more sparsely populated district

such as the 13th Congressional District15 may require travelling greater distances than in a

smaller and denser district, the latter poses its own challenges, such as heavy traffic. It is

difficult to pronounce for certain which is the more difficult task. And while much of the 13th

District is rural, several large cities also are present, either fully or partially, within its

boundaries. Plaintiffs assert that “[t]he division of cities and counties created confusion, errors,

and impediments to collecting signatures and substantial loss of signature gathering opportunities

at public events,” Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 5, but petition circulators could remedy much of

the confusion by using clearly marked maps to ascertain whether an address is in-bounds.

Arguably, keeping track of district boundaries would be more onerous in small, densely

populated districts such as those in Chicago, where boundaries would be much closer together.

15 The 13th Congressional District of Illinois is far from the largest, most rural district in the country. The entire

state of Montana, for example, is a single congressional district, but one candidate, Steve Kelly, still managed to

collect 10,186 signatures in 1994. See Winger Dep. 37:19–38:3.

Finally, the Court does not find that the notarization requirement pushes the cumulative

burden over the edge. As discussed above, see supra Section II(a), Illinois’s limitations on who

can become a notary are not severe, and the Court finds the requirement that every page be

notarized to be reasonable. Petition circulators in the 13th Congressional District could get an

entire stack of petition pages notarized at the same time or could even become notaries

themselves, which would make the additional burden minimal.

Plaintiffs’ main argument in support of their contention that the combined provisions

impose a severe burden is that “the challenged provisions have completely excluded independent

congressional candidates from Illinois’s ballot since 1974.” Pls.’ Second Mot Sum. J. 1216; see

Storer, 415 U.S. at 742 (“Past experience will be a helpful, if not always an unerring, guide . . .

.”). In support, Plaintiffs point to evidence provided by Winger, their expert. See Pls.’ Statement

Undisputed Material Facts 7–10. However, Plaintiffs ignore that independent candidates may

appear on the ballot, even if they have not submitted the required number of signatures, if no one

objects to their nominating petitions. See Winger Dep. 24:25–25:2 (“Illinois is the only state that

will allow a petitioning candidate to get on the ballot even though he or she has not met the legal

requirement.”).17 Winger only states that no candidate other than H. Douglas Lassiter in 1974

16 Plaintiffs note that they do not include in this analysis candidates during elections following a reapportionment,

when only 5,000 signatures are required to appear on the ballot. Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 12. In 2012, which

followed a reapportionment, independent candidate John Hartman collected more than 5,000 signatures and

appeared on the ballot for the 13th Congressional District. Menzel Aff. ¶¶ 9–11, Defs.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex.

7, ECF No. 58-7. And that same year, Paula Bradshaw appeared on the ballot as a Green Party candidate for the

12th Congressional District after submitting 571 notarized sheets containing up to 10 signatures per sheet. Winger

Dep. 33:6–34:8.

17 In 2018, the ISBE created a new policy that even where no objection was filed to nominating petitions, petitions

with fewer than ten percent of the legal requirement would be invalidated. State of Illinois Candidate’s Guide

Preface, Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 8, ECF No. 62-9 (“Effective with the 2018 primary election and continuing

thereafter, the [ISBE] will implement a limited ‘apparent conformity’ review of all nominating petitions filed with

it” which “will be limited to determining the following: (1) whether a signed Statement of Candidacy has been filed,

and (2) whether the filed nominating sheets contain gross signatures equal to or exceeding 10% of the minimum

number of signatures required for the office sought.”). This does not change the Court’s analysis. If that

requirement had been present in 2016, an unobjected-to candidate would have needed to present 1,075 signatures,

which, as discussed above, would have been easily satisfied by Gill and other candidates, for example, Bill

“has ever overcome a general election signature requirement of 8,593 or more in Illinois” and

clarifies that his use of “overcome” indicates candidates whose nominating petitions were

objected to. Winger Aff. ¶¶ 10, 12, Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4, ECF No. 62-5 (emphasis

added). He testified in his deposition that he “d[id not] know” if there had “been candidates who

did not overcome an objection who nevertheless submitted signatures in excess of 8,593.”

Winger Dep. 28:21–24. Further, he testified that “there [were] quite a few” independent or new

party candidates “in recent years running for Congress who did get on the ballot,” although he

did not know how many signatures each collected. Id. at 29:16–30:22. He pointed to one

candidate, Bill Scheurer, who appeared on the ballot in 2006 after submitting over 5,000

signatures (his petition was not objected to). Id. at 31:1–32:9.

From these undisputed facts, it is clear that, while there may not have been a candidate

who overcame an objection that presented more than 8,593 valid signatures since Lassiter, there

have been several independent or new party candidates for the House of Representatives in

Illinois appearing on the ballot in the meantime. This undermines Plaintiffs’ argument that

Illinois’s ballot restrictions have had a “stifling effect . . . on independent candidates for

Congress.” See Pls.’ Second Mot. Summ. J. 11. While the Court believes a reasonably diligent

candidate in the 13th Congressional District could collect 10,754 valid signatures, even if some

candidates could not, that Illinois allows unobjected-to independent candidates to appear on the

ballot—and that several have—makes it clear that Illinois’s election laws “in no way freeze[] the

status quo, but implicitly recognize[] the potential fluidity of American political life.” See

Jenness, 403 U.S. at 439.

Scheurer, who appeared on the 2006 ballot after no objection was filed to his nominating petitions, which contained

5,000 signatures, see Winger Dep. 31:1–32:9.

Moreover, Plaintiffs do not provide evidence that any candidate other than Gill attempted

to collect the required number of signatures but was subsequently excluded from the ballot.

Evidence that many candidates had tried and failed to access the ballot was important for the

court in Graveline v. Benson, 992 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2021), in which the Sixth Circuit found that

Michigan’s cumulative ballot restrictions were unconstitutional in part because of the extensive

evidence that candidates had actually attempted to satisfy the requirement but had fallen short.

Id. at 539–40. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of showing that the cumulative

barriers to ballot entry in Illinois are severely burdensome.

Thus, Illinois need only have a legitimate interest in its regulations, which, as discussed

extensively above, see supra Sections II(a), (b), it does. See also Stone, 750 F.3d at 685 (finding

that “[t]here [wa]s no question that” the relevant signature requirement “and accompanying

rules,” which included a 90-day limitation on collecting signatures, “serve the important,

interrelated goals of preventing voter confusion, blocking frivolous candidates from the ballot,

and otherwise protecting the integrity of elections” ( quotation marks omitted)).

Gill undoubtedly worked hard to collect signatures, managing to collect nearly 11,350.

Unfortunately for him, enough of these were deemed invalid that he fell below the amount

required to withstand an objection to his nominating papers. But simply because Gill was unable

to get on the ballot does not mean that no reasonably diligent candidate could, and his failure to

do so does not invalidate Illinois’s regulations. The Court finds that Illinois’s election

provisions, cumulatively and in combination with the geographical features of the 13th

Congressional District, do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants’

motion for summary judgment as to Count IV is granted, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Charles W. Scholz, Ian K. Linnabary, William J.

Cadigan, Laura K. Donahue, William R. Haine, William M. McGuffage, Katherine S. O’Brien,

and Cassandra B. Watson’s renewed motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 58, is GRANTED,

and Plaintiffs David M. Gill, Dawn Mozingo, Debra Kunkel, Linda R. Green, Don Necessary,

and Greg Parsons’s renewed motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 62, is DENIED. The

Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Entered this 31st day of March, 2022.

s/ Sara Darrow

SARA DARROW

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE