# Opposition Brief — Citizens for Moore Party v. Board of Election Commissioners

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0161%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1989
- **Citation:** 488 U.S. 1029

## Text

Ocroser Term, 1988 { SeERK

ee

CITIZENS FOR JOHN W. MOORE PARTY,
JOHN W. MOORE, and WILLIE ANDERSON,

Petitioners,
v.

BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al,

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United
States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

NEIL F. HARTIGAN
Attorney General, State of Illinois

MICHAEL J. HAYES
Deputy Attorney General

ROBERT J. RUIZ
Solicitor General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 917-3312
Attorneys for Illinois State
Board of Elections

Rosatyn B. Kapran *
Bret A. Rappaport
Assistant Attorneys General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 917-3698
Of Counsel * Counsel of Record

Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois (P.O. 34318—55—12-19-88)

é

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether this case is moot, where the 1982 election
has been concluded; where petitioner Moore subsequently
abandoned his independent political party and ran in a
1984 primary election as a candidate for the Democratic
party; and where, in the last three general elections, no
similar factual scenario involving either petitioner Moore
or any other candidate has ever recurred.

2. Whether section 10-4 of the Illinois Election Code
violates a candidate’s right to free speech when it pro-
hibits him from circulating his own election petitions as
a candidate of a new political party because he has, in
the same election season, already circulated his own peti-
tions to run in the primary election of a different political
party.

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................. i
TABLE OF AUTRES GMS cs ccccscescuinvs iil

REASONS WHY THE PETITION
SMOULG) Es ERROR so 64s cusuedsednavans 2

THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BE-
CAUSE THE CONTROVERSY IS MOOT ... 2

Il.

THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY ANA-
LYZED SECTION 10-4 AS “SIMPLY A LESS
RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO A PER-
MISSIBLE SORE LOSER STATUTE” RATHER
THAN AS AN ATTEMPT BY THE STATE TO
IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIMITA-
TION ON A CIRCULATOR’S FREEDOM OF
SPEBCM 2. .0ssc0nks ee ane eee seen eee 6

CONCLUSION ....si.0
: ¥ s ‘ e |
| : : ' \ '
| ag $ { ;
C ; wy 2% 4 : , |
4 r: v : - Z aN s ne
ah ‘
x | ) :
’ ‘ : , | )
| ; 5 - . + .
7 4 ‘ , Se
3 3 | |
| 3 A
» . - | : 3 | |
! f 5 . ?
| | 5; . - te, .
= se » . / t.
+ vad "~~ : Sl “f ‘ wy : ag f . '
° ‘
? ed i ; | |
- | :
| ¥ %
- az ~
| |
ms | | |
< S . : : : : | |
‘ : :
‘ f ;
: ‘ |
_-. ’ ; |
: °
-
, | 5 e st
3 i #3
. é i : |
~ "" » | :
4
- pe , |
‘ e
oe

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0161%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.