Petition — State Board of Elections of Illinois v. Communist Party of Illinois

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

tm THE sacl 95 1975

Supreme Court of the dakesicex |

Octosea Term, 1975 _

“85-474 |

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS, and MICHAEL L. LAVELLE, DON-

ALD W. ADAMS, FRANKLIN W. LUNDING JR. and

WILLIAM L. HARRIS, individually and as members

of the State Board of Elections,

Petitioners,

vs.

COMMUNIST PARTY OF ILLINOIS, ISHMAEL

FLORY, LORRAINE ASHBY, JOHN LUMPKIN,

' JAY SCHAFFNER, VALERIE WITZKOWSKIT; and

THEODORE PEARSON, individually and on behalf

of others similarly situated,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM J. SCOTT,

Attorney General of Illinois,

160 North LaSalle,

Chicago, Illinois,

Attorney for Petitioners.

Herpert Lee CapLan,

Assistant Attorney General,

312/793-3587

Of Counsel.

SALE, OS ATG EERO CLES RT. oN ce Se coe

Printed by Authority of the State of Lilinois <> vor

INDEX

PaGE

Opinion Below ........--s+seereeerersesesererrtts 2

Jurindiction ......--cs-cccccececcccccsecccoccscees 2

Questions Presented ....... oh Lis Nea ameeNene a8 2

Statute Involved ........---eeeeecereerrerteeeecee 3

Statement of the Case ......-----eeceeeerrerterteee 6

Reasons for Granting the Writ ....------++-sereeeee 8

Th: decision below is unsupported by evidence in

the record and misconstrues the reach of Supreme

Court Decisions.

The decision below involves important questions

of federal law which have not been but should be de-

cided by this Court.

Conclusion .......ceececcccccrcccccccessccsccseses 20

Certificate of Service ........+eeceeeerereeseeerees 22

Appendix:

A. Opinion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Al

B. Opinion and Order of the District Court ...... Bl

C. Opinion of Earlier Related Three Judge Court.. Cl

D. Summary of Vote in November 5, 1974 General

Wlection .....cc ccc ccc scc cece ccvcccscenceses D1

E. Summary of Vote in November 7, 1972 General

Wea... occ cc ccc cesccccsssoseucnecesesees El

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 183, 186, 91 S. Ct. 1904,

1907 (1971) .....2cscercceesececencecseeceseneees 13

ii.

American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 781-

782, 94 S. Ct. 1296, 1306 (1974) ................... 13

Baird v. Davoren, 346 F. Supp. 515 (Mass. 1972) .... ll

See Buckley v. Valeo, —— Fed. 2nd ——, (D.C.C.

Ses Ge BOT BD cv dn cevncdcdnkaveabbnn kde 18

Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Princess

Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179, 89 S. Ct. 347, 350, 351

( ASesedkshspaataceavencidkecisic tee 12

Communist Party v. Austin, 362 F. Supp. 27, 30 (E.D.

Ws ND ondcaeccrceett cL Ue ee. 13

Communist Party v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 105 (N.D.

Se MS éxksubckskdcedenkiscGc suet 11

Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 117, 87 S. Ct. 1554, 1556

SEND Ssus0 deeeekgnsecusd enamine 16

Gaffney v. Cummins, 412 U.S. 735, 93 S. Ct. 2321, 2325,

Se ee CED osicbatelikcecstlcn oS 13

Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 481, 442, 91 S. Ct. 1970,

OME EEE ninedidedstGceideruuy sie eee 18

MacDougall v. Green, 80 F. Supp. 725, aff’d. 335 U.S.

281, 285, 286, 69 S. Ct. 1 (1948) ................. 9

Moore v. Ogilvie, 293 F. Supp. 411, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S.

CR, BE MOD so av hcneectvastechsns 9,10, 11, 12, 16, 20

Reynolds v. Sims, 300 U.S. 533, 578, 84 S. Ct. 1362,

RI NI Pe ae ae et a 13

Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F. Supp. 1262,

1269 (S.D. Ohio 1970), app. dis. 406 U.S. 583, 588, 92

OS. TR, SP CO. kkc. ic ete cs... <. 11, 14

Socialist Workers Party v. Hare, 304 F. Supp. 534

Se OE bcc ihc nie Wires Ce te 11

Socialist Workers Party y. Rockefeller, 314 F. Supp.

EO UNS SEE 6b dowkdiess cat enn cc ue 11, 17

1ii.

Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. I.C.C., 219 U.S. 498,

es ee ee es I Ee CED ov vreb uc kdeeuctusvouces 12

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730-731, 94 S. Ct. 1274,

| SRS Sa Sap ee ee eee 12, 17

U.S. v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633, 73 S.

rs I Ie Wicca h iaaecnse acute eases 12

Zautra v. Miller, 384 F. Supp. 847, 850 (D. Utah, 1972) 18

STATUTES:

Federal

~ Title 26, U.S.C. § 9083 (b) (3) .....ccccecceececees 18

State

Ill. Rev. Stat. 1957, Chap. 46, 10-2 ................. 9

Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, Chap. 46, § 10-2 ...3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

™N THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Term, 1975

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS, and MICHAEL L. LAVELLE, DON-

ALD W. ADAMS, FRANKLIN W. LUNDING JR. and

WILLIAM L. HARRIS, individually and as members

of the State Board of Elections,

Petitioners,

vs.

COMMUNIST PARTY OF ILLINOIS, ISHMAEL

FLORY, LORRAINE ASHBY, JOHN LUMPKIN,

JAY SCHAFFNER, VALERIE WITZKOWSKI; and

THEODORE PEARSON, individually and on behalf

of others similarly situated,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

The State Board of Elections for the State of Illinois, and

Michael E. Lavelle, Donald W. Adams, Franklin J. Lund-

ing, Jr. and William L. Harris, individually and as mem-

bers of the State Board of Elections, respectfully pray that

a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment and

opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit entered on June 27, 1975.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported at 518

F’, 2d 517 and is included herein as Appendix A. The opinion

and order of the United States District Court for the North-

ern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is not reported

and is included herein as Appendix B. An earlier related

interlocutory opinion is reported at 357 F. Supp. 105 and

is included herein as Appendix C.

JURISDICTION

The judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit was entered on June 27, 1975. The jur-

isdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28 U.S.C.

§ 1254(1).

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether a State may require a new political party seek-

ing statewide ballot position to organize in more than one

concentrated geographical area.

STATUTE INVOLVED

Illin vis Election Code, Seetion 10-2;

Ill. Rev. Stats. 1973, Chap. 46, § 10-2.

sé

A political party which, at the last general election

for State and county officers, polled for its candidate

for Governor more than 5% of the entire vote cast

for Governor, is hereby declared to be an ‘‘established

political party’’ as to the State and as to any district

or political subdivision thereof.

A political party which, at the last election in any

congressional district, legislative district, county, town-

ship, school district, park district, municipality or other

district or political subdivision of the State, polled more

than 5% of the entire vote cast within such congres-

sional district, legislative district, county, township,

school district, park district, municipality, or political

subdivision of the State, where such district, political

subdivision or municipality, as the case may be, has

voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve the

respective territorial area of such district, political

subdivision or municipality, is hereby declared to be

an ‘‘established political party’’ within the meaning of

this Article as to such district, political subdivision or

municipality.

Any group of persons hereafter desiring to form a

new political party throughout the State, or in any poli-

tical subdivision greater than a county and less than

the State, shall file with the State Board of Elections

a petition, as hereinafter provided; and any such

group of persons hereafter desiring to form a new

political party, in any county shall file such petition

with the county clerk; and any such group of persons

hereafter desiring to form a new political party in any

municipality or district less than a county shall file

such petition with the clerk or Board of Election Com-

missioners of such municipality or district, as the case

may be. Any such petition for the formation of a new

political party throughout the State, or in any such

district or political subdivision, as the case may be,

shall declare as concisely as may be the intention of the

signers thereof to form such new political party in the

State, or in such district or political subdivision; shall

state in not more than 5 words the name of such new

political party; shall contain a complete list of candi-

dates of such party for all offices to be filled in the

State, or such district or political subdivision as the

case may be, at the next ensuing election then to be

held; and, if such new political party shall be formed

for the entire State, shall be signed by not less than

25,000 qualified voters: Provided, that no more than

13,000 signatures from the same county may be counted

toward the required total of 25,000 signatures. If such

new political party shall be formed for any district or

political subdivision less than the entire State, such

petition shall be signed by qualified voters equaling in

number not less than 5% of the number of voters who

voted at the next preceding general election in such dis-

trict 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.

The filing of such petition shall constitute the politi-

cai group a new political party, for the purpose only

of placing upon the ballot at such ensuing election such

list of party candidates for offices to be voted for

throughout the State, or for offices to be voted for in

such district or political subdivision less than the State,

as the case may be, under the name of and as the can-

didates of such new political party.

If, at such ensuing election, the new political .

candidate for Governor shal] mcr thy sans hon 3%

of the entire votes cast for Governor, then such new

political party shall become an ‘‘established political

party’’ as to the State and as to every district or poli-

tical subdivision thereof. If, at such ensuing election,

the other candidates of the new po’itical party, or any

other candidate or candidates of the new politicai par-

ty shall receive more than 5% of all the votes cast for

the office or offices for which they were candidates

at such election, in the State, or in any district or poli-

tical subdivision of the State, as the case may be, then

and in that event, such new political party shall be-

come an ‘‘established political party’’ within the State

or within such district or political subdivision less than

the State, as the case may be, in which such cand'date

or candidates received more than 5% of the votes cast

for the office or offices for which they were candidates.

It shall thereafter nominate its candidates for public

offices to be filled in the State, or such district or poli-

tical subdivision of the State, as the case may be, under

the provisions of the laws regulating the nomination

of candidates of established political parties at primary

elections and political party conventions, as now or

hereafter in force.

A political party which continues to receive for its

candidate for Governor more than 5% of the entire

vote cast for Governor, shall remain an ‘‘established

political party’’ as to the State and as to every district

or political subdivision thereof. But if the political

party’s candidate for Governor fails to receive more

than 5% of the entire vote cast for Governor, or if the

political party does not nominate a candidate for Gov-

ernor, the political party shall remain an ‘‘established

political party’’ within the State or within such dis-

trict or political subdivision less than the State, as the

case may be, only so long as, and only in those districts

or political subdivisions in which, the candidates of

that political party, or any candidate or candidates of

that political party, continue to receive more than 5%

of all the votes cast for the office or offices for which

they were candidates at succeeding general elections

within the State or within any district or political sub-

division of the State, as the case may be.”’ : ;

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Communist Party of TMinois is an unincorporated

voluntary association having its principal office in Chi-

cago, Illinois, The Party, and its designated candidates for

statewide office, sought recognition as a new statewide

political party, and ballot position in the November 5, 1974

general election, pursuant to Section 10-£ of the Illinois

Election Code, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1973, Chap. 46, § 10-2.

Although the candidates of the Communist Party of

Illinois have appeared on the statewide ballot in prior elec-

tions, they have always failed to receive 5% of the votes

cast in those elections, and thus do not qualify as an estab-

lished political party. (See Appendix D and E)

The Illinois Election Code requires a petition for the

formation of a new political party throughout the State

to contain not less than 25,000 signatures, provided that

no more than 13,000 my be counted from one county.

Respondents submitted petitions containing 23,000 signa-

tures from Cook County. Objections were filed to the suf-

ficiency of the nominating petitions, which objections were

sustained by the State Board of Elections.

Thereafter, Respondents brought suit in the District

Court to declare the Illinois signature distribution provi-

sions of § 10-2 unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforce-

ment. Jurisdiction was alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3),

1343(4), 2201, 2202 and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

A motion for temporary restraining order and prelimi-

nary injunction was presented. The trial judge declined to

convene a three judge court and entered a preliminary

mandatory injunction declaring Section 10-2 of the Illinois

Election Code violative of the equal protection and due

process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and direct-

“ng the Illincis State Board of Elections to certify the

names of the Communist Pa ty candidates for the Novem-

ber 5, 1974 Illinois General Election. (Appendix B) On ap-

peal of this order, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Dis-

trict Court.

EST PY

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The District Court ruled that the Illinois ‘‘signatnre dis-

tribution requirement constitutes an arbitrary formula

which grants one group greater voting strength than an-

other and discriminates against voters of the most popu-

lous county of the State in favor of less populous coun-

ties.”’

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the

‘‘eounty distribution requirement of section 109-2 of the

Illinois Election Code, like its predecessor, ‘lacks the equal-

ity to which the exercise of political rights is entitled under

the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ”’

This conclusion is based upon an overstatement of the

reach of prior Supreme Court decisions, and a failure to

perceive the real impact of the election law upon voters in

Illinois.

The issue is not ‘‘one man-one vote’’ but whether any

proposed new statewide political party is a serious one and

has risen to the dignity of a statewide ballot position. There

is no signature distribution restriction upon ballot position

for countywide office. Discussion of statewide candidates

and issues is impaired, and the public interest disserved,

however, by enabling a flooding of the statewide ballot with

local fringe candidates whose election activities and sup-

port is limited to a single county enclave. The Election

Code, Chap. 46, § 10-2, based on historical experience,

serves to screen out the frivolous and nuisance candida-

cies, and to encourage and promote serious statewide po-

litical party activity.

The present signature distribution requirement of the

Illinois Election Code must be understood in the context of

the litigation which preceded its enactment, and the realities

of Illinois politics.

The State is organized into 102 counties. Of these, Cook

County is uniquely the most urbanized county, containing

approximately 50% of the total State population. The re-

maining 101 counties, typically referred to as ‘‘Downstate’’,

contain the remaining 50% of the population.

Prior to Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), Section

10-2 of the Illinois Election Code, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1957, Chap.

46, § 10-2, required a new statewide political party to ob-

tain at least 200 qualified voters’ signatures from each of at

least 50 counties, to qualify for a place upon the ballot.

An original challenge to this provision, on Fourteenth

Amendment constitutional grounds, was rejected by a three-

judge court in MacDougall v. Green, 80 F. Supp. 725, af-

firmed 335 U.S. 281, 285, 286, 69 S. Ct. 1 (1948). In Mac-

Dougall the U.S. Supreme Court observed:

‘“‘The appellants’ claim to equitable relief against

this ruling is based upon the peculiar distribution of

population among Illinois’ 102 counties.

It is clear that the requirement of two hundred

signatures from at least fifty counties gives to the

voters of the least populous counties of Illinois the

power completely to block the nomination of candi-

dates whose support is confined to geographically

limited areas.

It is allowable State policy to require that candidates

for Statewide office should have support not limited to

a concentrated locality.

It would be strange indeed, and doctrinaire for this

court, applying such broad constitutional concepts as

due process and equal protection of the laws, to deny

a State the power to assure a proper diffusion of

political initiative as between its thinly populated coun-

ties and those having concentrated masses, in view of

the fact that latter have practical opportunities for

exerting their political weight at the polls not available

to the former. The Constitution—a practical instrument

of government—makes no such demands on the States

...’’ (Emphasis added)

Twenty-one years later, in Moore v. Ogilvie, 293 F. Supp.

411, reversed 394 U.S. 814, 89 S. Ct. 1493 (1969), the U.S.

Supreme Court restated the issue:

‘It is no answer to the argument under the Equal

Protection Clause that this law was designed to re-

quire statewide support for launching a new political

party rather than support from a few localities. This

law applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely set-

tled counties and populous counties alike... .’’ (Em-

phasis added)

Two justices dissented in the Moore case, saying:

‘‘The Court held in MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S.

281, in sustaining the very statutory requirement here

at issue that [Illinois had pursued an ‘allowable state

policy [of] require[ing] that candidates for statewide

office should have support not limited to a concentrated

locality.’ Id. at 283. That conclusion seems to me to be

no less sound today than it was at the time of the

MacDougall decision.’’

Significantly, the majority in the Moore case did not say

that all signature distribution requirement per se are un-

constitutional. To the contrary, the Court recognized that

nominating petitions are an ‘‘integral part of the state elec-

tive system,’’ and that limitations may be imposed if they

can ‘‘pass muster against charges of discrimination or of

abridgement of the right to vote.’’ The majority opinion

noted that ‘‘we have said enough to indicate why Mac-

Dougall v. Green is out of line with our recent apportion-

ment cases.’’ 394 U.S. 814 at p. 818.

Thereafter, similar ‘‘rigid, arbitrary formula’’ of other

States were also struck down: Socialist Workers Party v.

Rockefeller, 314 F. Supp. 984 (S.D. N.Y., 1970), New York

statute requiring at least 50 signatures from each county

of the State; Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F. Supp.

1262 (S.D. Ohio, 1970), an Ohio statute requiring 200 signa-

tures from at least 30 counties; Socialist Workers Party v.

Hare, 304 F, Supp. 534 (E.D. Mich. 1969), a Michigan stat-

ute requiring 100 signatures from at iedst’10 vournties,

Baird v. Davoren, 346 F. Supp. 515 (Mass. 1972), a Massa-

chusetts statute requiring signatures from at least three

counties.

In response to the Moore case, and its progeny, the IIli-

nois General Assembly redrafted the signature provision

of the Election Code to eliminate the ‘‘rigid, arbitrary for-

mula applicable to sparsely settled counties and populous

counties alike’’, and enacted the present § 10-2:

‘*... And, if such new political party shall be formed

for the entire state, shall be signed by not less than

25,000 qualified voters: Provided, that no more than

13,000 signatures from the same county may be counted

toward the required total of 25,000 signatures.’’

Communist Party v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. IIL.

1972) (Appendix C) involves the amended § 10-2, but, unlike

the other cases cited by the court below, it was an unap-

pealed interlocutory order. The court majority addressed

itself primarily to the loyalty oath issue and recited, in one

brief paragraph on the signature distribution requirement,

a conclusion to support issuance of a preliminary injuc-

_tion. No all-inclusive class was established, and the named

PAPO? 2222 enasse5»»

Plaintiffs immediately thereafter appeared on the ballot

and lost the election. (Appendix E) The issue becoming

moot, Plaintiffs failed to ever prosecute their lawsuit to

final judgment.

Now, the same tactical situation has reoccurred and the

constitutional question has again become one ‘‘capable of

repetition but evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal

Co, v. I.C.C., 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S Ct. 279, 283 (1911);

Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S 814, 816, 89 S. Ct. 1493, 1494

(1969); Carroll v. President and Commissioners of Prin-

cess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179, 89 S. Ct. 347, 350, 351

(1968) ; United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629,

632-633, 73 S Ct. 894, 897-898 (1953).

In the instant action, the trial court could see no differ-

ence between the earlier ‘‘rigid, arbitrary formula”’ cases

and the current Illinois situation. This superficial ‘‘knee-

jerk’’ response is neither compelling in legal analysis, nor

in accord with current pragmatic Supreme Court tests of

election laws.

As Mr. Justice White most recently said in Storer v.

Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730-731, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 1279, 1282

(1974) :

‘‘It has never been suggested that the Williams-

Kramer-Dunn rule automatically invalidates every sub-

stantial restriction on the right to vote or to associate

. . aS a practical matter, there must be a substantial

regulation of elections . . . if some sort of order, rather

than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.

... Decisions in this context, as in others, is very much

a ‘matter of degree,’ Dunn v. Blumstein, supra, 405

U.S., at 348, 92 S. Ct., at 1066, very much a matter of

‘consider[ing] the facts and circumstances behind the

law, the interests which the State claims to be protect-

ing, and the interests of those who are disadvantaged

by the classification.’ Williams v. Rhodes, supra, 393

U.S., at 30, 89 S. Ct. at 10; Dunn v. Blumstein, supra,

405 U.S., at 335, 92 S. Ct. at 999. What the result of this

process will be in any specific case may be very diffi-

cult to predict with great assurance.’’

In Communist Party v. Austin, 362 F. Supp. 27, 30 (E.D.

Mich. 1973), the court noted that ‘‘[a] state is not required

to devise a statutory scheme for access to the ballot that

provides perfect equality under all contingencies, at all

times.’’

Rather, ‘‘particular circumstances and needs .. . may

sometimes justify departures from strict equality.’’ Abate

v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 183, 186, 91 S. Ct. 1904, 1907 (1971) ;

Reynolds v. Sims, 300 U.S. 533, 578, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 1390

(1964).

In American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 781-

782, 94 S. Ct. 1296, 1306 (1974), the Supreme Court said:

“Tf claiming an equal protection violation, the Ap-

pellants’ burden was to demonstrate in the first in-

Stance a discrimination against them of some sub-

stance. Statutes create many classifications which do

not deny equal protection; it is only ‘invidious discrim-

ination’ which offends the constitution.’’ (Emphasis

added)

The court said in Gaffney v. Cummins, 412 U.S. 735, 93

S. Ct. 2321, 2325, 2329, 2331 (1973) :

‘‘We think that appellees’ showing of numerical

deviations from population equality among the Senate

and House districts in this case failed to make out a

prima facie violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Fair and effective representation may be destroyed

by gross population variations among districts, but it

is apparent that such representation does not depend

solely on mathematical equality among district popu-

lations. There are other relevant factors to be taken

into account and other important interests that States

may legitimately be mindful of [Citations omitted]

We are quite unconvinced that the reapportionment

plan .. . violated the Fourteenth Amendment because

it attempted to reflect the relative strength of the par-

ties in locating and defining election districts. It would

be idle, we think, to contend that any political con-

sideration taken into account in fashioning a reappor-

tionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it.’’

In the case at bar, the trial court did not conduct an evi-

dentiary hearing on the factual allegations of discrimina-

tion, or undertake to actually consider, balance and weigh

the conflicting public and private interests involved. Most

importantly, the trial court made no effort to verify the

impact of the ‘‘Chicago-Downstate’’ configuration upon

statewide political party activity.

Respondents failed to adduce evidence that Chapter 46,

§ 10-2 is unreasonable and has a ‘‘real and appreciable im-

pact on the exercise of the franchise.’’ There is not a scin-

tilla of evidence in the record that the signature distribu-

tion requirement has prevented a legitimate, new statewide

political party from obtaining ballot position, nor has

there been a showing in any way that voters in the ‘‘less

populous counties’? have thus been given “‘greater voting

strength’’ than voters in the ‘‘most populous county.’’

Before reaching its conclusion in Socialist Labor Party v.

Rhodes, 318 F. Supp. 1262, 1269 (S.D. Ohio 1970), the trial

court first determined that:

‘The changes in Ohio election laws effectuated in

the 1948-1952 period dramatically, and adversely, af-

fected the rights of individuals to associate for the

advancement of political beliefs. They also deprived

qualified voters of the right to effectively cast their

ballots for candidates other than those running as

Democrats or Republicans. From 1952 to date there

was not one independent or third party candidate on

the Ohio ballot running for a state office.

It is thus clear from the history of Ohio’s election

laws that since 1952 they have effectively precluded

persons in Ohio from exercising their rights to poli-

tical association outside the Democratic and Republican

parties. To justify such a restriction on an important,

constitutionally guaranteed right, the state must show

a compelling state interest. It has not done so. Every-

thing that has happened in the Ohio electoral process

since 1952 suggests that no compelling state interest

justifies the perpetration of the present statutory en-

tanglement.’’

The United States Supreme Court, in dismissing the

appeal, 406 U.S. 583, 588, 92 S. Ct. 1716, 1719 (1972) found

that ‘‘all issues litigated below have become moot except

for one’’ and as to that issue, said:

‘‘The long and the short of the matter is that we

know very little more about the operation of the Ohio

affidavit procedure as a result of this lawsuit than we

would if a prospective plaintiff who had never set foot

in Ohio had simply picked this section of the Ohio

election laws out of the statute books and filed a com-

plaint in the District Court setting forth the allegedly

offending provisions and requesting an injunction

against their enforcement. These plaintiffs may well

meet the technical requirement of standing, and they

may be parties to a case or controversy, but their case

has not given any particularity to the effect on them

of Ohio’s affidavit requirement.”’

In the case at bar, the only evidence existing at all is

spread in the public records of the election returns (see

Appendix D and E) showing consistent failure of Respond-

ents to muster even token statewide support of their par-

ty, or to garner a vote total equalling the purported signa-

tures on their nominating petitions (not even in the most

populous county).

Respondents state that ‘‘of 6,040,627 registered Illinois

voters, 2,748,969—45% reside in Cook County.’’ The Elec-

tion Code, in effect, limits a statewide party from using nom-

inating signatures from the most populous county, i.e. Cook,

in excess of 52%, or 6-14% over the population spread.

Thus, a serious statewide political party may utilize lo-

calized support, but to obtain statewide ballot position, it is

also required to organize itself outside a concentrated local

area (and no area is more concentrated that the ‘‘Chicago’”’

area).

In electoral politics, it has been the vote effectiveness of

downstate voters which is diluted by the demographic reali-

ties. Without some regulation, Chicago fringe candidates

would have the power to flood the statewide ballot in every

election.

Balancing this inequality is the object of the signature

distribution requirements of § 10-2. It should be noted that

this is the converse of the situation in Moore v. Ogilvie.

Here, it is the defeat of § 10-2 which will operate to fur-

ther augment ‘‘Chicago’’ voting power at the expense of

‘*downstate’’ voters, and defeat ‘‘one-man-one vote’’ princi-

ples as they come into play in real politics. In practice,

Section 10-2 creates ‘‘no invidious discrimination which

offends the constitution.”’

As Mr. Justice Douglas recognized in Dusch v. Davis, 387

U.S. 112, 117, 87 S. Ct. 1554, 1556 (1967).

‘*The Seven-Four Plan seems to reflect a detente

between urban and rural communities that may be im-

portant in resolving the complex problems of the

modern megalopolis in relation to the city, the sub-

urbia and the rural countryside.

The court in Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730-731, 94

S. Ct. 1282, notes that in regulating the election process

the States are not required to use ‘‘ineffectual means”’ to

achieve its aims:

‘*To conclude otherwise might sacrifice the political

stability of the system of the State, with profound

consequence for the entire citizenry, merely in the in-

terest of particular candidates and their supporters

having instantaneous access to the ballot.’’ ( Emphasis

added).

Socialist Workers Party v. Rockefeller, 314 F. Supp.

984 (1970), cited by the trial court, says of the power of

States to regulate ballot access:

‘“‘Of course, the State is not powerless to fix rea-

sonable standards or requirements for a position on

the ballot so that multifarious political associations

with little or no popular support do not bemuse the

electoral process.’’ (Emphasis added)

In Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730-731, 94 S. Ct.

1274, 1280 (1974), the court goes on to say:

‘‘Other variables must be considered where qualifi-

cations for candidates rather than for voters are at

issue.

Subsequently, in Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145,

92 S. Ct. 849, 31 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1972), a unanimous

Court said:

‘The Court has recognized that a State has a legiti-

mate interest in regulating the number of candidates on

the ballot. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. at 442, 91 S. Ct.

at 1976; Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. at 32, 89 S. Ct.

5 at 11. In so doing, the State understandably and prop-

erly seeks to prevent the clogging of its election ma-

chinery, avoid voter confusion, and assure that the

winner is the choice of a majority, or at least a strong

plurality, of those voting, without the expense and bur-

den of runoff elections... . Moreover, a State has an

interest, if not a duty, to proteci the integrity of its

political processes from frivolous or fraudulent candi-

dacies. Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. at 142, 91 S. Ct. at

1976.

Against this pattern of decision, we have no hesita-

tion in sustaining § 6830(d).’’ (Emphasis added)

In Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. at 431, 91 S. Ct. at 1976,

the Court also states:

‘“‘The fact is 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... . Sometimes the grossest discrimina-

tion can lie in treating things that are different as

though they were exactly alike... .”’

The very principle of distribution rejected by the trial

court and the circuit court in the case at bar has been

made an essential qualifying condition in the Federal Elec-

tion Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-443, Chap.

26, U.S.C. § 9033 (b) (3), which requires a candidate to

receive :

‘

‘,.. matching contributions which in the aggregate,

exceed $5,000 in contributions from residents of each

of at least 20 states . . .’’ (Emphasis added)

See Buckley v. Valeo, —~— Fed. 2nd —, (D.C.C. 1975),

44 LW 21085.

The objectives of Illinois election law and procedure is

very similar to that discussed in Zautra v. Miller, 348 F

Supp. 847, 850 (D. Utah, 1972) :

‘‘The question before this court is whether the

Fourteenth Amendment mandates the elimination of

even minimal geographical burdens of conceivably dis-

criminatory effect upon the formation of political par-

ties.

New political parties have been successfully formed

in Utah through compliance with the law.

Plaintiffs have supplied no indication that the Utah

law has any real, or appreciable, discriminatory effect

upon the franchise in Utah.

Utah law contemplates the establishment of political

parties with detailed, statewide organizations. During

the first year of operations, the law questioned by

plaintiffs contemplates the holding of conventions in

at least the minimum ten counties in which signatures

were obtained. Utah Code Ann. § 20-3-2(g)(2) (Supp.

1971), set out in note 1, supra. After the first year, a

new political party must hold organizational conven-

tions in every county in the state. Utah Code Ann.

§ 20-4-1 (Supp. 1971). Thus the political party quali-

fication requirements rest upon a rational basis: they

are an intermediate step adapted to the orderly es-

tablishment of a statewide party organization. The

requirement of such a statewide organization is a legi-

timate state purpose so long as it imposes no undue

burden on the election process. See, Jenness v. Fortson,

403 U.S. 431, 91 S. Ct. 1970, 29 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1971) ;

cf., supra note 5.

Traditionally political paries have exerted the great-

est of influence upon state and national government.

It is not unreasonable for a state to require such par-

ties to provide even the residents of sparsely-settled

counties with an opportunity to involve themselves in

party machinery which may ultimately control their

state or county policies. In return for a party’s com-

mitment to statewide operation, the State . * Utah sanc-

tions primary elections for the parties and provides

state recognition of party decisions concerning the se-

lection of candidates. E.g., Utah Code Ann. §§ 20-4-1 to

20-4-9 Supp. 1971).”’

CONCLUSIONS

The existing Illinois signature distribution requirement

is a well reasoned enactment by the State legislature, in-

tended and designed to effect equality in the electoral proc-

ess, and not to impose an invidious discrimination.

Section 10-2 was expressly drafted to ‘pass muster’”’ un-

der the Moore v. Ogilvie standard, and to balance and weigh

competing interests. It simply requires a new statewide

party to aL. in more than one county.

Unlike stafutes requiring names from multiple counties,

however sparse, the least populous Illinois counties do not

have the power ‘‘eompletely to block’’ a nomination. Half

the State population does reside in 101 counties.

Section 10-2 does not apply a ‘“‘rigid, arbitrary formula’?

but reflects actual population distribution patterns, and

assures that residents throughout the State. have equal

opportunity to be involved in statewide political party

activities.

The Illinois statute screens out frivolous candidacies but

does not make it ‘‘virtually impossible” for a new political

party to appear on the statewid ballot, nor does it preclude

minorities from access to the ballot.

The Illinois statutes does indeed further the legitimate

State interest in ‘‘avoiding confusion, deception, and even

frustration of the democratic process at the general elec-

tion’’ so that ‘‘multifarious political associations with little

or no popular support do not bemuse the electoral process.”’

Important Federal questions are raised which should be

settled by this Court. For these reasons, Petitioners request

that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the decision of the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

Wuu1amM J. Scort,

Attorney General of Illinois,

160 North LaSalle,

Chicago, Illinois,

Attorney for Petitioners.

Herpert Lee Carian,

Assistant Attorney General,

312/793-3587

Of Counsel.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OctoBEer Term 1975

No.

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS, and MICHAEL E. LAVELLE, DONALD W.

ADAMS, FRANKLIN J. LUNDING, JR. and WIL-

LIAM L. HARRIS, individually and as members of the

State Board of Elections,

Petitioners,

vs,

THi COMMUNIST PARTY OF ILLINOIS; ISHMAEL

FLORY, LORRAINE ASHBY, JOHN LUMPKIN, JAY

SCHAFFNER, VALERIE WITZKOWSKIT; and THEO-

DORE PEARSON, individually and on behalf of all oth-

ers similarly situated,

Respondents.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Herbert Lee Caplan, Assistant Illinois Attorney Gen-

eral, a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the

United States, and counsel for the Petitioners, hereby cer-

tify that I have this 24th day of September, 1975, served

three copies of the foregoing Petition for Writ of Certiorari

upon Howard Eglit, Lance Haddix, Roger Baldwin Foun-

dation of A.C.L.U., Inc., 5 South Wabash, Room 1516, Chi-

cago, Illinois 60603 and John J. Abt, 299 Broadway, New

York, New York 10007, by depositing same, first class

postage prepaid, in the United States mail chute at 160

North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois. All parties required to be

served have been served.

HERBERT LEE CAPLAN.

ee a ee ee mn ree ae ene ee

ee a eo

APPENDICES

‘%

United States Court of Appeals

Bor The Seventh Cirrnit

APPENDIX A

No. 74-1950

COMMUNIST PARTY OF ILLINOIS, [ISHMAEL

FLORY, LORRAINE ASHBY, JOHN LUMPKIN,

JAY SCHAFFNER, VALERIE WITZKOWSKI; and

THEODORE PEARSON, individually and on behalf

of others similarly situated,

Plaintif fs-A ppellees,

Vs.

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS, and MICHAEL L. LAVELLE, DON-

ALD W. ADAMS, FRANKLIN W. LUNDING JR. and

WILLIAM L. HARRIS, individually and as members

of the State Board of Elections,

Defendants-A ppellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 74 C 2470

William J. Lynch, Judge.

ARGUED APRIL 23, 1975 -—- DECIDED JUNE 27, 1975

Before SWYGERT and TONE, Circuit Judges, and

GRANT, Senior District Judge.*

*Senior District Judge Robert A. Grant of the Northern

District of Indiana is sitting by designation.

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, the Communist

Party of Illinois, several of its candidates for state office

in the November 5, 1974 general election, and a registered

voter desiring to vote for these candidates, filed suit for

declaratory and injunctive relief against the State Board

of Election Commissioners for the State of Illinois’ seek-

ing to challenge the constitutionality of a section of the

Illinois Election Code, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 46, § 10-2. This

statute requires any political party seeking statewide bal-

lot recognition to submit petitions containing not less than

25,000 signatures of qualified voters, not more than 13,000

of which may be counted from any one county.’ Plaintiffs

1. Members of the Board are also sued, both indi-

vidually and in their capacities as members of the State

Board of Elections.

2. The statute provides in relevant part:

Any group of persons hereafter desiring to form

a new political party throughout the State, or in any

political subdivision greater than a county and less

than the State, shall file with the State Board of

Elections a petition as hereinafter provided . . . Any

such petition for the formation of a new political

party throughout the State . . . shall declare as con-

cisely as may be the intention of the signers thereof

to form such new political party in the State, or in

such district or political subdivision; shall state in

not more than 5 words the name of such new political

party; shall contain a complete list of candidates of

such party for all offices to be filled in the State, or

such district or political subdivision as the case may

be, at the next ensuing election then to be held; and,

if such new political party shall be formed for the

entire State, shall be signed by not less than 25,000

qualified voters. Provided, that no more than 13,000

signatures from the same county may be counted

toward the required total of 25,000 signatures.

sought an order declaring the requirement limiting the

number of signatories from any one county void as being

unconstitutional, and injunctive relief requiring the de-

fendants to certify plaintiff candidates so that they would

be listed on the statewide ballot for the November, 1974

general election.

Initially, the district court entered an order, declaring

section 10-2 unconstitutional and denying defendants’

motion to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2281. The court found section 10-2 violative of

the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment in that it ‘‘discriminates against

voters of the most populous county of the state in favor

of voters in the less populous counties.’’ The court found

the claim that the section is not unconstitutional to be

‘Wholly without merit in light of a prior decision by

a three-judge panel of this court declaring this same

statutory provision unconstitutional in Communist Party

v. Ogilvie, [357 F. Supp. 105 (N.D. Ill. 1972)], and other

3. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2281 provides:

An interlocutory or permanent injunction restrain-

ing the enforcement, operation or execution of any

State statute by restraining the action of any officer

of such State in the enforcement or execution of such

statute’or of an order made by an administrative

board or commission acting under State statutes,

shall not be granted by any district court or judge

thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality

of such statute unless the application therefor is

heard and determined by a district court of three

judges under section 2284 of this title.

A4.

decisions declaring similar signature distribution require-

ments unconstitutional.’ In response to this order, plain-

tiffs moved for injunctive relief. In a second order, the

district court entered a preliminary injunction’ directing

4. Citing Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968); So-

cialist Workers Party v. Hare, 304 F. Supp. 534 (E.D.

Mich. 1969) ; Baird v. Davoren, 346 F. Supp. 515 (D. Mass.

1972); Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F. Supp. 1262

(S.D. Ohio 1970); Socialist Workers Party v. Rockefeller,

314 F. Supp. 984 (S.D. N.Y. 1970).

o. The original declaratory order purports to grant

plaintiffs’ ‘‘motion for a preliminary injunction.’’ It

does no more than declare section 10-2 unconstitutional,

however, and does not direct any state officers to take

any specific action or to refrain from taking action. This

initial order is dated September 11, 1974 as is the minute

order which accompanies it. The second, or preliminary

injunction order, is also dated September 11, 1974, but

is accompanied by and attached to a notice of motion and

motion which are file stamped September 12, 1974. The

minute order accompanying these papers is dated Sep-

tember 12, 1974 as well. Thus, the injunctive order ap-

pears to have been prepared by plaintiffs and signed (after

limiting alterations) by the district judge subsequent to

the entry of the declaratory order and in reliance upon

that original order.

That order granting injunctive relief reads:

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Having declared the county distribution signature

requirement of Section 10-2 of Illinois Revised Stat-

utes, Ch. 46, See. 10-2 (1973) unconstitutional as

violative of the Equal Protection and Due Process

Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-

A5.

defendants to certify or cause to be certified plaintiff can-

didates for the November, 1974 election “‘if the only

grounds for non-certification is failure to comply with the

county distribution signature requirement.”’

Defendants appeal from both of these orders.® They

contend that the issue of the constitutionality of section

10-2 has not been rendered ‘‘wholly without merit’’ by

previous decisions, and that the district judge was there-

fore required by 28 U.S.C. § 2281 to convene a three-judge

court in order to enjoin the enforcement of this state

statute. They further contend that section 10-2 represents

a non-arbitrary attempt by the State of Illinois to assure

that residents throughout Illinois have ‘equal oppur-

tunity to be involved in statewide political party activi-

stitution of the United States by order of this Court,

dated September 11, 1974, it is hereby ordered that

defendants, their agents, and employees certify to

the county clerk of each county in Illinois the plaintiff

candidates as duty nominated candidates for election

to state office in the general election to be held on

November 5, 1974, if the only grounds for non-cer-

tification is failure to comply with the county dis-

tribution signature requirement.

WILLIAM J. LYNCH,

Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 11, 1974.

6. The notice of appeal refers to ‘‘the order entered

by District Court Judge William J. Lynch on September

11, 1974 declaring the county signature requirement of

§ 10-2 of the Illinois Election Code unconstitutional and

granting a pre! minary injunction,’ apparently treating

the two orders as a single, consolidated order.

ties,’? and to assure that ‘‘multifarious political associa-

tions with little or no popular support do not bemuse the

electoral process.’’ They say section 10-2 does not, there-

fore, offend the Fourteenth Amendment.

In our view, the issue of whether the district court in

this case should have convened a three-judge court prior

to issuing the preliminary injunctive order directing the

Board not to enforce section 10-2 against these plaintiffs

in the November, 1974 general election is moot. That

election is over; plaintiffs and defendants here have little

stake in litigating the technical question of whether the

relief obtained in connection with that election had a

proper jurisdictional base. Plaintiff candidates were in

fact certified and listed on the November ballot. The

past cannot be retraced. A decision on the section 2281

question would be purely advisory at this point and would

not affect the rights of these litigants insofar as the

in junctive order is concerned.’ See Oil Workers Unions v.

‘. Section 2281 does not apply to the declaratory order

alone either by its terms or as construed. Kennedy v.

Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 153-55 (1963); Sands v.

Wainwright, 491 F. 2d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1973). And while

defendants-appellants argue the applicability of this stat-

ute to the injunctive order, they urge at the same time that

we may proceed directly to the merits of this case even if

we should hold that the case should originally have been

heard by three judges. In effect, they ask for an opinion

without a remedy. Curiously, it is the plaintiffs-appellees

who contend that a reversal on the three-judge court issue

would require remand for convening of such a court. The

problem with this contention is that at the present time no

injunctive relief is sought by plaintiffs. The only viable

issue at this stage is the question of the constitutionality of

section 10-2 and this issue would not require a three-judge

Missouri, 361 U.S. 363, 366-68 (1960); North Carolina v.

Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 245-46 (1971).

The heart of this case is the district court’s order

declaring section 10-2 unconstitutional. This determina-

tion was based on the reasoning contained in a previous

decision of a three-judge district court in this circuit

declaring section 10-2 unconstitutional as violative of the

equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, Socialist Workers Party v. Ogilvie, supra, and on

the rationale of the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v.

Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) holding a predecessor of sec-

tion 10-2 unconstitutional on the same ground. We believe

this determination was correct.

In Moore the Supreme Court had before it a statutory

provision requiring certain independent candidates, in

order to be certified for the statewide ballot in Illinois,

to obtain the signatures of 25,000 qualified voters, in-

cluding signatures of two hundred voters from each of

at least fifty of the one hundred and two Illinois coun-

ties. The provision had been specifically upheld in a

previous decision of the Supreme Court in Mac Dougall

v. Green, 335 U.S. 281 (1948). Expressly overruling Mac

Dougall as being ‘‘out of line with our recent apportion-

court, absent a request for injunction. A remand under

these circumstances would indeed be pointless. The section

2281 question is therefore not ‘‘a real and substantial con-

troversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a

conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion ad-

vising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of

facts.’’ Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241

(1937).

ment cases,’’ The Court in Moore framed the equal protec-

tion problem in these terms:

It is no answer to the argument under the Equal

Protection Clause that this law was designed to re-

quire statewide support for launching a new political

party rather than support from a few localities. This

law applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely

settled counties and populous counties alike, contrary

to the constitutional theme of equality among citizens

in the exercise of their political rights The idea that

one group can be granted greater voting strength than

another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our

representative government.

Under this Illinois law the electorate in 49 of the

counties which contain 93.4% of the registered voters

may not form a new political party and place its

candidates on the ballot. Yet 25,000 of the remaining

6.6% of registered voters properly distributed among

the 53 remaining counties may form a new party to

elect candidates to office. This law thus discriminates

against the residents of the populous counties of the

State in favor of rural sections. It, therefore, lacks the

equality to which the exercise of political rights is en-

titled under the Fourteenth Amendment. 394 U.S. at

818-19.

Section 10-2 suffers the same constitutional defect. To

paraphrase the Supreme Court in Moore: Under section

10-2 the entire electorate of Cook County, which represents

45% of all registered voters in Illinois, may not form a new

political party and place its candidates on the ballot. Yet

any 25,000 of the remaining 55% of registered voters prop-

erly distributed among the remaining 101 counties may

form a new party to elect candidates to office. Put another

way, the approximately 2,750,000 registered Illinois voters

in urbanized Cook County do not have the power under

section 10-2 to create a statewide political party to pro-

tect their own peculiar interests, while 25,000 voters in any

two or more counties in rural downstate Lilinois may create

such a party to protect their distinctly different, and often

competing interests. This two-county requirement, like the

fifty county requirement in Moore, ‘‘discriminates against

the residents of the populous counties of the state in favor

of rural sections.’”*

Given the fact that section 10-2 directly affects the funda-

mental right of a class of persons to ‘‘vote effectively”

Wiliams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30-34 (1969),* the statute

cannot stand unless it is nc .-ssary to advance a compelling

state interest. Id. at 31. If other means exist which will

8. In their brief appellants urge us to consider the

‘‘realities of Illinois polities.’’ They point out that

[t]he State is organized into 102 counties. Of these,

Cook County, i.e. ‘‘Chicago”, is uniquely the most ur-

banized county, and contains approximately 50% of

the total State population. The land area of the re-

maining 101 counties, typically referred to as ‘‘Down-

state’’, is primarily agricultural, and contains the re-

maining 50% of the population. Appellants’ brief at 5.

We recognize these ‘‘realities,’’ but we do not see how

they can help appellants in this case. Rather, they point out

further the problem inherent in the two-county require-

ment: While the agricultural interest groups may create a

special interest party entirely among their own constit-

uents, the Cook County urban interest groups cannot, but

must garner some forty-eight percent of their petition

signatures from relatively rural Illinois counties.

9. “(T]he voters can assert their preferences only

through candidates or parties or both.’ Lubin v. Parrish.

415 U.S. 709, 716 (1974).

A10

adequately protect the state interest involved, but which

will be less intrusive on the right to vote or less discrimina-

tory in effect, such other means must be employed and sec-

tion 10-2 must be struck down. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405

U.S. 330, 334-43 (1972).

In their brief, defendants contend that the county dis-

tribution requirement is necessary to prevent numerous

parties with negligible popular support from overcrowding

the ballot and thereby confusing and demeaning the state-

wide electoral process. In order to achieve this goal, defen-

dants urge, with considerable candor, that the strength of

the concentrated ‘‘Chicago’’ (Cook County) vote must be

diluted :

Politics is access to voters. The solicitation of

nominating signatures and distribution of campaign

literature are facilitated where the population is con-

centrated. A single high-rise apartment building in

Chicago may contain more people than a county town,

and several city blocks may contain more people than

entire ‘‘downstate’’ counties. A Chicago precinct cap-

tain can personally contact more voters in an hour

than his downstate counterpart may be able to reach in

days of effort.

Thus, a Chicago based, would-be new political party

approaches any statewide election with an advantage

that simply does not exist elsewhere in the State, and

petition efforts, oherwise equal, produce greaer re-

sults in ‘‘Chicago.’’

Consequently, minority parties from ‘*Chicago’’ ab

initio enjoy greater access to the ballot, and it is the

vote effectiveness of downstate voters which is diluted

by the demographic realities. Without some regulation,

Chicago fringe candidates would easily flood the ballot.

Balancing this inequality is the object of the signa-

ture distribution requirements of § 10-2. Appellants’

brief at 10.

All

Assuming that a compelling need exists in Illinois to ‘‘pro-

tect’’ the integrity of its political processes from frivolous

or fraudulent candidacies” Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134,

145 (1972), we cannot see how this interest is tied by

necessity to a discriminatory diminution of the power of

the individual voter in Cook County, or any other ur-

banized county. Similarly, if there is a permissible and

compelling state interest in limiting the total number of

candidates or parties on the statewide ballot independent

of the question of the seriousness or legitimacy of such

candidates or parties,’ some method is surely available

which will serve the interest without making the effective-

ness of an Illinois citizen’s electoral power depend on

his geographical location within that state.

We do not, of course, suggest what means Illinois may

employ to serve its interest in maintaining the integrity

of its electoral process. We hold only that the county

distribution requirement of section 10-2 of the Illinois

Election Code, like its predecessor, ‘‘lacks the equality to

10. See Generally Lubin v. Parrish, 415 U.S. 709, 715-

19 (1974) suggesting that the constitutionally permissible

interest of the state in avoiding ‘‘laundry list’’ ballots is

limited to the interest in screening out frivolous, non-

serious parties or candidates, or those without ‘‘some rea-

sonable quantum of voter support.’’ See also American

Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 781-82 (1974) : “Of

course, what is demanded may not be so excessive or im-

practical as to be in reality a mere device to always, or al-

most always, exclude parties with significant support from

the ballot.”

Al2

which the exercise of political rights is entitled under the

Fourteenth Amendment.’’ Moore v. Ogilvie at 819. The

order of the district court declaring section 10-2 unconsti-

tutional is therefore affirmed.

A true Copy:

Teste:

ses ec Peer eeens eso eveeese eoeeg eee eee oe eo

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF,

ILLINOIS; ISHMAEL FLORY,

LORRAINE ASHBY, JOHN

LUMPKIN, JAY SCHAFFNER,

VALERIE WITZKOWSKI; and

THEODORE PEARSON, _§indivi-

dually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plant's) | x0 74 © 2470

Vv. ‘ >

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

FOR THE STATE OF ILLI-

NOIS, and MICHAEL E. LA-

VELLE, DONALD W. ADAMS,

FRANKLIN J. LUNDING, JR.,

and WILLIAM L. HARRIS, indi-

vidually and as members of the

State Board of Elections,

Defendants. j

ORDER

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction de-

claring the ‘‘signature distribution requirement” contained

in Section 10-2 of the Illinois Election Code, Ill. Rev. Stat.

1973, Chap. 46, Sec. 10-2, unconstitutional is hereby

granted. The Court finds that the ‘‘signature distribution

requirement’’ constitutes an arbitrary formula which

grants one group greater voting strength than another

and discriminates against voters of the most populous

county of the state in favor of voters in the less populous

counties. Communist Party of Illinois v. Ogilvie, 357 F.

Supp. 105 (N.D. Ill. 1972). See also Moore v. Ogilvie, 394

U.S. 814 (1969). The statutory provision challenged here

offends the one man, one vote principle that is the basis

of our representative form of government and accordingly

the requirement must be struck down as violative of the

Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. Defendants’ motion to convene a three-judge court

is hereby denied. The Court finds no necessity to convene

a three-judge panel as the claim that the statute is not

unconstitutional is wholly without merit in light of a prior

decision by a three-judge panel of this Court declaring

this same statutory provision unconstitutional in Commu-

nist Party v. Ogilvie, supra, and other decisions declaring

similar signature distribution requirements unconstitution-

al. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) ; Socialist Work-

ers Party v. Hare, 304 F. Supp. 534 (E.D. Mich. 1969) ;

Baird v. Davoren, 346 F. Supp. 515 (D. Mass. 1972); So-

cialist Labor Party v. Rhodes, 318 F. Supp. 1262 (S.D.

Ohio 1970); Soctalist Workers Party v. Rockefeller, 314

I. Supp. 984 (S.D. N.Y. 1970).

WILLIAM J. LYNCH,

Judge, United States District Court.

Dated: September 11, 1974.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Having declared the county distribution signature re-

quirement of Section 10-2 of Illinois Revised Statutes,

Ch. 46, Sec. 10-2 (1973) unconstitutional as violative of

the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States by order of this Court, dated September 11, 1974,

it is hereby ordered that defendants, their agents, and

employees certify to the county clerk of each county in

Illinois the plaintiff candidates as duly nominated candi-

dates for election to state office in the general election to

be held on November 5, 1974, if the only grounds for non-

certification is failure to comply with the county distri-

bution signature requirement.

WILLIAM J. LYNCH,

Judge, United States District Court.

Dated: September 11, 1974:

APPENDIX C

The COMMUNIST PARTY OF ILLINOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

RICHARD B. OGILVIE et al.,

Defendants.

No. 72 C 915

United States District Court,

N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Sept. 21, 1972

Before CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge, and MAROVITZ

and McMILLEN, District Judges.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on plaintiffs’ motion for

a preliminary injunction and the court having considered

the complaint, the affidavits provided by plaintiffs and

documents in opposition thereto, and having heard argu-

ment in open court, this court states as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiffs are the Communist Party of Illinois, its

candidates for public office for the election to be

held on November 7, 1972 and the Reverend Wil-

liam E. Hogan, an Illinois voter suing on his own

behalf and on behalf of other Illinois voters who

wish to vote for candidates of the Communist

Party of Illinois in the November 1972 election.

—s

2. Defendants are Richard B. Ogilvie, individually

and as Governor of the State of Illinois; John W.

Lewis, individually and as Secretary of State of

the State of Illinois; William J. Scott, individually

and as Attorney General of the State of Illinois ;

Michael J. Howlett, individually and as Auditor of

Public Accounts; Alan J. Dixon, individually and

as State Treasurer of the State of Illinois; James

Roman, individually and as Chairman of the State

Central Committee of the Democrat c Party of

Illinois; Victor Smith, individually aud as Chair-

man of the State Central Committee of the Repub-

lican Party of Illinois. Together they compose the

State Electoral Board of the State of Illinois.

. On or about January 31, 1972, plaintiff Communist

Party of Illinois, in order to form itself as a new

political party throughout Illinois, nominated

plaintiff candidates to seek election in the 1972

general election and printed and distributed new

political party petitions to gather the requisite

number of signatures,

. As of August 3, 1972, plaintiffs and their agents

collected a total of 33,027 signatures, of which

26,735 were by voters residing in Cook County (a

county containing slightly more than one-half the

registered voters in the state of Illinois) and 6,292

were by voters residing outside of Cook County

(containing slightly less than one-half of all the

registered voters in the State of Illinois.)

- On August 3, 1972, plaintiffs tendered their peti-

tions to the Index Division of the Office of the Sec-

retary of State and their tender was refused pur-

suant to a letter from Don Ed, Supervisor of the

Index Division stating inter alia: Upon scanning

the petition, it appears to meet with statutory re-

quirements with the following exception: the peti-

tion was not accompanied with the so-called loyalty

oaths for state offices as provided in section 7-10.1

of the Illinois Election Code. Therefore, the peti-

tion was not accepted for filing.

10.

11.

On August 8, 1972, the defendants were ordered by

the Honorable Hubert L. Will to receive the peti-

tions nunc pro tunc as of August 3, 1972. The peti-

tions were tendered and received pursuant to that

order.

On August 12, 1972, a challenge was filed to the

Communist Party of Illinois new party petitions

on grounds that ihey were not accompanied by

loyalty oaths.

On September 6, 1972, a meeting of the Electoral

Board was convened and sustained the objection to

the validity of the petitions on ground that no

loyalty oath had been filed.

On September 7, 1972, the Electoral Board recon-

vened and voted to deny certification of the Com-

munist Party as a new political party so that its

candidates would. not be placed on the ballot. It

based its ruling on the failure of the candidates of

the Communist Party to sign loyalty oaths as re-

quired by Ch. 46, § 7-10.1, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971 and

failure to comply with the county signature re-

quirement of Ch. 46, § 10-2, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202, 2281 and 2284 and

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The loyalty oath requirement provided for by Ch.

46, § 7-10.1 and 10-5 is invalid in that:

a. It is vague and overbroad on its face and there-

fore unconstitutional under the First and Four-

teenth Amendm nuts to the United States Con-

stitution; See Livingston v. Ogilvie, 43 Ill. 2d 9,

250 N.E. 2d 138 (1969) (identical oath for candi-

dates to the Illinois Constitutional Convention

of 1969 held unconstitutional); Krehbiel v.

Board of Education, 309 F. Supp. 630 (N.D. Ill.

1969) (three-judge court) (similar oath for Ili-

nois teachers held up2nstitutional) ; Connell v.

Higginbotham, 305 ¥. Supp. 445 (M.D. Fla.

1969) affirmed in part, reversed in part, 403

U.S. 207, 91 S. Ct. 1772, 29 L. Ed. 2d 418; So-

cialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 345

F. Supp. 1132 (S.D. Texas 1972). See also

Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, 86 S. Ct. 1238,

16 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1966) ; Keyishian v. Board of

Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed.

2d 629 (1967); Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54,

88 S. Ct. 184, 19 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1967). Cole v.

Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 92 S. Ct. 1332, 31 L.

Ed. 2d 593 (1972).

b. The affirmation of citizenship of the United

States and the State of Illinois being the only

constitutionally valid portion of the oath as it

now reads, no substantial purpose would be

servel by salvaging that portion of the oath

alone in view of the fact that Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971,

ch. 46, § 10-5(3) requires a statement of candi-

dacy that contains an implicit affirmation of

citizensmp. See Livingston v. Ogilvie, supra

(Ill. Sup. Ct made no attempt to salvage identi-

cal oath). In addition the practicalities of the

situation militate against serving any portion of

the oath since forcing the candidates of the

petitioning party to sign an oath containing

only the permissible clause, i.e. the affirmation

of citizenship would involye delay where it

cannot be justly tolerated in view of the im-

minence of the election. Once the election is

over the state has ample opportunity to enact

a permissible oath and invalidation of the

whole oath in this instance will not determine

any state interest in having some form of

oath in the interim.

12. The County signature requirement of Ch. 46, § 10-2,

Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, permitting no more than 13,000

signatures of qualified voters from any one county

to be counted toward the total of 25,000 which are

a prerequisite for recognition as a new political

party, is a denial of equal protection guaranteed to

voters by the Fourteenth Amendment in that it

discriminates against voters of the most populous

county of the state in favor of voters in the less

populous counties. See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S.

814, 89 S. Ct. 1493, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1969) (broader

county-wide signature requirement in Illinois held

unconstitutional) ; Socialist Labor Party v. Rhodes,

318 F. Supp. 1262, 1272 (S.D. Ohio 1970) ; Socialist

Workers Party v. Hare, 304 F. Supp. 534, 536

(E.D. Mich. 1969) ; Baird v. Davoren, 346 F. Supp.

515 (D. Mass. 1972).

13. Unless this court restrains the enforcement and

implementation of the aforementioned unconstitu-

tional statutory provisions, the plaintiffs will suffer

serious and irreparable injury in that they will be

prevented from qualifying for recognition as a

new political party and will be deprived of a place

on the ballot in the November 7, 1972 general elec-

tion without adequate remedy at law.

It is therefore ordered, that defendants, their agents,

servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active

concert and participation with them shall immediately certi-

fy plaintiffs Communist Party of Illinois as a new political

party and immediately certify plaintiff candidates to all of

the Illinois county clerks to be placed on the ballot in time

for the November 7, 1972 general election.

NOTE: In view of the fact that the printing of Illinois bal-

lots for the November 7, 1972 election has been held

up pending decision of this case and considering

the very short period remaining before that elec-

tion, this Court has not included a written Opinion

so that the expeditious entry of the appropriate re-

lief may be facilitated.

MecMILLEN, District Judge (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from Conclusions of Law 11(a), 12

and 13, and the preliminary injunction entered in the above

case.

The loyalty oath required for statewide candidates in TIli-

nois as I read it, complies substantially with the require-

ments of Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 92 S. Ct. 1332,

31 L. Ed. 2d 593 (April 8, 1972) and is permissible under

these circumstances. It reads:

ES OE Sr ane ees do swear that I am a citi-

zen of the United States and the State of Mlinois, that

I am not affiliated directly or indirectly with any com-

munist organization or any communist front organiza-

tion, or any foreign political agency, party, organiza-

tion or government which advocates the overthrow of

constitutional government by force or other means not

permitted under the Constitution of the United States

or the constitution of this State; that I do not directly

or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the

government of the United States or of this State or

any unlawful change in the form of the governments

thereof by force or any unlawful means.

(1971, Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 46, § 7-10.1]

Although this oath is not phrased or punctuated as pre-

cisely as we might prefer, its purport is clear enough and it

should be construed to be constitutionally valid if possible.

The extent that the Illinois version may go beyond the

language specifically approved by the United States Su-

preme Court is a matter of semantics, not a matter of sub-

stance. As I understand the defendants’ position, the oath

is not required for candidates whose oath is prescribed by

the Federal Constitution.

Furthermore, I believe that some geographical distribu-

tion of signatories on petitions is justified before a political

C7 APPENDIX D

party is entitled to participate in a state-wide election. The oy

distribution required by the Illinois statute is a reasonable 38

one, fulfilling the legislature’s apparent desire not to

saddle the citizens of the entire state with unjustified ex-

penses, complexity of issues, and burdens on election judges.

Giving voters outside of Cook County some voice in this 42

determination conforms with, rather than violates, the prin- 8)

ciples of one-man one-vote recognized by the majority of the

Supreme Court in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S. Ct. i= =gs" gga SeSasgaaa==

1493, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1969). 33 - 4a

Seeee6 088 © 6 6 a

pene 86866 6 & 4

> we Se > ee et he

See ee6e48es 6&6 & &

eee ne © ee 6 6 &

Plurality

726,612

842,216

ene Se 6 & 6 6S

RreeyewetsetterEe FS sf

\*s-eseeeeeeees

Bee 8€Bseztueeii =

BAF? FRB BR Eee

'S.e2n8 866 686 8 4

'é&en & ©.6 & 6 & & «4

> Sao é¢ 6&6 & 6 6 6s

®eses-s

eee eereeese

[oe 6 6 &.8 & & & &

eu eee @# £8 @& 6S

oer ee eeeeeee

See eeeeed&s 6 a

BeRESBEERE Pe kz

*e@eeseeeseseeeees

BQOQwtgeagazswtetnesa

Pe ee eee eeeedt

ee 86€ 6646 6 6 6 &

oe nawe@e#sé6es6&es

BeiskrtretitiTss.

Sa, etriFavTrinw?

"eS eeee¢s26868 66 6s

[ee eceea8e &£ 8 ea ea

tenes 6s & & 6s

eee © 2 8 6 8 6 6 Ss

BALERS Baaugerts

ILLINOIS GENERAL ELECTION

NOVEMBER 5, 1974

SUMMARY OF GENERAL VOTE

territrey sy Ge

ete + © © © © © © © © ©

7 enweewes sees &

eeeeeeeese eee

> @ 2 £2 66 6 6 4 2 @

7 ©2686 @ 6 & OG a

BOs 2a eR EBRL >

ew eeesen £Beee

2. 26 6s 6 © 82 es @

286648 6¢ 62 6 &

ene eseee 6 6% 2 «6

_omwm £e eee ss @

= eweewes 66 @ a

2. e668 & 6 6 & 6 &

7 28 €£@ee 6 8 @ 6 @

@ JSR ePrPye aR Pe eS

BSH ewWweweere et fF

een oe ee ee eS

eco 2 8s 6 6 ss & a

By}; gmeyerd? FF

een 6 4

*“* © @

Office, Party and Candidate

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Hy ""35 One NgAeM awe sogon ““REF CRQOt- Omege gn £ #8

ii HE °a5° meow RRYe~ “none s-gr* -" 523 egveo ©2R2R 2" 5 a8

fa] |R8a8% gg895 S985 S535 B5E85 S48a8 EEREA REESE Hg \a |38

“s 8S 24°Q-- SKota soann ange x7 z 2g

ju] |S8885 Sg258 gaeay agaae sazeg azecs esase caeag ag |e |c2

z- gv NOM BOGN= H-gHis agana owns 2- : £2

"Bage ERGAS RQRGE “R9GE ERGRE a=fag gezee seeee 23 | leg

al aww “~*~ 4 =a =<" 6 ; +:

aeaaane OOOO £0000 «A000 20000 OaO00 AQGae wxOne0o ona . ue

a oy;

gakF

. 2p. ee

>a es 6e

oe. ae

Te. 6 @

Lin. ee =

YY Ff. 2

*oeees

“_* fe @ «@

- - --e e

*eeee

“ee #© «@

8.886 6

_- sa &

. be. 2.2

yess

Sf 8 oe

seeds

/ +-. 6's

sé os

Plurality is computed from the Democratic and Republican votes.

VOTE FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR— NOVEMBER 5, 1974

(HES YAM

iF i Qrwr- Omo-a Cconna q--s" NQOOM SKK ON KETO COKBN VeK—Ng Qoere “FEN agree

ik HE Sare" cvenyg eraeg greg= HOOVa M—NeT CB-Ar NEE ge =o-e S2eacs “r=egsy Rene”

5 o 4 o oa 2 w= =

fi ER5RG SSHES THRFR RASSE SSRES AaEEE SIEKR SRSRE ASSES RRSSE RSSER ABSER

on-an ec A-e AMANO _— agen-a MAAE— AGHA —CON— CANNY NIK ee ATOR NNN

4.) |SSRE# GHBE ROREE REDE agueE gage SERGE aEany ESEOR Eazty SSGEC FoauR

,|EES*# Ge%3e ROGRE GaRGS TERE GRREE GERDA TRLRE SERER ERAGE ORAS 35888

i SE00@G 809000 80000 28000 2e@0e0 2e000 20000 C8e@00 C2OGea@e@ A2e£000 Ceaeaea C0000

“-*

sas

_ S .

Lawrence eee

Livingston .......

DD oeseeeeee

Macon ...

2. 2 ef

Workers Communist

Democratic Party . Party

Alan Lorraine

ja Suzanne M.

Counties Plurality Dixon Haig Ashby

Ss 00 cited vedee<enskebeen D 6,363 13,090 71 $s

NE oe ee os ee adimkhiuie D 668 2,572 277 10

le D 614 2,818 12 1

ES EE pe et oe D 377 2,877 37 2

i tcccuueatnddwedewaeur D 905 1,721 7 1

DS ¢deecankass tunees soaued D 1,397 7,7%4 0 0

Se re D 498 1,385 7 3

EIR atta Pee has D 144 3,252 7 s

Cass .. D 1,515 3,143 s 1

err D 8,076 22,690 649 162

GD < ccevecueddeieees «anes D 4,351 7,341 16 7

ESE e Ere ost D 437 3,428 6 0

Si. \cvaduhsduatuudewdienia D 281 3,163 x 4

Clinton. . D 2,998 6.414 il 5

Wd » se un@acn<seexencenab aus D 2,158 7,463 89 43

Gc. cai eadesndesennsiuneen D $46,907 898 200 1,211 5,439

Cs ti t4ceceeinedeneubees D 822 4,074 s s

TS < ies deuecence¥abate D 681 2,168 10 4

SE D 1,929 8,365 208 4K

ELS ¢cadennnedeoeenssnsens D 1,064 3,473 6 5

Douglas . . D 447 3,323 3 -

tate etenais - 883 $9,325 1,422 44

ee ud uae’ D 781 4,532 9 4

Gs sus erigveukduss shade tt we 443 1,238 3 I

Es ckeuscecvedewasenbese D 1,653 $,170 10 7

RR did nicvccdtacedaetucws Di,t21 4,585 12 $s

Ford... - 384 2,730 3 1

eee ere D 4,908 8,704 s# 77

SE it data as diene eieieud D 4,223 8,463 65 ok

GN néscecucadensunseeanes D 1,251 2,222 7 3

ian ae rk cig ores D 829 3,099 2,270 5g 3

ST cocci sc otuienesduel Di i,183 5.41! 4,258 25 “4

D 631 2,448 1,817 12 4

DE isigncanecdbessdeuhene D 78 3,772 3,694 1s 5

Nc issekddauabiesedmeet bee D 106 1,355 1,249 7 3

PS Se Se D 243 1,923 1,680 5 0

Dch«ci.tinedvathenvnatuds D 880 7,035 6,155 62 19

SN cavud«ateisiedaduenced D 126 5,791 5,665 10 0

ET el eta cedcoe wn aibhie D 5,388 10,759 5,371 342 96

FG dui tes Suwesueeniswees D 864 2,442 1,578 7 2

SE vicnteeesssaaeneuedies D 2,508 6,466 3,958 10 6

ss. «ck+aecehenpiedadnye D 1,383 3,906 2,523 s a

SEY ceddcenseaiediekue’ 7 % 2,759 2,795 4

Dc seunvacwedtetaetsaensde Ww 349 1,458 1,807 1

eer a a hie Grae D 3,203 * 25,309 22,106 1S!

Kankakee D 5,156 16,884 11,728 4

I ee a ee - 878 2,884 3,762 1

i Se eee DD 2,584 9,671 7,087 31

a ee ue as D~ 12,890 46,750 33,860 199

ET booth) cbneeaeads D 8,56! 20,254 11,693 722

Lawrence . D 460 3,280 2,820 2

RN Re ae eas D 334 4,498 4,164 9

Livingston . . ~ 312 4,989 5,301 3

Logan ..... D 1,235 5,364 4,129 5

MC GL 165 kocis cantuksvlatnn D 11,350 20,326 8,976 28

D 4,975 10,578 5 21

#6. Cigenssvhueadbanted DD 19,810 32,860 13 53

Marion . D 3,361 8,102 a il

Marshall D 7% 2,872 2 0

Mason D 1,647 3,493 1,846 0

Bilal

OOo eee ree weeeee

ee ee ee ee 2

—

$.2 eB8ow~ —

Sn8 ~wBew- nuu8

S-»

58%

Bas on

oe-nN Uw

—~J

3BEE

—

RBR=n nuendo BEF

09 DOFOUF FFOODO FU0U0D FVOUDD DOUOZ cCUUDD CODUD vUOUZ

wS eSwaw w

8] 3}.

VN] @

VOTE FOR TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS—NOVEMBER 5, 1974

i ceorge nn 2oecen te ~ wie “eg” "g-v~e ogee

> - = ~ - po

gece omen 2°" —— we re-~-e2 “egg ananna mango

4 . E : e a

ix} s2°ce eri ="2* 3 nes" 37° ween eran maoge

i ag°5° cones ances g=23° =ge"n s"-ge2e° =sR2° veose

F a a

i ju5 gaere a aeSSE g°=gs Sgoee =°3cs Z225° =k28°

RARER Epa

i aaa tt Ree=F = wie eres" Soy@woe *geer

R —

iain R°SBs Zone 239°" easse ener ager’ -—nnAan m-="" wesar

— — Oe oe —

=n A°Sze epune =2R3°e°° e=257 Fre" gaere -eene 2-3°" ross

7 a - n —_

on~- wo s°s3a2 eZee s3=°e7- e-=s33° MIO eon 2-7 men 3-3°" 7 9SeS

” 7 = — or) =

R°S"S SARYS CALKR SRSv’ oCSg_= eHSRS Bgese Cm ena Brose" AHS

RESIS BRRBF LEIMG BAe" LS_Ar MALRA SHIRT We=AR Seg_e= argEgs

_ nN =

SSMS KOLAR SNE FSW Suggs “=2K° SESH —v~res Zrerr erases

RSGa ¥SZER RAGA SERRE RBA=E LARER BREGS SAGER RFELZ 29259

MANN NM AEE HK NENTS NMNINN NINN AMHR wgrcin -<9N HONK ‘a-ne-

hd aw@o o- “= no = c _ Agnm om oa

22525 SR5RR REGES RSSSS ASAZE SIIRR Shee SHE LEaER S22

tee? | 77r n aw7nero nsenn awonn anrne o-emann --— em ea Aw ann

Democratic

en De et |

Je et pe TE eet

o——— - - ©

“Ever

VvPre fs .

2 2 2 &

Bee ye

*“e* ee *

. oe 2 &

“-* 8 # *

7. 2 2

oe 22 2a

“_** ef «©

“_*2* © @

Lge.»

Bera

“fe ef

. 2s 8 2. 6

* 6-82 8 @

“_* * @ *

. on = @

Brey

_* e @ @

ee 2 @ &

Bea 2B Fe

Bees

oS 2S ee Bes as «s 622.5

[n= 2 @

aoc ae Os) an wero ae

af oe 2 of 24.8 66 26 70 4

ss 2 8 8

Se. oe 8 6

aak &

. = & 2 @

“*e* © * *

2. 2 6 2

3 ee

wre tie ewe Pp

. 2 & €.@

2 a 2. o

on oe

een 6 @

’ ere 3

se & 4

te F

2 ee

eeee

ery FF

“_* * *# *

“ef © @

Ferre

ae So @

*@e¢eees

eon 2S @

see 6 .s

“_* @ @#© @

*eecee @

“_* © «© @

Z5592 SRESS RBESH ARSSE KRESE SRaFe SARA SASES SESSS KEES

ana w zv°¢s2 AING= NAIGINN NVOLZN NAMIH=— ORaan Sse~ea gage a-rne

RESaz S55R8 SERRX KSERE SRGSE SRESR HERSE ERAGE ARRRE FSS SF

AAA ze"se amnmeo ogran -“aonN~ anmonn ANQeam -—— em g°o-- t-27e

GASG2 RAGTY REGRA HRRLE HERLH ERREE SEATS BNSAI ERLE TREES

1A-——— AKAN NAMM enonn e—- aecrn nwerNe -——<—- Nn s2Aig@= * gcc

seh83 BARRE ESSER QHERS SERRE ZIZRR SFZER ARRRE ERRSR ESSZE

ANNm = 2regr onmIenme Berane eo- amonn aqg@wan -——e NN a" s-- w-s7<¢

. 2 2.228 \ 2 @-e- ae a

.@. @.8 £277.26 2 Se: Oye 2 eee

‘Se ae Ff we SS Se ee eS ee

nuers © 6 | 4293 226 tenes 2 le © oe oe

. 2 @ ss &- £2 eee ee ae ee 2. ae eee oe

e a-G42 @& . Oe: )66 US 8S a

oS :-@ -@.4,9

64 - n08 8 € 6 @ae ee + eee © |) ee eee @

os @ epee ¢ 2 ore @ . @e:-e oe -..6 3 6 | 2

. 8 464 8 6 245 Be. 4a eae 6 6S 2 ee

es it e & 28 2 eee |” oe ee ae oes

» & 8 Boa

. 22. 2.3

ills Hoot Laos Hate sly att sine

é6$e2eoe 6

> & 6 a 2

. ee a

ao i me oe

“_* # * *

vyaax

ko 2 ae

i; a oe

‘2. 2 & ©

> i 2 =

ake

APPENDIX E

NOVEMBER 7, 1972

SUMMARY OF GENERAL VOTE

St erTr

,o oe 2 @

a. s 2.

ez Se

ee. €

BR, Pe

7 a a

. @ 2 6 2

ert?

“er wT

.o == =

Fak

ky Bae.

Srark.

[a 2 3

a yh Be

= a 2S

“re @

“re # *

a -

7 = ole

“ee # «© *

oe. 2

“ — ”“

5 a ee 7 ARE 2 : 33

5 egorn "=ASe 3° g |

inf essen "RSS 3” a 28

; if ozAse RETF 3° s te

i jul gees =ASgR:z° 3 88

%|=A

fo] |S8588 s8888 28/8/36

ta ah MOONS a? a $F

jo} |aeaee atagg 93|e les

-x<-N mane ge s $3

fo] E3888 38888 a3 | alas

Altri amage Fd = sg

a |R825% $8888 53/3/13

: i Agana gees gn i

Ja} |S8888 gagag a6 |5 lee

g-} [EGER 28858 58/88

Total Outside

Office. Party and Candidate Plurality in Cook Cook Counties

State County County | Carried

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS

President and Vice-President

Republican . Richard M. Nixon ........... 874.707 | 2.788.179 | 1.553.872 | 1.234.307 101

Spiro T Agnew

Democratic ... George McGovern ..........]........... 1,913,472 850.204 | 1.063.268 1

R. Sa t Shriver

Socialist Labor ........ LouisFisher ...............}.. ........ 12.344 5.016 Sa iibsldsintns

Genevieve Gunderson

Communist Party ES Mwai RS Saas 4541 1.419 3.122

Jarvis Tyner

Write-ins

President oe Ul ES SRE 2.471 1,230 1.241 |..

Vice-President ...... Thomas J. Anderson .. oo Sap ieie keh 1,026 767 259

Other Write-ins

President & Vice-President ........................}...... 348 EG Fe

President .. keepin wwkcndiee Bieaihaladiire wi candice séiksatriden 1.881 110 | | ee

iin ope rare, Se iptyess 311 93 in cvehunee

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Republican ...... Charles H. BP cccessccvee 1.146.047 | 2.867.078 | 1.572.507 1.294.571 102

Democratic Roman Pucinski ... ........ iheeun 1.721.031 766.463 954.568 wee

Socialist Labor EdwardC.Gross........... 13.384 5.659 7.72

Communist Party . . Arnold F. Becchetti .........|........... 6.103 2.462 Sn suieiven

Write-in .. a 6 ERTS NR te 396 258 ae

Other Write-ins .. Q Oa RES “RA 388 66 ae

GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Republican _. . Richard B. Ogilvie ..........]........... 2.293.809 | 1.214.774) 1.079.035 47

James D. Nowlan

Democratic Daniel Walker _. 77.494 | 2.371.303 | 1.192.857 1.178.446 55

Neil F. Hartigan

Socialist Labor .. A. 2 nes 7.966 2.709 5.257

Stanley L. Prorok

Communist Party AD, ae 4.592 1.361 3.231 |.

Theodore Pearson

Write-ins

Governor P an Var 36 ae KERN 1,035 447 588 |.

REE TEED EELS TET 239 180 539

Other Write-ins:

Governor & Lieutenant Governor 9 SES ene ae

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Republican . William J. Scott ............. 1.285.095 | 2.898.198 | 1.548.039 1.350.159 98

Democratic Thomas G. L pede veesttenaeee 1.613.103 782.931 830.172 4

Socialist Labor _ tae soeeeeses 10.509 4.448 6.061 ,

Communist Party . Linda R Appelhans.........}.........., 6.624 2.531 4.093

Write-ins JEbtAA eke kis ce ebaasielicus ceases 402 181 TR.

4 E2 . ; mm... .. MB... 222828 seses Dean ic Oe

= ; 3 $32 82322 § £2 Figs F338% F FE: :

8 hs] Sie $283 = Gf ELSE ELEEE $F FEE G3

SUMMARY OF GENERAL VOTE—Concluded ° Sid: $33 f:232 ° 3 33 $8335 $3838 5 882 }

2 - 82346 25 » S28: 23993

Total Outside & se ess £888 8888s

Office. Party and Candidate Plurality in Cook Cook Counties Fs : $2233

State County County | Carried = $e

SECRETARY OF STATE - = Bris —~— 2333 3 ae

Republican Edmund J Kucharsk: 2.187.544 | 1.175.789 | 1.011.755 “a = ; Stee sere Pee 3s STLTs Sate?

Democratic Sootan 2. Rewtett 172.783 ary cary ee 54 2 fbi s2853 F593 FS323

Socialist Labor zabeth Schnur mei 0 U6GeL....... :—( OR ge ee

Commnpniet Party Peences Gahew Daa ela ccna 6.079 1.958 4.121 }. ge s Gpi:iii f332 gitid ff ¢ FEEL Feed:

Write-Ins ...... , oe senvatens 281 13 148 + sss

OLLE _ e- .2e een GOeeee ©2822 ©2922 © © -@e©8 © eee © oo

epubl — a m2 | 2.217.400 | 1.272143 | 995.297 0 ~ Z a |

R 1 217. . : :

Demecratic .. Dean Barringer ............]..... 2.094.798 | 1.024.515 | 1.070.283 42 oe ~ ,

Socialist Labor Clarys L. Essex 12.797 6.061 6.7% ' = 5 S 2 .,,.98g eaves One. MEF SP - gem = we = me

Communist vay Nathan Sharpe 9.325 3.53 5.800 = oO z ; : 3 : : : : : :

Write-ins iaaed 27 164 123 a a 3

TRUSTEES OF THE 5 i

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

Republican... Ralph C. Hahn ) 2.204.218 | 1.264.229 | 959.989 BE “SONS OMNNEN “ECSS One CONS Coone neooee coc-e

Jane S. Hayes Rader .. 2.199.006 | 1.225.689 | 973.317 x o

Park Livingston . a wo ia | 3

8 Nicholas’). Bosen 1.974.000 | 911.395 | 1.062.605 & [ssl <zg a, |88°SR SeznR RENN CMge HReee canes sene~ wens-

Roger B Pogue 1.998.476 | 916.428 | 1.022.048 4 fy ry: =

Socialist Labor __.. Edwin L wa liams 28.988 17.618 Nas 9 Be Hs

Henry Schill 23.168 13.328 9 8x0

umeti — oe] ts] is 3

rn =. . . . Seee= S424E2 A228 cee SEN .— non

William R. Fugate ....... 15.609 | 8.882 | 6.867 4 ‘ SE|Saese Skeas Ra4SA BABAR SESSA Zagae x9R3R Baas

Write-ins 533 279 254 “i =

—_

Total Vote 4.880.213 | 2.498.888 | 2.381.325 Zz i 22548 REZSE BBRRE 3 =-=rc gee ose

Pvecttenties (hector Bailie enna 240 7 | 23007) > hi 20s Hees ghke 5898 genes e885 SESE feras

ecncco- annoeor mance Aan Cn - an -~ - we)

5 «| SF |#¥aas RERSR SSCGS FICS AIARE FURST 399R5 F3aH8

a = .

S| iigupy|SHSe! SSS8E SSEME SSES AqNSS nuge encue catns

és -

9 —

2 |$8298 B858 Bases ate S288 Sagas F8NR2 ASSES

8 i

- &

SOeZeo f£Ooeronx 2a000 6000 S@22@68@0 of000 aroes cocaca

ee @ &

*“e* © @ *

eae &

Fa estWekterre

Ss Fert meeaeer FS

2 @esty weees

Sz ££ 2 Bere ee

oa eee ae ee } ar ee oe

ee aee 2 eee s

ae Sf hans ©. 2 = a =

“* * @ *

7 7TeteoerlUlUlCsmUMPwmUC TO FTF )hU6h?Rhm CRB RCSGcCtlc(<éi<i—ézi HC HCO

ao a a

oe on ae

a a a a

[aan a sL2 & 2 &

G&S © © Meme eZ EF

FR SBQ£ Mee eee Fe

2-2. © 28047 Beene & 8s 2a

Counties

a a 2 ee

2 £2 &£ 46622 Beentrte eneen

BHRs £ ie e § Oe eee lle Oe

Bet A & Ses & £ Ree ee Oe OF

BRAS wee sa FP weer st ee

2. ae ea oe) |. ae ae ee oe

7, ee Ff jFe in Ce CEs

“_* © *# *

Adams

Alexander

Bond

Boone

Brown

Bureau

—-

—

Champaign

Christian

Clay

Clinton

Coles

, a

—_ a

Edwards

Effingham

Ford

Franklin

Fulton

Gallatin

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Hardin

Henderson

uois

Jasper

aor 6hUvwPe ae ee h6SerhlC ele e.hmhté(<CtC MHOC TC SSS

ae ant lianas aes fae & &

| £2 EF Bete & & eet. kT eeeeeeelUmcehUmhPClca le

faa elCU nr nn ae aap iFeeiea &

en an. Dane ae) Dae ae a a ee

ona 6 hen Beant #8 @ @ @

eR 2 Ger rtet* 4 8 2 eee er hlUmhLrhlULe CU

. .

ann ee en el hl ee ee ee. ne a One oe a tne ee ~ &hea ae se

eee eee enn ae nn ef aaa ae oan. 2 FF 2a Fes 2 =

oe ene lr ene a Le aah (lr RO Re feast ese FF fee feezes ¢

_nnaan Benen Bawetane #882932 32 jBS£282822 BCeeecece fe 82469 8.4.92 2 &

oan sh CUCL ns Bannan 6 6a ese 6060U6PC OR Ee 6S OSE ee elCUCelUC HCE RUC RC EC SS CS

nenann nneanres bpPenean e+. 2D> 88282080 S22 8322 j8S 824237 82-32 2 @& ©

nanan ne nnn n ns bfnneee. 2a gseoeeesee Beeeeae + B22 Badges s

cen est nen ese ara as Ue alc tli OO )h 6ULRmlC a ee | «£ hUv Se S| h6eCU ee 2 US

i S & g ge | } & & Bee 2 £ Ck lhe lm6hlUrrhlUrhlUcrhlhlUrUrrhlUrrhUrlhlUmrlUe ee ele sehlUmvrelCce

Other

Write-Ins | Write-Ins

Governor

and

Governor

ane ener ae lee) nnn ae fF Bae Fis = &

ee ee, eee Bent. ©. i bene i@I-s ee Oop oane - © B22. 2 ee oe

Tanne) h (6a lc(i rt rr rh ULUMmlmULvLrrmae aes. ff aa fees |

aaa. ofa #esnseenc cae s84 2 ¢ 32 ff 82 Fe 22 &

Tana lrre aa lc lh OOOO OOS h6U6vVRC ee SS | 6SlhlLUmeRUlC a eelCUC RUC Se

Sa aee ene. hl OO OOO et anna 0h O6-lUlUOOC OOO O|h[U6UVLhUahUre he

> 2 Beet | 5 & Ae pes et Bek ££ oe eel lel oelmKehlUcvher Ur CU

Write-Ins

€&eo* Ce © © + Ce fe © F ae et Oe eS eee ee hUmhhlUmlUehlULhSlLhChCc Cee lL Cc ae ee eas ee eed .lLUlUUTllllClCLUee hl la ae ee

ona wan lh |= lc rmrhmhmhU nes wRaneete fF sees FF. 62 2 ©

eee en na l.!lU CUCU elLUCLTrrL ae ee © fe eae &

Se ee ee 0 eee me Dee ee | Ue ee UU ee ee ee

eee © eeeee oc|e- ic

Auman ge eanear = :7 @ sesrg © goes : - soe 2° a .@ ss R2z°s~ -A-@7n --“g- 2°

Communist

Per

Cent

1.361

3.231

4.592

-coo-“ Co-=-08 Sooo coense o-oos sesoeoes -oE-" OFM SF =H ONS eneco

=—=——. == ss VSS elUC TCT eelhCUCU Lh OT weer eee

eeeee eeonee =<98/ =<" |

ze°"°"g R°sES ore SzRKR2 ocrwrocw neve~ a3°=8 “ce a s3°2- -“°S8

#3 ‘hi waeer -wees g°/ 8a 18

LL Be. de ee bee bee Bi bbe b > Be be > De > Be > be > PB > > > * Be PP Be pee Pe

igan

4.781

20.015

3.1m

4.176

3.359

550

452

S34

48.073

766

52.566

5.811

857

2.371.303

- —Lenn seen Tener aranmn onl ve

BE SSREA RVESS SR) RS

ke pee te Bie be bo be be BP ba > db > BD b> Db Pb > BD. - > > BD > > > BP PO Ph BP per Br er PP eee Pe

he Aw dee b Bile Db 4 be be Bie > bee Pe > Be Db be BR P6 > FO | = ae ff ae Ll Pe he OP Re be he pe pe

Republican

Richard B.

and

James D.

Nowlan

“0

1.214

Plurality + Ogiivie

baad

695

303

170

644

66S

21.917

99.411

77.404

DOoeee eeero Oeeee £e000 Creer Coors £eoes £5000 COSre «xocexx5

OCeaexe xeoeec Of) «eos

-nene wewenene seeeee s8e82enee steeee &eeeeyry Feet e Fea ees

anaes Urea naae Beeweten wFensaene se322 228 829 se 232-2 FFF FS

cook Benes Beeee Beeene Behe C8242 S288 22 +53: :F—lClClClClClClCUOUUlUlUUCC~C~C~C~C~C~C”C Sl Ll eee 2

a eee eee eee eee ee eee ££ eee Pe eee ee ee se = =6=©£©—e EE SRE ee ee Yo = a ee

[oases Beene Beets Beene @Caeenen 222885 822382 22332 27332 °:5 3} zx = EE eS lh Oe B Baeeaen Sees

S22. Beene Beaeee BEB Se Beeee weeee Sees Bees ¢33ee- i éeFMm = < ’ )O BBE “5 «= "0 Sl SSS See See ee

222. 22s Beene Baene Bann s @eenee 42268 2292332 Cares 227 :: 5 3 Fe © — Sy BBS SS 0 OO Ss Be ee oe ee

to. Bees e Beceem 2aenn tenes O22 eaee £22232 223283 B22? 52 —-e — ——— EB p UlU S Seea ne Saas

ere eee! Peter Seer! Paes enw Stan BPebke eee se “Me © 8 i IBBIRO SV S22 ae oe

[anon Beene Sees: Beers Benes B2eecee £22980 S2Eeee F232 te £4 Fe 2 BC) us Sees ae ee

[22 ee Beets Bese Beeene BeEeen Beene 22288 2h ege Seee2 Fee??? 5 CP 8 RS Sl i ee ae ee

[e222 BSepene Beene Beaeaee Baentae e222 Beene 24222 8355722: :e:: FF x= } }}} } } } 3 }32323)=—6h6e ge 8 BB OS em i 6 OS Beas Pee ee

[eer n BBs BSS e -Beeae Beeee Beets Bene £228 222 273.°°55 FF 8 6CCvCvCCCS Ul GS @ h mE 6S

cee eee Chasen, Sane nts Cente Cette Dennen) £2 bee £2 e939 me Bm pe BES 55 RE 2) 0 aa a

eee s. 6490 24 2 ©

53.6

486

42.2

47.0

456

“40

515

S64

58.1

460

55.6

“459

56.5

§23

579

480

53.4

“4

497

498

55.6

“2

55.7

53.9

496

“4

496

S31

VOTE FOR GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR—NOVEMBER 7, 1972—Concluded

LaF

Per Stanley

“ent Prorok

565

SOR

496

423

“45

56.3

486

“47

"9 2

507

[2s Beene anspewens S@eeec28 es28028282 e235348623 F9esee2s2: 2eRrrze2 22a es

;eza an BBSeene seneae e8e 8202 828268097 #82828 8287 8222822 FSEEPs Begaaze

Snaanan e253 200 82 800° 822 820 8325 5.42 9 22293 9 32223293 22-232 8

2a? FF meres

> oan -& 2 &£&'e a

[27e2.2 Beraene Se nee B8220 5 2eaaeer 22882 2th 6h8lceSs SCS ese et EFtllhlcC OlCrhMt~C~COC. CC ORS OU RR. Ee eee 2 eee

“_* © *@ *

@22 ik wetet a 8

reece n Bert ee Seen Bases Bebeen oS2eenee eee ee 2°39 8*¢+R fm 2 2 0 BBR 0 0 USS i

Counties

-eRneep esa eee 886 828 @8B8028808 88283282979 SRR? FREI BIV_sAS

-Reaonunnke ese eenBp BSeSBeene #8 ees es#e2ee02e8ke8 828822 BF etzee

Bae) See eek eee Se) eee ee eke ee eee ee Se eS ee ee ae ee re Ps fel le eS Ue

a a

Plurality is from the Republican and Democratic votes.

Commies Convtal tae Ogilvie. Mr. Nowlan. 47: Mr. Walker. Mr. Hartigan. 55

SEED ciisepuicas>onareerant

S SaRE 73% ice a S fifi: Liisi fo oper he i esis e§ $3 §$ Sti $i: Pfiti giiit Piit:

s E/* . Feene

2|55 | 333a3 Shaan Gasca Seen RaaRe Susea SueHs RESS GSkaR SRMRE SARRH RABSR SHAAR GHSHH AASKS Bosse Sadan RERRB

i ¢ 23 R8S52 E=EL% SHARE ElGHz RENEE ESRRE 28H35

: 2 = ZONE EAGRE H2GEE HSSES RSESR FRAGT SETHE PESTS SESE = ERS

i! SSeG8 CSgle Baha> ESSE FUSER FUEKE BRSTR HRUzS SSGKE ERERS 42555 SSE SSSSS SAAT SGSSS PSIES Ggca= <2 ss

—

| = - cars names gener mmren comme ran-- “roe

s|25 | $529 S8ise Z5953 Sea Sesea Zeaes ZeaSR oess $9886 SUZHD SEZHH Ress BoSSS Geass HOGS BARB Asass 2a-ez

r = 2 2958 SEGRE EARBR SESE FRESE RaGRE SEE HaSES

55 2853 Rages R55 = a22% aeacs z g=k 3 ab geeat REG s Se = BRax=s °7 4er00 ger a-e- g9o°9” rong

625

388

007

189

321

1.8

160

683

673

oud

1.068

6 94S

ee kere eee Keeee

eee eee eeeKO Kerk eoeee CESS SESKE KEKE KEEEO SEEK CEKES SEX mee

ss eae Bees £6 oe ak eS aa ws CS eet & 6 ee eel ee ee ee eee Se 8 eee lv6lUhelUe

[a2 aeae 66S eehUr eee See eeelhCUhUrlU OCU SEaeelhLUmUmerCULU CUCU ee.hUmtCUECLUalUL eel elhUCUcrerl eee ctelhlc .t!wt”t”t”~”CRMOC”C~:C:C:;:;:;:;*”*”:C;*SRS C«SD RSS wh CMDB UBB EG SelUCUCU KCl El lUCUC CULO

oun oe eC 2 22 Been ween a

Terry, £2872 Sees Sees 238s

,_ Beane egrets 229 2

£4 eee £ 2S A 2S eel ee ee Ce ee eee ae eT earn ee? one eae ee ee ee oo ee

[aeons @2eeeae £2428 .- 2220 2222 2s ite lc k‘‘_lOCOCRUUCC~«wWO”C*C SB BU hcl CR ee Se eae lh hUU eee Ue Se hUrehlc etl

7-2 @& & @ “_* «© «© «@ *“e # * . sTr TF 2. =. * = Bez Biase i 2 2 e @eee . . . *“e-* oo. oe @ . ae [Ee ne Benes te2nr868 OS Eo

[aan an Phe Ban an £2 ee. 22a 22222 222252 stesnsee00—mMmlmlti‘it:::—:—:—:—:—:CRROC*~‘C(‘(‘C(C(;(“(‘(C(‘“(C;#CO*;*S BR OSG 6c RR QE~ G@GBSQeoee §Feeee O88 CBSE SC

re crn 882 828 Penaaet Fea ee £&£teaeneane ee sean

[eaoaone Beene Beene Bee ae 22242238 £2228 252235. 23 eee¢ 0 06©=©6—™mltlt”~CMROC:~;:;‘(;S;:C:”;”;”;”;”:CSSCOC HS =. HOBBS S SB22EE EROS SESS 2s Fee Fees sees £SRES

2. = = & 2. © = & eees*? rf ef @ © Bese. “_* © + @ *“_*eee “ees. “7 28f © @ -_* © © © "_*. ef © * 72. 2s = a em Rehan B@Bebeee £82 tee ORB EaE

[aaa 6B eee Uc Eee Ss eee |! hcl eee hlUvre ees hh ULE ees hUce ee eeescelc i i i(‘iéié; (< UMrrmrllT™Ctété“(tét‘(“(;O;w*;*;:*:”:C SHC EE URC RRR Bae ee ULC a aaa .lLULehmUc atl th kl elhhUvreaeat ae ae hv ae ate eke hUuvhC eC ee hU6vL SESS

ceaenee Senne Seanenan 2 eenn Seana Sees [hee hUceee eel kk k;wlr”r”C~CmMDMUCtOC:C;:;C~;:;:;:;:;:;:;*:CRCSaRCOC A 6c aS Bee ee UCC SC hUhCl RC Cte lUUC CE hUL CL Se LUCE USES

[eens SEeeae Benanen Saas RST! hUchL tC ees|h hehe lhUmreee eel tlc i i‘i‘itt:::”CrM™™C~COCdRC MC RCO Ree Ca lhUmhC Eee Ue URC E

[eaee Bees Baas Beene 6S eees.hUh SC ess.h luke sh hlUceee ect tlc (l)ll”l””lCMDLUC~C~C~C™C:C RC CS OC BROS. C2Beee 2 828ee £28 Bete seeee SEs 2S Ba

[eee SBeaeene Beene Seees L£aeae6h 6h eee. 2s hlUvLea CellC ttt””CMMMMROUC~C~C~*;O;:~C~CRC SSCA OH SST UCR US POE UPR eee UU UU CURE ES

Saaean h6UR BEE eee Seesa2t es OSAP SSS Sears Betas see seselc( ‘i‘COéi(‘(‘(‘(‘(is”t”:”:ti‘(irUC~”~”CMMU CSD BR Bk FSS. CER es CEE Be ees

Tze aeanae BeBe ae BSaneeas SBaeaeee S282 22°82 S278 t2etecelUlc ( (‘“‘iO™OCSOCO;;CéCrCFrUTC™C~C”C”C GC ME RC .|h6U6DRDUcU UR RC lLCUmrRrCUCUCUC a elhlUCUrrhlUcvhhUlc Cc rl elhUmrhmlUmv UCU Ua elhLUCUmrrclUcv al Ol a)telhUCUrermlc el ee et tlhCUr rh hmv Ue ehUrh UL a eS

[ceo aeons Bees 2s £2222 £2252 Beene £asee i } gf 2” £¢ ieee 20 ees 2280288 Seep ee SESS SF FRRSE £SEEZE F2Rae

[aanee Beene SBeneee Seen sees £242 25s eee esl COC DLU™~™~™CRC RM A A ORR Bete tees URS UES UCB tS hUv EET UGC TBE GS

sane BEB aee 6S EES eee hUe eae hUrhLh eee h6mSe eee eS hUreercee etl tC FhlhlhUlCc i ititit:::””””C«CLUC~;~;:;:;:;:;w;«;«;«*”*”:CRCGEC HC OCR REE heeeaeaeaeelUC CUCU all tl elUCUmlc a8

raza BEZee BeBe n SB2aeae S22 822 sSt282F Bete ese etecelUlUlti‘it~™~™~C~CMC;:;C‘(COCOC(;(CSNNOC;”;”;C;CPCSUCORCSR_ OR 6OSBSB BBS Beene

(tn Bee te 2425.92 4

ew me -— 06@6@60Uttt~—“‘“‘s™SO™OSOSCRlllllll gm ie ee = Rats aa e Fret ee ee 6c

[ease et 880646 8 8

e“eeee

Pea nae sae eee. 28282

(aa. aan =!) ee eC Se lLULULUlUlUlUUwUwtwUwUw~C~CRRRRRlllUlUUlUlUlUlUlUlUlUlldlU UCUG6§DUEGCTC ES SR aa eS ese sa ste ecvs F?Fr?reF,7Ee Ff FFF? FEE

. Opts ww. 4s

VOTE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL—NOVEMBER 7, 1972

2 a a

.sa 2c e222 822 @ a

“ee ee

eeeee 88288209035

ornate s9 2 2) aww ne senate weeene weeaeaertrae senen =

ra nannf sftp a > a -eeenesesevue#s& ae | Coe . > . * pee n S&B Obese O*eewpese O88 24

coenens. Sees «Eee Bees | 6hU6cSCceaes Ure es hCUcA eee luce tcl (Wl)lrlrlrlr”r”r”:C(“(“<“t«teDT™C™~CUCCU SM CU CRS Bee Umea UR Ue te Ul ee UE CUB ES

£38 *_e* © @ «© *eeweee oeeneee Ba be F Rett ge *_* ee * —— oo «@ . 2 2 en See -_.es ef + seeee FFT ec FF FPBRBtes eaensce teense ene eeaeg

72eaan SEaeaes 6B eet st 6h UCU See hum ee ee hme eae Se PS hUrerceeletrececetlC(ittet”t;t;:;:”:ti(i“it:COCCmmemDOC~;i‘(;<‘(‘<(‘i‘(‘i‘(‘(‘(‘(‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘iéRw SHPO SVC VP P/!’hUhLCLCLUGTC CT STUCCO ULUCUmrrmUmha ll th aOehUCUmrer eal a ee hCUmeU

cana eww ne awn n”6 anise ae Beane e @6@&<@ es es Sean @

[uve nD A@tans. Benen Sea2 2 eo 2 OSah ea

on. 2 2. See eaen i Bane enw £2 aen BASES 2426682 Bens sa

[aes 8SPaeee 88 688. 28062 8

@Gtte meertir Ss

7-2. 6 8 2 2 @ aan oe a ee eee oe le a oe |) en ee ee ee

[onan 2 aa 2 s

‘eo. 2h barren Jen eel ee

sefteeese S297 789° Seeee @eFee2sz2s.

an on eae eae 6h ee ee ee 2

seese 2222 8EBSEES 22232 B25

eres @28PC¢S S2RTRSe Sees s2eetre Fas

fone ea ae aan es Bae sk aaa a. a

[anne Baers “S242 205 Bees = .@ 2 8.2 @

a a oo

ea eee

_* © * *

>a = «

sense eee es 82. =

ones. Se ean ase 8 2 Beene

BPs apeaet ££) Bee & FV

Counties

ese ee 889897 289 Beee? 822222 Bertre 2a eknae pe eee eees8 86844684

enn =

Tee eee 62866 6 @

JEL we week luce FO eee eRe

oa oe, (ee en oe ae ee ee ele | a en a ae

‘7. fe, aoe eesn2s 2a neeana C822 a

ann as nnn ne - Sane ae a

ae a ee oe ee) ee en ee ee ee ae

aes Seana naweeaan es Been n. Bean = =

a2 ee. Caen | Lele ae 2 eee ea) | 6 ae oe

eeseee tiPieee@ 289 8&2 S282

fe za. * * > a ae aes. Ft 2 = & 7,2 es See &-

Lass Beene, S2ee te ee ¢ FF

a. i @@.}@=——— RR EO nn a Re = Sf Ce a ses Aare Baers sete Bee ases fs aeaenes ewease

‘2. 2 os 9 @ @ @@ 2. @ 2S Oe Besa See?) Be ges Bet. aa @€@etetsea ts Be awe

mee me llltt—“‘“CO™SOSOSOSOSOOSSSOSCSCSCNN MIRE“ OGD @ Ql @S@)06 66635. 2 2) ew. 22) 2a) 2a] oe 2

[one lti‘(‘(‘<‘CO:;(;*;:*:sétCaRUUUUUUCUCUCU””lU UCD !6LuUR Ke eee eh 6LvB ee ee)6h C6 ee. eae 2 2S 2

‘erst > 0U@U6U6UtlUmUmt~COC”CR ec nn a ae Se 6S Re 6 PaaS } £eeaes Ft teen- Bees

[ote ne Benes Deepen Beer 8222 2s et Bese w2wa2aet

ea. eee ae ee ae oe an ae fe ae

a, 2 Fe = :lUlUlUmUmUmU™~COC~C~C~C~CRRRRR ls nn nn mS OS Se 6 SCOR SRR aes eee. Ete Fea a Ss

Bak 2 Beale ee lee el lUmlhlUlCU Olle elCU ll lr er Ue, ae Ul le

Sena nae 284.0 & a

se 6¢ @ @

conn se Oa -— naw, Bee 2 = “se es am

Beebeaeaeemeettis: & @ewsttk& wee ee Pe eee ee eS OP

Ekyvrnwt wieenrrvyrrt eae ee Bf

on nme ane ae|6h 6UrPlh ee es ff an ee e

BLeW & Sieraeaerevit peewee S

[Toe nrmn safe ee 82 8 848

Te £22 Ben 2 es cee ne Oo 8:3 a 4

ee 6 @

~anpetne @na =e

me Meme Mee ——“‘“‘iésOSOSCSCsSCRMR Ee a a a a ae a ee ee

Se ane O82 28? Beane 24322 22 eee @2ee 2s 24 2 8e- @geeee

ee te Bes. ee 284 5 ..§ QM (GGG Gia £22 2 ee. Bee ee

nnn oe enna. 2 f¢ 2 2.6 SS 62S

LeGas Se 22 Bee 6! ee Se eee eee ek eee eT

Taare <2): 2 2 Ss. 2 Beene £aeen

Pores Sets. . tee. a f° £2) SBE Ee” EERSe

[one 2ee ) ae 2 ££ : Se £Bawe £eaea

[eae e. nat 225 & 8°, @ 3232832 28229

Teaaenun 272 33 8 # *@ @8BRRS eegee

ca. ae)” mea niy £22) 8° “Ss. *# £22 Bae FPF

ieee ee. 2s 6s 8 * § Soe Pee BABE

Write-Ins

Sa OS, SAM SECS sane eee @ cence eooce eoona aooen

_ | eedeeertins ce: >

Per

Cent

Linda

6.624

Communist

Frances

Gabow

NASA STNOH =OCCSS SHrce conne SCONNS NOSSS cSoeoSe xonne

1 cee) Gol G EELTTT Semen sees sane sence conne maeeq ae ee <enne

Socialist

Labor

Milonas

44k

061

10.509

Socialist

Schnur

Elizabeth

426

A eH T4-eou Ae2—F COST CEE CEOem “Smen Coram

SESSA SKARE SSSRAZ ARSS S$SSER BARKS ZSRSS Sonne 42999

S042 GN882 E8588 G88 HNOR fog0H Cran H2aMs ARURE

Per

Cent

37.

“.

31.

35.6

Mu“

782.931

830.172

1.613.103

Michael J

Howlett

Democratic

Thomas G

yons

12.785

211

391

238

054

634

307

O41

4630

S21

TRONS Kee mene Ysaon onen

Republican

Edmund J

Kucharski

548.

380

2.898.198

640

PE STATE-—NO

Republican

: ‘ Per

' i | Cent

50.2

51.2

57.4

4.1

60.8

410

39.5

505

45.3

464

47.0

43.1

53.1

50.5

53.3

60.2

52.0

63.2

416

470

604

42.9

43.2

412

45.1

56.5

46.0

51.6

51.8

62.7

41.3

45.3

466

56.2

56.6

57.8

peewee gweerte sere trerterSs ietretse tT TE

" Ps de PR a castes CETE? fit i? TTT TE TTT TP Tree rrr

PEREE Btaeee SEREEET £8828 Feeee FERERS BESEE BERET

Sees es PEers ERE SS 2258 SRSSE CRETE ERT 2E8ae

Terese BOESS SPBEE CRESS FHSS GCECEE BEREE FRET

ceore Peeee FhEeS BEETS 425588 SESEE SESRE Feet

reece S25 ae SESE CEaEEe C2228 SAEBS BEETS £2053

ceeene Bee ee SBSETE £ZRRE £t tes SESEE SEGRE B2REs

Teeaen GE pees C£ESTte Q2EPS FSS SESER CSERZE SERRE

: 2. ae eS

Peete g? G2 GB = =—=—6—6—00lmUmUmmm™CCC~—~—~—~—<“‘“‘ é‘érR SE REET BRGEE GEETE CEERE Tccee CETTE TEEER FREES

[eote Benen Leer 22st Verse FESS 2Aees teuae

Toren OEE Pe C2 EEE SERES ESREE SESEE BESER BETES

Store BEeSEe £ESES BERT S SEER FESER FSRPSE SERS

ceeece Os ss L£Eesee Cet ee L£ESee S2Ed PS £ERER BER ES

Pw eo eS) aa eee

BBee tee at

,e eam eesnhea

SESS MESStt eee) |, Me Pe fe ees e eke ceea het ee trey mere imide

coe ee BeE se SEPES £4 Fs SCE See SSeee FEESES BEERS

cone O2ese SEEPS PECTS £hSee CEEee Sete Perez

Seeen Peete FETED tetas £EFSE FEES ZESES FREEe

Pearse Beeaee CEESS £2822 CESSES SSESE SERSE £ECEG

cere wees Z2Zeeee See FEES £tEer SESER BERS

Peten Beeee BESTE SERVES £2228 £PRSS FESCRE FERRET

ceone Beene FSP ES TRESS CECED F£EPes FESR FERTE

Peaes 882 2% @¢2 224 2529689 ER S86 CEERE BERET

Teens BeGes FECES SESE E SETS tees SERER ERR

coevs meres PERS SSF S SESE” St eee EERE RRR

Seene Serer BREESE CASS FESS FEES SESRE BEELER

SeCe Ss Steee FSERSES FS2RRe CESS FESS FLERE £ERREE

Seeee Bheee SEEPS £teest FSCES CESSES BESESE FSEES

Tees BEL ee EUSEL PRs. 9S ES” 228 SS SEEZSE £SRF

Bren

ss 22 &

ee. 82 6 4242 2 8 =

eee enae - ets 5

Baws Pare SB Se FT

VOTE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL—NOVEMBER 7, 1972—Concluded

Plurality

1.283

2.457

1515

3.788

2.379

2.238

954

8.965

38.244

4,001

389

6,030

108

519.987

Rs 1.285.095

VOTE FOR SECRETARY.

Plurality

R 221

D 613

R 173

R 1,478

D 545

R 348

D 378

R 1,852

D 1,288

D 5,457

D 3.662

R 87

R 3

D 1,118

D 1517

(See below)

D 584

D 710

R 2,124

R 81

R 557

R 46,222

R 464

R 1,031

D 2.127

D 621

RK 1,568

D 2.504

D 2.616

D fe)

D 690

R 1,558

D 384

R 1,066

R 98

R 159

R 422

R 3,967

D 4,007

D 1018

D 1,428

D 548

R 1,100

R 528

R 14,740

‘os SS 2 « & 2 ae

ECGs TEEGE fe of Ge lO BS RS Shae EC iel fciit Eeeee- beeit Fates Genes

CP eee SSS Se PEELE 2 Oar tees SECTS SEERE £E7TaT

Te oaee ESE. LCLetaee £2 8.2 O@£4ER CEREE S2EECE EERE

peeeh 38 Fs fme eh OBE EEE BEERS EEEEE PEVTS U3TEE Eetas thtal

cere e SEER e £EEWe SES SS CEPR S. tees CEERE £EGES

Teere 2H eee CERES? S2ESSS. Ceara C£eeee FSERCSS SSL RF

Peren £2epres 2-22.22 BCH 22 SESQE-- See LEBER E S£BREET

Teeaen £2 Pee SPECS SRS S £sesee- CPFERS EERRE £2222

earn -Chaeene 22282 FPAtees 24eterace- Bes PEER FSF

ceoeee S28ne 822232 O23 931i PR SSE Citar BREEZE 22823

Tec aew Serene Tete SHG Se 2BReSES SBESeRS CERES £BERS

cere n CHeeee teehee tees SES Pe Fecee FECES FRESE

Counties

PeREe SERRE SESE £2eet SERBS Stes S£A2EBE FERRE

Pees ae SEERSE Peet Pee. £4258 Cees BIST FLes

[2ene 22-222 £24 29 2 S22 Pes Seats BESBBS SEER

See SE £ESESe EPERE £2882 BOSS Cases SEB EE ERTS

Cee ee SHEE E FBS SE BESS SECRe SECs SEERER 82282

Tee ee SHROGE LTEPBE Besese SCEPee SBtscese £BHEEES £822

P27 cre £EBES £SETEE Feees *F8P Ee Bi eee- SPREE £223

Petes GEHRELS ESBceS Qeeee £2.33 22> 234308 BIBS £2223

. Scott. 98, Mr. Lyons 4

Tepes 22°22 £279 22. £PCTSwVeseee £tESBSE Ceces

Plurality is from the Republican and Democratic Votes.

eer nam

Woodt

Dewn State

Cook County ..

‘otal

Counties

Adams

Alexander

Bond

Boone

Brown

Bureau

Calhoun

Carroll

Cass

Champaign

Christian

Clark

Clay

Clinton

Coles

Cook

Crawford

Cumberland

DeKalb

DeWitt

las .

Edwards

Effingham

Fayette

Ford

Franklin

Fulton

Gallatin

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Hardin

Henderson

Henry

I s

Jackson

Jasper

Jefferson

JoDaviess

Johnson

Kane

stite S° 2 89932 ELPE2 PLL: GGii? irs E ti es : *; 6-108

S323 33 SEGts SShes Sheed F8ic3 83:2 t Bi ii:

Fr e-oo 68S on

o-2se0 “aoe a2sax’°s — | aa wo mote aZane “oe #38°5- age agpamee y = as

- i Oe

CONTS COSCON MMMM BOSS] S-COS NTOKM AMNMKOS NTOSHlD OMOM SNES BE cS x

— Ss Ste St ert ro A]

i Eg

AASTSO NOAH SO CEN T= een COANE NAHTES ACA=-S 2 =—“A-S— NMANAS

\2o7° 1ee=9 LeQeem £28948 SS eqeQqr = 72

SS22R ALSRS GIRS BASSS FSRRA SAGAR FRARF ARARA VREGR FASS

S2G9R ZHARR ReGK= RABE ARSSH ERAS BESES SERSA SSSHR CESS

cer rages San sz°s" * *aueO

g aortain + egaune asad

MAOH TOKMAR EMOEN CHCOR HEAD HEM EN AEON= LTA

(or oe ==eae 12e~ -e= ; Pmeor- = -. R

SSRES SESSA VSRSSS FSARR VASSS SSRSS FSVSS SSSSS KRFAKS SSAAS

sRg2 Q2q22 BASza REEKZ RBRRG BRITE EaTEy BEERS aERRA FERg2

acces o 2aReR Kaan oO Sra SENT KKH BE°s" -*-SR

$3U88 RAN*Z FGRSR FACET HGRA HAAS TNA BEARER *8RTE FHIEH

ecccecoschae

secceeefD

-R eee BEBSBe Se BBG Be £64932 C222. 24 2.5.4. 24.22 2. - 2.4. 2 oe 2 2 ses

saan. &@eSepn, Sb es ft @8@22 64 23° 9429 222 2 2 2 428-2. tae

-zcoa ne. e868 @ 8 8&® #2635 6 ss 88529 82 23.3 2.97 2.2 #£.9 2.4 3) 2,345.77). 2 2 2

a iy Tie: te ot « a a 2S eS

Penent ats 2 re Re

hy > we «a On Re CR

ie ee ia eS ee 6 ee a! 6 Oe eee oS Fr oe

y SS REE. et DBaeRBDSD @ BBS BB. oR Bem €2 72322 #82373 €2 2,2 2.9 2.9.8, 2. ee Se SSS

° 2 Sa 8.) £2 eae 2.) 2 eee

; *® eg BPeoetRe OBE aeE 8882 70 284 86° 6's. OF Ce £9845 2 Fe 2]

[nate en es RD BBke @bebb &@ &@D QB BPRS 868.922 CO. 22° 2.9 2a Fs, Ss. 6 6h

;ectaeb e2 BSeSOhe €@eBeense ODeBaae #88 BVT, £49.82 6.9 C.ses 2. £2.52 2 oe. St SSeS

MOTE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE— NOVEMBER 7, 1972—Concluded

| a

Sina See e nate eee eae Rh eae CF YF ae eee Se fr ee Ae Se

> a Se. Rae 6 ie a

‘ji nhe be eonpenhee#s eb e802 4£93.¢4¢732 O73 222 C8. 2) fF & 2.2.5. . 2a e

Ben ah U6UctCe

na 6¢ @!29 88 2 6828482 ° S322 2 2.2 2 2S

= 2S

ae: oe ae. eee ee a ee ee ee ae

oe aneeene @e8; @ @@. @BS Be ££. Cees 2. 2.2... Seeeeee6| 66h

. «2 Qt 4A ES ae Set Se wa

gt et rs ow «at ee 2 Oe i

—— a eae

. Mr. Kucharski, Ee: Mr. eS 4. ite Votes.

* a 2 & Oe, i>. > a a oe oe

tia s —Bes st (S22 2 2 eS ae

4 al a al a al) | old HD

Plurality is

Counties

Write-Ins

- 2:8 & 2

Aa &-

@Yy sz

wwe a

“es © #

. 2 ae @

se. 2 ©

. etn 8's

as &y

> bie & =

Sagas se

es. 2 @ es

‘ae s

s @ YB

a a Sa

. eeeeeeeernr

ce —aNeorneo cocoon

— _ 2a°s Nn -<sc -fs

eeeeee cen,

NANSCS MTOMS oNSN

Socialist

mnocown RES — arg

- .

Cornnan morte --eocw

SSSAS SHFSS S$H4sz

Democratic

eoner «ene -

: - Seene rome

BZSSSR2 SSSzan 2Szae

Republican

RE*ES 2e822 Rsazz

ns - n~

VOTE FOR COMPTROLLER—NOVEMBER 7, 1972

nme we:

BOrOr A20Oee correo

a... 2 ¢'¢

oe etre

Frees

ae 2 6

eee @¢ «

[2 «as

_ - 2 a ws

Rae kh

Re, we

en ee ee

ae oe

se. ¢ 8 @

ee 6 6

» @-s © «@

2. & 2

- 2 a.

ane © @

“£3 3 a

“++ 28 @ &

*“eees

- aa 2

“ee © @

eoeees

*eees

Baz?

tee ze

a a a a

et i > ee

2 ee Se

er + @ «

owe a a

--— & 2.

McHenry

McLean

Macoupin

Madison

Marion

Massac

Menard

Mercer

Monroe

Peoria...

Perry .

Piatt ....

Pike

Pulaski

Putnam

Richland

Rock Isla

St. Clair

Saline

Sangamon

Schuvier

Scott

Shelby

Stark

Stephenson

Tavewell

pees ts me ° oR" o. oe 7-gna" onnowe “a =~ Ns

Comm unist Pari Vv

17 ‘eee eeeee

e nece coon nel] am!

iit ; 8 % 8 &

> . -_

= .

1972

iW ZR°RS =Ha-pae-en s2e° PZRAr= WSR gner- “="s- Ree

SSS ee

E.. Ra°RR SARWEROW RS 2=3” “gore “"5- green “S7R : R°="2

—€ ——

Democratic

Socialist Labor

—. =.

OF ILLINOIS—NOVEMBER 7,

S Gage S393 38) 33|3 | eB] BSEES SSGSSHREOR Gags Eeaae casas susan agees scans

>> & Bi & > |

Democratic

— as

Bosen

11,221

2.633

2.775

169

419

6.007

1,193

2.639

3.038

21.605

8.336

3.359

3.298

197

8.942

4.094

2.349

10.967

2.741

2.822

63.584

4.239

1,110

4.953

4.679

103

9.277

8.563

2,022

949

103

089

675

790

454

150

616

S48

911

599

972

316

876

2.109

796

644

672

710

1.224

3.882

10.140

682

618

3.171

197 628

74.986

122,642

eo et RE Bee b= > >~ BD db de be be Be >> ber > 4. BR a ke 4

VOTE FOR COMPTROLLER—NOVEMBER 7, 1972—Concluded

Counties

sfiiio oti oft orp a dD BP Stitt Geddaddddae sees SSSS2 SSERR4 RESER ASASS AAGEG

i 2 wt

et me © oe fy

“Ee

Ph & - pe Bp pb > >» pe Be be > TB - be ee be

rh wee ty es Se

eri ae YS ys

Republican

Jane S

Haves

Rader

14.724

2,720

3,390

6,004

1,212

10,557

1,109

5.351

3.088

29.098

6,998

4.49

3,827

5.544

10,359

.290

407

773

063

4.920

145,833

6,073

2.373

5,361

949

980

992

265

550

312

859

5305

120

263

839

507

SRR

867

270

749

VOTE FOR TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY

} aes

> oe

i. eae oe «4

$333 2553 $2 52 Pp RR

SUCRE a.) ee Ce Ms hide oh eke Cede Wie Le bees eke

[coer en. Sess £22028 B28 SEhepme BEEkEaSE 28

2h w Beer th ee.

ke} ave eRe

tie Bf vee

Sas fer ive FP

esses see6e8

Teeaeeaeeene ne «6S BSS [hU Bees. BPeeee SSBB Be EBZEs fs

Steet. Seeecne atene BCesene FEES Bees e #8

Teaeeaeeanees «Sees S82 e Berane SB2een BSBBEE

ce eaeaeaaEeens 6S Se URE UB BOs UBC SBCEeShCUCUECUE SC

Be? wwe}! ot ke

> 2s 2

“*e#-

. Mr. Lindberg. 60: Mr. Barringer. 42.

peas feeis $3: 38 Ome lf Ul RU 6 2S eee See Seen Sheen Seen Seeks Paees 31

Cte eee Cee: tte et fens: eee es eee eee 6

Hi piiiBeiiii ighii fiice 47eh SiG giidi i

Ghat Huatbsedi ollsg bald fodal pally Geld fell

Plurality is C from the Republican and Democratic Votes.

red Mr

si ntaresat meniabc stake

Tota

Counties Carri

Union

Vermilion

Wabash

Warren

Wasbington

Wayne .....

White Fase

Whiteside .....

will

Wilhamson

Winneba

Woodfor’

Down State

E16 E17

4.5 f : a ua

271

461

Communist Party

John

Robert

Lumpkin

254

546

10 026

7.839

17.865

7 - n~ = —aNenn “Frown ror

— - - NN _ =

~ S35 2° gs

a? - a ” ” 7 -o- 4

os = . =

7 “aS

£8 “"S32 ¢= #&

=— _ a™ = -

Socialist Labor

S2ggS ANS RYRS“ ~eRS° ~aas~ Be=eA on@R= gage- a eRg =z

J ” = = eC -

~ =

yt pt pa De |

Write-In Votes

Tian} “a+ pa Pe he bbe 7-ge2

NOVEMBER 7, 1972—Concluded

RESES S828R S2858 SRGHE BERLE FEAR EOSSR BAREZ BERSE F7BE Soa go ge ede) | iiiiiis

LMFORNY SFY =—<SOns Norn aoran *ar- mone Z°R-- F-SseRg Coen § s SESESE

-_- A ssesess

a oe oe or oe

B@Qeietrtnzt

S®ee6@es

af] EE

VOTE FOR TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILUINOIS—

2958 ERESE SKYGH ARBRE YeERE ZzBRe EBAHS BeUZE AEEES BaRse 7 giy| 53882 9885 8

= N =<

Write-In Votes

Nu -cez ¥e-e= s on ee al

a. o-oo

"fs e © ©

BEGET EE BS 2 8G 6 ee 6 0 a ee ae | OS

EGS 8B SEZES SEES E” FVII 2EVes Bete: °C OC oe!-)hllUM.!”!.lUwD lw LS eee eee eee

eSeRS £228 SERESt-2ERST 8 se. 0UCC Cll eM eee eee eee

C2 e- Seat fe FPseewm i. SB 1S aha ey le ae eee

*-_e* ese «#&

WRITEJN VOTES FOR TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

County

Kane

Knox

Madison

Peoria

wilt

Winnebago

533

Beate wee ak? = ae 2 YS

cea @¢ 2 82 @ee: 2.22 2s 22 2a

Satie tnwten wee we ee Se

7? Fee Fe FPeF? €8#6€668 BS #4239. ¢6-9282 253 8 22 2. eee

cr Seo S882 8 22222 Sees S- 2 ae eee ee aoe oe

SS ee 2. 26 82 @

Kankakee

Kendall

Knox

Lake

LaSalle

Lawrence ..

Lee .

Logan ,

Macon ......

Madison ....

Marion :

Marshall :

McDonough

McLean .

Menard

Mercer =

Monroe .......

Mer

= odbaves

Piatt vs

Pike .. :

Pata

pon ag

Sangamon =

——:- :

st Clair vss

a =

Union

Vermilion

Wabash

Warren

Washington

Whe

Whiteside

will

Williamson

Down State

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.