Rockford Sun

Today, Boone County Circuit Court Judge Balogh Quashed all eight subpoenas issued by the Poplar Grove Electoral Board, stating the Poplar Grove Electoral Board went beyond its authority under Section 10-10 of the election code to issue these subpoenas.

This report was written while the hearing was underway:

Poplar Grove’s Motion To Enforce Subpoena

Judge Balogh gave a brief background of the cases and subpoenas

• Petition to Intervene / Motion to Substitute Judge
• Intervenor claims inadequate representation by Electoral Board
• Judge: the only issue is to see if the subpoenas are valid under Section 10-10 of the election code
• Electoral Board argues that intervenors should be permitted
• Judge: he cannot believe the board sits there saying they cannot effectively argue, and are asking him to substitute parties for someone without legal right to this motion
• DENY Motion to Intervene (FAILED ON: a right to intervene, AND no adequate representation)
• DENY Motion to Substitute Judge, since Denial of Intervention was same party

Rules To Show Cause

• Satler Attorney Trent Ferguson files written response by end of week – Denied extra time
• Board argues that since they issued subpoenas Judge should enforce compliance
• Board says it needs subpoenaed docs to make decision on objections
• Judge made a few comments about his observation of petition sheets
• How does subpoenaed materials effect the legitimacy of petitions
• Board argues impartiality
• Judge goes back to petitions
• Judge asked board about due process
• Respondents attorney states they did respond to board – three times – with motion to reconsider and quash – board refused to hear it
• Argues the board overstepped it powers in this case with the issuance of those subpoenas
• Board’s purposes and powers are limited by statute
• Satler’s attorney argues previous attorney’s arguments and that the ones issued to Satler are improper because he is no longer on the board
• Board admits none of the subpoenaed people are sitting on the board
• Judge asked which current ones are believed to be biased
• Board fails to answer, and admits board brushed off Motions to reconsider and quash

Judge – Board cannot get around statutory limitations in Section 10-10 of the electorion code

• Board thinks they can investigate “any matter” – judge says they have to read the entire section
• Judge discusses the Nader case

Judge denied all subpoenas – information sought is not relevant to the face of the petitions in this case, and is outside the statutory powers of the electoral board

Board wants Satler subpoena even though he is no longer on the board

Judge – that argument is moot – they were not properly issued in the first place

Judge – factually, this is far afield of the authority of the electoral board to issue these subpoenas

Board reiterates the board thinks it can investigate the process used to file the objections, citing due process and fairness, etc

Judge – it does seem somewhat problematic if a member of the board of elections is recruiting an objector, however, no such current member of the election board is accused of that, but I am bound by the law, the Election Code, Section 10-10 (and the whole election code)

Judge – Board went beyond its authority to issue these subpoenas. Subpoenas quashed.

This story was originally published by Edgar County Watchdogs. Read the original HERE.