Mount Prospect village trustee candidate Jeannie Lee-Macatangay has been removed from the April 1 ballot.
The village’s electoral board on Wednesday upheld rival candidate John Matuszak’s objection to her nominating petitions, agreeing that they were not properly bound as required by state election guidelines.
Meanwhile, the board — consisting of Village Clerk Karen Agoranos, village Trustee Colleen Saccotelli and administrative law judge Christopher Cohen — dismissed Lee-Macatangay’s objection to the petitions of the incumbent Matuszak.
Barring the addition of a write-in candidate, the rulings mean the April 1 election will be uncontested, with Matuszak, fellow Trustee Terri Gens and newcomer Beth DiPrima running for three available seats.
Jeannie Lee-Macatangay
Matuszak’s challenge argued Lee-Macatangay’s petitions were not bound together as the law mandates.
“They were not fastened together, not even a paper clip,” he said. “The election code is very clear that the petitions need to be bound in some form or fashion, so the pages cannot be separated.”
Lee-Macatangay argued that the enclosed folder in which she submitted her petitions should qualify.
“The folder was closed on two sides,” she said. “And there was a flap on the other side. So it was secured on three sides.”
When she filed the petitions last month, she said, Agoranos told her everything was complete then removed the petition sheets and left the folder on the table for her to take.
But Agoranos said Wednesday that it’s not her responsibility as clerk to tell candidates if they’ve done something wrong.
“That’s not my job. That’s why we have this objection period,” she said.
The electoral board rejected Lee-Macatangay’s objection to Matuszak’s petitions on the grounds that a notary’s seal was missing from one of the pages. The board ruled Matuszak was still in substantial compliance.
John Matuszak
“The seal was on the other pages that this particular notary signed,” said Cohen, who replaced Mayor Paul Hoefert on the panel, after Hoefert recused himself. “And I think this is a case of substantial compliance.”