A candidate running for Galesburg mayor and another for City Council are facing legal objections over the legitimacy of their nominating petitions for the April 2025 Election.
Three Galesburg residents are challenging the nominating papers of mayoral candidate Anthony Law, while two residents object to the filing of Second Ward alderman candidate Wendel Hunigan.
As a result, a special meeting of the Galesburg Board of Election Commissioners Electoral Board has been called for 1:30 p.m. Monday in Council Chambers at Galesburg City Hall.
Objectors to Law’s petitions question more than 90 signatures
Law is one of three candidates running for mayor in the April 1 election, joining incumbent Peter Schwartzman and former mayor John Pritchard. He faces two challenges to his petitions — the first filed by Louise Wilder, and the second by Darla Krejci, Jeannette Chernin and Holly McDorman.
According to documents provided to WGIL by Lisa M. Watson, executive director of the Board of Elections, both objections were filed Monday and claim Law’s nominating papers are invalid because the signature pages were not numbered, as required by statute.
The objections also say that more than 90 signatures in Law’s petitions are not valid, including signees not being registered voters, not being registered at the given address, and not giving an apartment number with the address.
The complaint filed by Krejci, Chernin and McDorman states: “In all we are objecting to the following 94 signatures. Once removed, Mr. Law will not have sufficient valid signatures to qualify.”
Wilder’s complaint says: “Even if the entirety of Mr. Law’s petitions were not invalidated by the lack of page numbers, 78 of the purported voter signatures are invalid because due to 1) Not registered to vote, and or 2) Address listed on voters registration does not back the address on the signed petition.
Law, coordinator of Diversity and Inclusion at Carl Sandburg College, officially filed his nomination petition to run for mayor at 12:22 p.m. Nov. 18 at the Galesburg Board of Election Commissioners.
“My candidacy came together in less than a week, and everything was done in a hurry, but from what I knew, everything was done correctly,” Law said. “If not, I wouldn’t have turned it in. I prided myself in reaching out to those who are marginalized or don’t usually participate.
“So, I’ll go into the hearing, listen and be respectful. And if they only validate a certain amount of signatures, it is what it is, and I won’t be on the ballot. And I can respect that. Rules have to be followed, and if they weren’t, I take ownership.”
‘I felt like my entering this race was not received well’
Law said while he didn’t expect objections to be filed to his nominating petitions, he wasn’t caught completely off guard.
“From the moment I announced I was running, I felt like my entering this race was not received well,” he said. “I won’t give names, but there were concerns from both sides — from Mr. Pritchard’s side and from Mayor Schwartzman’s side — that I would take votes away from them.
“And from those who are engaged, I didn’t feel like they considered me a serious candidate. I was more a thorn in the side. There was a lot of ‘why are you doing this?’”
Generating voter participation and turnout, Law said, was his primary goal of entering the race.
“I said from the start, I entered the race because of what I perceive as a lack of interest, or participation in the process,” he said. “We’re getting between 18 and 20% who vote in these elections. That is dismal, and embarrassing for us as a community. I don’t blame anyone in particular, but I know that’s not acceptable.
“So my goal was not to take votes away from anyone, but simply to get more people to vote and be interested. It certainly wasn’t some kind of power trip.”
Law said he will remain positive entering Monday’s hearing.
“I have lots of thoughts, but if I were open with what I know happened, who I know is behind all of this, I think it would do more harm than good as far as my real goal, and that’s getting people involved the process,” Law said.
“I’m not going to mention names, but even the people challenging me are affiliated with a candidate. And they have a right to do what they did. This is the system we go by. We can’t get disenchanted.”
Citizens want Ward 2 challenger left off ballot
A pair of objections were also filed against Hunigan who is challenging incumbent Wayne Dennis in Ward 2. Residents Brad Fell and Perry Darrah filed identical objection on Monday.
According to the objections provided by Watson, Fell and Darrah argue Hunigan signed a nominating petition for Dennis “and then subsequently filed his own nominating petition sheet for the same candidate position of Ward 2 Alderman. I, also wish to have Mr. Wendell Hunnigan’s (sic) name removed from the ballot for the Consolidated election in April 2025.”
Hunigan tells WGIL that he did indeed sign a petition for Dennis, but did not sign his own petition.
“I don’t feel the objections are valid,” Hunigan said. “Like I said, I did sign Wayne’s petition, but did not sign my own, so I don’t understand how that would invalidate my petitions. We’ll see what happens at the hearing on Monday.”
Hunigan, a retired professor of sociology and anthropology at Sandburg, said his decision to run for Ward 2 alderman stemmed from requests from his neighbors.
“I’m not really running against Wayne Dennis,” Hunigan said. “I think Wayne is a very fine person and has been a good alderman.
“The reason I’m running is because my neighbors came to me and asked me to run. And it wasn’t just one neighbor, it was several. I’m doing this as a civic duty more than anything.”
According to procedures on objections in the Illinois Election Code, the candidate or objector aggrieved by a decision of the board may file a petition for judicial review.
