Krupa v. Quinn

596 F.Supp.3d 1127

David KRUPA, Plaintiff,

v.Marty QUINN, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-543

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed March 31, 2022

Anthony J. Peraica, Stephen F. Boulton, Anthony J. Peraica & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Adam Robert Vaught, Kilbride & Vaught, LLC, LaGrange, IL, Vincent Michael Rizzo, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, Lari Ann Dierks, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Steven C. Seeger, United States District Judge

Plaintiff David Krupa is a teenager who wanted to be a Chicago alderman. He didn't want to be an alderman someday , after grinding it out and working his way up the political ladder. He wanted to be an alderman, here and now, during his college years.

He faced significant roadblocks, above and beyond his relative youth and inexperience. In particular, he decided to run against a powerful local alderman. And not just any alderman. He wanted to run against Marty Quinn, a favorite of Speaker Michael Madigan. He decided to run against a political heavyweight, right in his own backyard.

Krupa ambitiously got to work, rolled up his sleeves, and hit the pavement. He started going door to door, asking for signatures to get his name on the ballot. And that's when the political hijinks started. Quinn and Madigan, it seems, were none too pleased that a political upstart was canvassing their turf, glad-handing the neighborhood, and competing for votes.

According to the complaint, Quinn and Madigan opened a bag of dirty political tricks. They sent political heavies to harass and intimidate Krupa when he went door to door. They cajoled voters into not supporting him. And when he got enough signatures to get on the ballot, they submitted thousands of revocations, trying to take it all away.

The political hijinks didn't work. Krupa got on the ballot. But that's as far as he got. When it was all said and done, Quinn received over 85% of the vote. The people of the Thirteenth Ward delivered an overwhelming defeat – the political equivalent of a knockout – to the young up-and-comer.

Before election day, Krupa sued Marty Quinn, Michael Madigan, and related organizations under section 1983 and the Illinois Election Code. He alleged that they violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and conspired to sabotage his campaign. He didn't ask for equitable relief, such as an injunction to stop the political hijinks or preserve his name on the ballot. He wanted damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Background

At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept as true the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint. See Lett v. City of Chicago , 946 F.3d 398, 399 (7th Cir. 2020). The Court "offer[s] no opinion on the ultimate merits because further development of the record may cast the facts in a light different from the complaint." Savory v. Cannon , 947 F.3d 409, 412 (7th Cir. 2020).

David Krupa lives in Chicago's Thirteenth Ward, located on the far southwest side, just south of Midway Airport. See Am. Cplt., at ¶ 7 (Dckt. No. 36). The ward is quiet and residential, a neighborhood of bungalows and flats. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/get-to-know-your-ward-13th-ward/113653/ (last visited March 31, 2022).

According to Krupa, that quiet ward is the hometown of political power and corruption. He alleges that (former) Speaker of the House Michael Madigan maintained a stranglehold on local politics in the ward for more than 50 years.

Madigan has a long history in the ward, stretching back five decades. He began serving as Democratic Committeeman of the Thirteenth Ward in 1972. See Am. Cplt., at ¶ 11 (Dckt. No. 36). Putting that date in perspective, 1972 was the year of the Watergate burglary.

Madigan was the state representative for Illinois House District 22 (encompassing the Thirteenth Ward) from 1971 until 2021, a term of fifty years. Id. at ¶ 8.¹ During that run, Madigan accumulated unrivaled governmental and political power within the state. Id. at ¶ 15. Except for one year, Madigan served as the Speaker of the Illinois House from 1983 to 2021. Id. at ¶ 9. And he sat as Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois from 1998 to 2021. Id. at ¶ 10.

Madigan pulled the purse strings. He had the power of the purse in state government, and controlled the political war chest of the Democratic Party. Id. at ¶¶ 13–14. Madigan also exercised sweeping power over political appointments at all levels, too. Id. at ¶ 14. He "virtually dictate[s]" who will serve in public office. Id. at ¶ 15.

Krupa alleges that Madigan used his power to install "surrogate[s]" in various political posts, including aldermen. Id. at ¶¶ 14–16, 20. One of those surrogates is Marty Quinn, the alderman of the Thirteenth Ward.

According to the complaint, Quinn is Madigan's close ally and political protégé. Id. at ¶¶ 17–20. Quinn earned his position by bowing to whatever Madigan wanted. Quinn became an elected official "exclusively through the political support of [Madigan]," and "exercises [his] power strictly as a surrogate of [Madigan]." Id. at ¶ 19. Quinn "supports all political positions and operations of [Madigan] as a loyal surrogate, and receives and follows the directives of [Madigan] concerning political matters." Id. According to the complaint, Quinn is the puppet, and Madigan is the puppet master.

In 2018, Krupa, an 18-year-old high school student, "became fed up with the machine politics of Chicago and the 13^th Ward," and decided to run for alderman against Quinn. Id. at ¶ 30. He got a quick start on his political career, launching himself into the public arena not long after he became eligible to vote. See U.S. Const. amend. XXVI. He is now a college student studying political science. This case involves a political education of a different variety.

The election was scheduled for February 26, 2019. See Am. Cplt., at ¶ 26 (Dckt. No. 36). To get his name on the ballot, Krupa needed to file paperwork with the Chicago Board of Elections by November 26, 2018. Id. at ¶ 32. In particular, he needed to file "Nominating Petitions," containing the valid signatures of 473 registered voters in the Thirteenth Ward. Id.

The complaint alleges that Defendants tried to stymie Krupa's attempts to get on the ballot. Id. at ¶ 33. Defendants directed their operatives to make it difficult for Krupa to collect signatures. Id. at ¶ 34. Specifically, they directed their lackeys – muscle-bound, "large male operatives" – to follow Krupa as he went door to door, and stand behind him in a "hostile manner" as he talked to voters. Id. They intended to intimidate Krupa and creep out potential voters.

One day, Defendants directed their agents to tail him in a truck. Id. When Krupa started to speak with a group of voters at a house, the agents jumped out of the truck, approached the group and instructed the voters, "[D]on't talk to him!" Id. Then one of the agents turned to Krupa and said, "You're a nice kid, but I'd hate to see something bad happen to you." Id. When Krupa asked for clarification, the operative responded, "I'd hate to see you get hurt." Id.

Defendants also directed their agents to harass Krupa and his family through fake social media accounts, and to threaten to release embarrassing photos. Id.

Despite those efforts, Krupa hurdled high above the bar for signatures. He collected 1,703 valid voter signatures, far more than the 473 signatures that he needed to get his name on the ballot. Id. at ¶ 36.

Krupa did what he had to do to get his name on the ballot, and then some. So Defendants got to work to get his name off the ballot.

Defendants allegedly sent political goons to go door to door, and get voters to revoke their support for Krupa through unscrupulous means. Id. at ¶ 38. The operatives tricked and bullied the voters into signing paperwork revoking their signatures. Id.

The complaint includes a long list of edgy tactics. They blocked "the path to the doorways of the homes of voters" in "a physically threatening manner" and denied "the voters entry into their own homes unless and until the voters agreed to sign statements revoking their signatures." Id. at ¶ 40. They lied, telling some voters that signing Krupa's petitions was "illegal" and that revocation was therefore "mandatory." Id. Sometimes they told voters that, by signing the revocation documents, they were just "certify[ing] [their] voter signature for election records." Id.

In a few instances, they would "affirmatively identify themselves as ‘from the Alderman's Office’ while showing identification as same" to back up their story that they only needed the voter's signature for administrative purposes. Id. The complaint alleges that they stooped to extortion, threatening to "cutoff of municipal services to voters" unless they revoked their signatures. Id. And they were persistent, coming back multiple times "even after the first request was refused." Id.

That trickery was both too successful, and not successful enough. Recall that Krupa received 1,703 signatures. Defendants gathered revocations, and overshot the target.

Defendants challenged Krupa's petitions by filing 2,796 statements by voters claiming that they had signed Krupa's petitions and wished to revoke their support. Id. at ¶ 42. But only 187 statements came from people who had actually signed Krupa's petitions, meaning the petitions to get him on the ballot. Id. at ¶ 43. The remaining 2,609 of the 2,796 revocations came from people who had never supported Krupa in the first place. Id.

So, of the 1,703 original signatories, 187 voters withdrew their support, leaving a total of 1,516 valid signatures. That's more than a thousand signatures more than Krupa needed to get on the ballot.

Pause on those numbers for a second. Krupa received signatures from 1,703 voters. Later, Defendants filed statements from 2,796 voters, expressing a desire to...