Wednesday JOURNAL of Oak PArk and River Forest
2/24/2009 10:00:00 PM  Email this article

On Feb. 12, an Oak Park electoral board voted 2-1 to remove Daniel Fore, a homeless candidate for village trustee, from the April 7 ballot. This decision was clearly contrary to the law, sound public policy and our democratic principles.

State law does not, as Trustee Ray Johnson claimed, make it illegal for homeless persons to run for public office. Rather, the Illinois election code merely states that nominating papers should list the candidate's place of residency "with the street and number thereof, if any."

The "if any" language makes clear that the law envisions living situations, such as homelessness, where a candidate may not have a street and number. Illinois law does not need to be changed - it just needs to be interpreted sensibly by Oak Park's electoral board. The board's interpretation clearly discriminates based on housing status, in violation of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.

If, as they said, Trustee Johnson and Village Clerk Sandra Sokol are concerned about the voters of Oak Park, they should have let Oak Park voters decide who to elect. After all, Mr. Fore was one of seven candidates running for three village trustee seats. There is no need to incur substantial and unnecessary legal expenses for the Village of Oak Park.

In these times of economic crisis and increasing numbers of foreclosures, those who are personally impacted by homelessness have an important place on the ballot.

Patricia Nix-Hodes
Oak Park
Associate director Law Project of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless

Either the Journal didn't report all of the facts, or the Oak Park electoral board made the wrong decision in removing Daniel Fore's name from the ballot. [Dan Fore taken off ballot, news, Feb. 18] Was his P.O. box in a different town?

The Journal doesn't make that distinction either in its article or the editorial. But I have to ask what address Mr. Fore should have used in submitting his petitions? He asserted that he was homeless, which doesn't bar one from running for office, and in providing a P.O. box, it seems a logical thing to do in order to correspond with election authorities, etc.

What, if any, proof of residency did Mr. Fore provide? Again, this is not addressed. Without specifically reporting how his proof was deficient, I have no choice but to conclude he got bounced on a cheap technicality.

Frank McNichols
River Forest