A Will County judge ordered the losing candidate in the 2022 race for Will County clerk and her attorney who filed an election fraud lawsuit to pay $35,000 in sanctions for what he called a “frivolous lawsuit.”
Republican Gretchen Fritz filed the lawsuit Dec. 28, claiming she believes “mistakes and fraud have been committed in the casting and counting of ballots” in the race because her opponent, Democratic Will County Clerk Lauren Staley Ferry, received more votes than Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.
Judge John Anderson dismissed the case March 30 and approved the $35,000 in sanctions Monday.
“It’ll be a deterrent so that these fake election lawsuits don’t get filed,” said Burt Odelson, Staley Ferry’s attorney.
Odelson filed a motion in April for Rule 137 sanctions against Fritz and her attorney, David Shestokas. Odelson petitioned for $40,047.25 in fees and costs for the case through April 10, but Anderson adjusted the fee to $35,000.
Shestokas said Tuesday he hadn’t read the order, but that he saw the sanction was for $35,000.
“I can tell you the case is going to the appellate court soon. We’ve been waiting on his order on this issue,” Shestokas said.
In his order, Anderson wrote that Rule 137 “serves as a barricade against truly frivolous litigation; it is not as a penalty against unsuccessful litigants.”
Anderson wrote elections are the cornerstone of a democratic society, must be fair and free, and the outcomes reflect the will of the people.
In the lawsuit, Fritz claimed that “some unknown and unidentified person or thing” used a mathematical process to fradulently decide a winner in the clerk’s race, he wrote.
“But her supporting factual allegations are as vague as they are outrageous,” Anderson wrote in Monday’s order.
“In short, Ms. Fritz and her counsel violated Rule 137 by filing an election contest petition that was not well grounded in fact, and was not predicated on a reasonable factual inquiry,” Anderson wrote. “The Court finds that sanctions are proper.”
The lawsuit cited an analysis by Walter Daugherity, senior lecturer emeritus in computer science and engineering with Texas A&M University, who determined the vote totals were “artificially contrived according to a predetermined plan or algorithm.”
It also relied on Edward Solomon, who the lawsuit states analyzed the Will County clerk election results and found they “are not the result of a free and fair election.”
Anderson rejected that argument in a March 30 ruling.
“Setting aside the electorate’s voice in the County Clerk’s race based on how many votes someone else got in some other race, and based on mathematical probability analyses would disenfranchise all voters who voted and who did nothing wrong in exercising their right to vote,” Anderson wrote in March.
Fritz noted Staley Ferry received more votes than Pritzker, Anderson wrote in the sanctions order, but that “is indicitive of nothing other than voters do not always engage in straight-ticket voing, and do not always vote in every race on a ballot.”
Additionally, Fritz based her claims on mathematical analyses instead of processes that are used to determine election outcomes, like counting votes, Anderson wrote.
Fritz had asked the court to declare the Will County clerk’s office as vacant and order a new election with paper ballots, which the county already uses, Anderson wrote. The judge said it was an “objectively frivolous lawsuit” that could have negative consequences.
“Vague claims about a stolen election, made without credible bases, undermine public trust in the democratic process. This can lead to increased polarization and a loss of faith in democratic institutions,” Anderson wrote. “It can also fuel anger, frustration, and resentment among those who believe these dubious claims, leading to social unrest or even violence.”
Anderson noted that a Nevada judge ruled in a similar election fraud case after the 2020 presidential election, which argued an algorithm influenced the election, that the case was “a frivolous action that warrants sanctions.” The Nevada court also ruled there was a “fundamental lack of evidence” and found that the math perfomed was “highly dubious.”
Typically, sanctions are filed against an attorney, Anderson said, but since Shestokas stated in court that Fritz verified the petiton and met with Solomon to discuss the algorithm, Anderson ruled Fritz should be sanctioned as well.
Odelson said that means he can request the $35,000 be paid from Shestokas and Fritz. Either one of them can pay the sanctions or they can share in the costs, he said. In his demand letter for the sanction fees, Odelson said he will state that if the case is appealed Shestokas will have to pay those fees as well.
