## Facts

- Vincent Rose sought placement on the ballot as a candidate for alderman of Chicago’s 7th Ward.
- Illinois law required him to submit at least 473 valid petition signatures.
- After objections and an examination of records, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners found Rose had 414 valid signatures and excluded him from the ballot.
- Rose sought judicial review in the Circuit Court of Cook County, challenging both the signature requirement and the Board’s application of it under federal and state constitutional theories and statutory theories.
- The circuit court issued a written decision denying relief and affirming the Board’s exclusion of Rose from the ballot; Rose did not appeal.
- Rose then filed a federal suit against the Board and the State of Illinois asserting substantially the same challenges, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The federal district court dismissed on claim preclusion grounds, and Rose appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois claim preclusion barred Rose’s federal suit challenging the signature requirement and his exclusion from the ballot after an unappealed, final Illinois circuit court judgment rejecting the same dispute.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal action.
- Applying Illinois preclusion law, the court held all elements of claim preclusion were satisfied: final judgment on the merits, identity of parties (or privity), and identity of causes of action based on the same operative facts.
- The court rejected Rose’s due process objection, concluding the state proceedings were constitutionally adequate and Rose had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, including the option to appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must give an Illinois state-court judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive under Illinois law.
- Illinois claim preclusion requires: (1) a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or their privies; and (3) identity of causes of action, assessed under a transactional test focusing on the same set of operative facts.
- Claim preclusion bars not only claims actually raised, but also claims that could have been raised in the earlier action arising from the same transaction.
- Due process limits preclusion only where the prior proceeding denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate; the availability of appellate review satisfies minimum procedural requirements even if the party does not appeal.

## Conclusion

Because Rose already litigated, to an unappealed final judgment in Illinois court, the same ballot-access dispute arising from his 2015 candidacy and the 473-signature requirement, his later federal suit—despite adding § 1983 and related theories—was barred by Illinois claim preclusion, and dismissal was affirmed.


Rose v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs for Chi., 815 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2016)