Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 20, 2024

Favoritism within St. Clair County Electoral Board

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On May 26, 2019


Earlier this year we witnessed what can only be described as government-sponsored racism through actions taken by the St. Clair County Electoral Board.

This is not about any final determinations the board made in relation to petition objections filed, rather it is a damnation of the process used.

Petition objections were filed against candidates for elected offices within the City of Cahokia and within the East St. Louis Park District.

We attended the first meeting of the City of Cahokia’s Electoral Board and shut the meeting down for their failure of the requirement to post an agenda according to the Open Meetings Act (read about it here).

We attended the second meeting of the Cahokia Electoral Board where it was announced that the Chief Judge had appointed the St. Clair County Electoral Board to hear the objections on behalf of the Cahokia Electoral Board because of numerous alleged conflicts of interest.

Members of the St. Clair County Electoral Board were: State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly (has since been appointed by Gov. Pritzker to head the Illinois State Police), County Clerk Tom Holbrook, and Circuit Clerk Kahalah Clay.


At their first hearing in January of 2019, the Electoral Board refused to permit an objector’s request for subpoenas to be issued to people she wished to question. In denying the subpoena request State’s Attorney Kelly stated: “that’s a process that you have to take care of …” – No discussions on who she wanted to issue a subpoena to, nothing.

All of this is on video (click here to watch)

She continued during subsequent objections asking how she can ask people questions if there are not present. The State’s Attorney also asked her if she subpoenaed any of them to be there – but this was after she was already denied – thru inaction of the board – the power of issuing said subpoenas.


At the next hearing of the same St. Clair County Electoral Board, an attorney for the objector asked for a subpoena. The board’s response, after some back-and-forth discussion about which objections and people the subpoenas would be issued for, was to Motion for the board to issue the subpoena. The Motion was approved with a unanimous vote. The board even explained how it would go about issuing the subpoena and set a new hearing date for testimony with the subpoenaed individual. (watch the video here)

This simply appears to odd, where the same board members were hearing objections on two separate days, one objector was summarily denied the power to subpoena, the other objector’s request for the subpoena was discussed, and approved.

Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


1 Comment
  • jannie
    Posted at 07:42h, 27 May

    It’s not what you know, but who you know!