* Background is here if you need it. From the denial…

It is Hereby Ordered, that the City of Chicago’s Motion to Stay is denied for the following reasons:

On February 26, 2024 this Court denied the City of Chicago’s Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Matter of Right pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-408(a)(2). On that same day, the City of Chicago filed a Notice of Appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court stating, “the City of Chicago will ask the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s judgment and orders and grant such other relief as it may be entitled to on this appeal.” (Notice of Appeal, p. 2, February 26, 2024).

This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a motion because “when the notice of appeal is filed, the appellate court’s jurisdiction attaches instanter, and the cause is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court.” Daley v Laurie, 106 Il. 2d 33, 37-38 (1985) (while taking notice that the defendant’s Notice of Appeal preempted the defendant’s motion for a new trial, causing the trial court to lose jurisdiction).

Pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule 305(d), the City of Chicago is not foreclosed from obtaining the necessary relief of a stay from the Appellate Court. Il. Sup. Ct. Rule 305(d).

The City of Chicago’s Motion to Stay is also denied because the City of Chicago as non-intervenor, and ultimately as a non-party under the facts of this case has no standing to seek a stay on the final merits.

* 735 ILCS 5/2-408(a)(2)…

Intervention. (a) Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted as of right to intervene in an action: … (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant will or may be bound by an order or judgment in the action

The suit was designed to prevent the Board of Elections from counting the votes. The City of Chicago does not count votes. So, the city wasn’t allowed to intervene.

…Adding… The plaintiffs’ response to the city’s motion to intervene referenced the statute above…

This Section sets three threshold requirements: (1) timely application; (2) inadequate representation of petitioner’s interest by the existing parties; and (3) a finding that the petitioner will or may be bound by an order in the case.

The Petition should be denied because Petitioner does not satisfy any of these three requirements for intervention. First the petition is not timely, and will, necessarily delay the agreed upon schedule for prompt resolution of the case. Second, the interest Petitioners claim to have is adequately represented by the Defendant, Board of Elections, which has filed exactly the same pleadings – a motion to dismiss and a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings – that Petitioner seeks leave to file. Third, Petitioner will not be “bound” by any judgment of this Court because the relief sought in the Complaint – that the referenda not appear on the ballot and that, if it does, any votes cast on the question not be counted - can only be provided by the Defendant Board. Petitioner plays no role in preparing ballots or counting votes.