An appellate court supported a Will County judge’s decision in 2025 that allowed Cesar Guerrero to go back on the ballot for the election of Joliet Township supervisor after he paid campaign fines.

The ruling was issued Monday by the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottawa following an appeal from Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s Office, which represents Will County Clerk Annette Parker.

Guerrero almost did not make it on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for Joliet Township supervisor last year because of unpaid fines over campaign reporting violations.

Guerrero paid his fines and Joliet Township Democrats renominated him as their candidate for supervisor.

However, Guerrero had to file a lawsuit against Parker to get his name back on the ballot before the April 1, 2025 election.

Will County Judge Victoria Breslan sided with Guerrero. She found Guerrero became a legitimate candidate when he paid his fines and he was renominated as the candidate for supervisor.

Parker’s attorneys contend section 9-30 of the state election law does not allow any exceptions for candidates to be on the ballot if their campaign fines remain unpaid past the date of ballot certification.

Guerrero had paid his fines on Jan. 29, 2025, roughly a week after ballot certification.

The appellate court found Parker’s attorneys’ interpretation of section 9-30 was wrong and that a candidate can be placed on the ballot so long as the fines are paid.

The appellate court found the “plain language” of section 9-30 does not restrict a candidate from being on the ballot based on paying the fines before ballot certification.

The appellate court agreed with Breslan’s reasoning that the legislative intent of section 9-30 was to ensure campaign fines are paid rather than prevent ballot access to candidates who experience delays in paying those fines.

The appellate court found there was “no evidence of misconduct, fraud or bad faith on the part of Guerrero.”

During the March 11 court hearing, one of the appellate justices was skeptical of the arguments from Scott Pyles, one of the assistant state’s attorneys representing Parker.

The appellate justice told Pyles that section 9-30 “just says” a candidates’ name cannot be placed on the ballot while the fines are unpaid.

The appellate justice said fines were “no longer an impediment” after Guerrero’s second attempt to get back on the ballot.

He asked Pyles why section 9-30 prevents the placement of Guerrero’s name on the ballot “at that point.”

Pyles argued there is a deadline under section 9-30 that requires fines must be paid by the ballot certification date because the county clerks need enough time to “program the ballots.”

“There is a process that the clerks have to go through to program the computers so they can print out the ballots. They have to have the ballots printed. [The ballots] got to go overseas. There’s early voting. The election code has made it very difficult on the clerks. There’s not a lot of time,” Pyles said.

But the appellate justice said section 7-61 of the state’s election law “contemplates exactly this situation.”

“If, for whatever reason, a death, or in this case, somebody’s disqualified to be on the ballot, I mean, it still allows for a late placement of the name on the ballot. And [county clerks are] going to have to figure out a way to do it and they do,” the appellate justice said.