Private emails reveal why Joshua T. Atkinson declined to file an objection against Joy Sellers' nomination papers—just eleven days before Freeport's Electoral Board voted to remove him from the ballot.
November 10, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Elena Reyes
RED, RIGHT & BLUE | F4F NEWS
A Private Decision Becomes a Public Story
On October 30, 2026, Joshua T. Atkinson received an email from a Freeport resident who had examined the nomination papers of incumbent Alderman-at-Large Joy Sellers. The resident identified several potential defects that could have provided grounds for a formal election objection. For Atkinson, who was seeking to unseat Sellers in the 2027 municipal election, the information presented an opportunity to challenge his opponent's place on the ballot.
Atkinson considered the concerns and the possibility of filing an objection. Such a challenge could have required the Freeport Municipal Electoral Board to determine whether Sellers' nomination papers complied with Illinois Election Law. Depending on the findings, the process could potentially have resulted in her removal from the ballot.
But Atkinson decided not to pursue the objection. In his private response to the resident, he explained his reasoning:
"I want to win this election. And I want her to lose her seat. But I want to beat her in a fair fight, with the voters making that decision."
Eleven days later, on November 9, the Freeport Municipal Electoral Board voted to remove Atkinson from the ballot following an objection filed against his own nomination papers. The candidate who had declined an opportunity to challenge his opponent was now facing the consequences of a challenge brought against him.
The sequence of events raises questions about political leadership, the understanding of election law, and the balance between enforcing nomination requirements and allowing voters to choose among candidates.
The Potential Problems With Sellers' Nomination Papers
The October 30 correspondence contained a detailed examination of Sellers' nomination paperwork. Among the concerns was the appearance of the number four in a space designated for an unexpired term on her Statement of Candidacy and all seven petition sheets. The resident questioned why that field had been completed when the Alderman-at-Large position was being contested for a regular four-year term.
The email also identified notarization dates on petition sheets four and seven that appeared to read October 16, 2024, rather than October 16, 2026. If those dates were accurately interpreted, they would predate the authorized circulation period for the 2027 municipal election.
Additional concerns involved incomplete address information, the use of "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic Party," and crossed-out signature lines without an accompanying certificate of deletion. The resident also questioned individual signatures, including incomplete addresses, discrepancies between printed names and signatures, and whether certain signers resided within Freeport's municipal boundaries.
These observations were potential grounds for examination, not established legal violations. Some might have presented substantive issues under Illinois Election Law, while others could have been clerical errors or matters resolved through additional evidence. Nevertheless, the correspondence identified specific questions that Atkinson could have placed before an Electoral Board.
He chose not to do so.
Atkinson's Decision and His Explanation
Atkinson's response is noteworthy because he did not attempt to conceal his political ambitions. He wanted to defeat Sellers and win the Alderman-at-Large seat. He also recognized that challenging her nomination papers could potentially advance that objective.
Yet his correspondence drew a distinction between defeating an opponent through an election and seeking that opponent's removal through a petition objection. He explained that he would not challenge signatures belonging to legitimate voters merely to eliminate a political competitor.
Illinois election law provides an objection process for a legitimate purpose. Candidates must comply with nomination requirements, and properly supported objections help protect the integrity of elections. But candidates are not obligated to pursue every potential defect they discover in an opponent's paperwork.
Atkinson's decision illustrates how candidates can approach that discretion differently. He could have asked an Electoral Board to evaluate the concerns identified by the resident. Instead, he expressed a preference for competing against Sellers before voters.
Importantly, this explanation was communicated privately. It was not delivered during a campaign rally or prepared as a public political statement. The correspondence provides a contemporaneous account of the reasoning Atkinson offered before the objection against his own candidacy resulted in his removal.
Eleven Days Later, the Electoral Board Removes Atkinson
On November 9, Atkinson appeared on the opposite side of the election objection process. The Freeport Municipal Electoral Board, consisting of Mayor Jodi Miller, City Clerk Dovie Anderson, and Alderman Tom Klemm, ruled to remove him from the ballot following an objection filed by Michael Meade.
Atkinson had challenged Meade's legal standing to bring the objection, raising questions about his actual residence and voter-registration eligibility. He also disputed the legal basis of the objections against his nomination papers and maintained that Illinois Election Law had been incorrectly interpreted and applied.
The board ultimately ruled against him. Its written findings are necessary to establish precisely which objections were sustained, what legal reasoning supported the decision, and how Atkinson's defenses were addressed.
The immediate consequence is that Atkinson has been removed from the ballot unless the decision is overturned or another legally available process changes his status. Sellers benefits politically from the removal of a challenger, although that consequence does not establish that she directed or coordinated Meade's objection. Although, we have confirmed, through Seller’s own statements, that Mayor Jodi Miller called Sellers immediately after Atkinson filed his petitions.
The chronology remains significant. On October 30, Atkinson declined to pursue a possible objection against Sellers. On November 9, an objection against Atkinson resulted in his removal from the ballot. The two decisions were made by different participants in the election process, but their consequences now intersect in the same political contest.
The Legal Questions Surrounding the Objection
One of the central disputes involves Meade's standing to file an objection. Atkinson questioned whether Meade satisfied the statutory requirements applicable to an objector, citing concerns about his claimed residence and voter registration.
Illinois election law establishes requirements governing who may challenge nomination papers. Whether those requirements were satisfied in this case depends on the applicable statutory provisions, the evidence presented, and the board's findings. A disputed registration address does not automatically establish that an individual lacks legal standing, but it may raise factual and legal questions requiring examination.
Atkinson maintains that the Electoral Board misapplied the law. The board's ruling went against him, leaving open the possibility of judicial review.
Under 10 ILCS 5/10-10.1, an aggrieved candidate may seek review of an Electoral Board decision in circuit court. The statute establishes a five-day period following service of the decision for filing and serving a petition for review. A court could examine whether the board properly interpreted the governing law and whether its decision was legally sustainable.
That process would not be a referendum on which candidate deserves to win. It would concern whether the Electoral Board acted in accordance with Illinois law.
What Do the Two Candidates' Actions Reveal?
The controversy has placed Atkinson's October 30 decision under renewed scrutiny. His email provides direct evidence of how he approached an opportunity to challenge his opponent's nomination papers. He considered the possible political benefit but ultimately declined to initiate an objection, explaining that he wanted voters to determine the outcome.
For Sellers, the available evidence establishes a different set of circumstances. She remains the incumbent whose candidacy benefits from the board's ruling against Atkinson. However, the information currently available does not provide a comparable statement from Sellers explaining her views on the objection process or establish that she personally participated in Meade's challenge. When we examine her record on City Council, Sellers has more than proven to the Freeport community that she doesn’t have too many thoughts of her own and is more than eager to tow the Mayor Miller line.
The larger issue is how candidates and election officials balance the enforcement of nomination requirements with the public interest in meaningful electoral competition. Election laws exist to establish qualifications and procedures, but their legitimacy depends on consistent application rather than the political consequences of a particular ruling.
Atkinson's decision not to challenge Sellers does not exempt him from complying with those requirements. Likewise, the Electoral Board's authority to enforce election law does not place its decisions beyond judicial scrutiny.
Atkinson's Political Future Remains Uncertain
Following the November 9 ruling, Atkinson faces several possible paths forward. He may petition the circuit court for judicial review, asking a judge to examine the Electoral Board's decision and the legal arguments raised during the proceedings.
He could also investigate whether Illinois law permits him to pursue a write-in candidacy following removal from the ballot. Alternatively, Atkinson could decide not to pursue further proceedings, leaving the Electoral Board's ruling in place without judicial resolution of his challenges.
At the time of publication, his next course of action remains unclear. Whatever he decides, the outcome could have implications beyond his own candidacy, particularly if judicial review addresses the interpretation of election law or the standing requirements applicable to objectors.
The Words That Now Carry New Meaning
Perhaps the most revealing portion of Atkinson's October 30 correspondence came when he reflected on an earlier experience involving an Electoral Board.
"I've already experienced what it's like to have an electoral board decide whether I deserve a place on the ballot. This time, I'd rather let the voters decide who they want in the seat."
Eleven days later, Freeport’s Electoral Board ruling determined that he would not remain on the ballot.
The timing gives those words particular significance. Atkinson expressed his preference for a voter-decided contest before the board ruled against him. His statement was not developed afterward to explain an unfavorable result. It was part of the explanation he gave for declining to challenge Sellers' nomination papers.
The Final Word
Freeport's 2027 election controversy now involves more than two candidates competing for one seat. It raises questions about nomination requirements, the authority of electoral boards, the legal standing of objectors, and the circumstances under which a candidate may be removed from the ballot.
The October 30 emails provide insight into Atkinson's decision not to pursue an objection against Sellers. The November 9 ruling raises separate questions about the legal basis for removing Atkinson. Both deserve examination through the available documents and the official record.
A fuller understanding of the controversy will require the Electoral Board's written findings, the evidence considered during the proceedings, and any subsequent judicial review.
For now, Atkinson's private correspondence provides a clear account of the approach he said he wanted to take toward his political opponent. Whether that approach reflects the leadership Freeport residents want is a judgment they can make after examining the evidence.
Leadership is demonstrated not only through campaign promises and public statements, but also through decisions made when political advantage is at stake. Those decisions deserve to be examined, explained, and held to the same standards of accountability expected of everyone seeking public office.