Chapter 6 jections were filed on time and reinstated the candidates’ names on the ballot. Mr. Iozzo and the board appealed. The appeals court began its analysis by saying, It is worthy of note at the outset of discussion of timeliness that judicial review of decisions of an electoral board is not intended to provide a de novo hearing but rather to provide a remedy against arbitrary or unsupported decisions…The findings of an electoral board will not be reversed unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. In this case the trial court reversed the Board’s conclusion that the objections were filed on time. The inquiry is whether the Board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. At 505. The appeals court said that this precise set of facts had not arisen before, but there were a number of cases that were similar. Those cases involved people who tried to extend a statutory filing period because the last day of the filing period was on a weekend or a holiday when the office in which a filing was supposed to be made was closed. Thus, filing periods were extended in two additional circumstances. In the first, the office that was to accept the filing was closed (according to its regular schedule). In the second, the office that was to accept the filing was in fact open (when it was scheduled to be closed), but no public notice was given of the change of schedule. In a separate case, the filing period was not extended when it was clear that the legislature had intended that the deadline fall on a day the office was closed. Based on these cases, the appeals court said, We conclude that when a plaintiff has no opportunity to comply with a statutory deadline, or no notice of such an opportunity, it is likely the deadline will be extended. On the other hand, when plaintiff has notice of the opportunity to comply, and can show no hardship resulting from limitations on the opportunity, extension of a statutory deadline is disfavored. At 507-508. The appeals court in Keating decided that, under the legal standards of past cases, the deadline of Mr. Iozzo’s filing could have been extended if the evidence showed that (1) he had no opportunity to file, (2) he had no notice of the opportunity to file, or (3) the limitation on filing was a particular hardship. In order to determine whether the electoral board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the appeals court then reviewed the facts in the case and found, …there is no evidence that the village clerk was under any statutory or local obligation to be present in her office at any specific time or to provide deputy clerks to function in her stead….The evidence does not demonstrate, either, that the clerk voluntarily set up and maintained regular office hours. In fact, it seems clear she was not customarily present in her office on a full-time basis. …on the last day for filing objections she personally contacted all the candidates by telephone… Mr. Iozzo himself testified that he was so informed. …Iozzo made no showing, either at the time or at the subsequent hearing, that the limited hours set by the clerk worked a hardship on him or made it impossible for him to comply with the filing deadline. 125