[Nero Germanicus]

I wouldn’t go so far as to call the ruling “thorough,” I’d call it “concise,” but my example of “perfunctory” is what the 27 SCOTUS appeals rulings on Article II, Section 1 eligibility have been, just two words: “Cert Denied.”
The Illinois complainants have the option of appealing the Election Board’s ruling to a legitimate court of law and hopefully getting a more thorough ruling.
In January the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission had also ruled that Senator Cruz was eligible.

[Cboldt]

-- I wouldn't go so far as to call the ruling "thorough," I'd call it "concise," but my example of "perfunctory" is what the 27 SCOTUS appeals rulings on Article II, Section 1 eligibility have been, just two words: "Cert Denied." --

I was looking for your criteria for a single decision, not a group of them.

-- The Illinois complainants have the option of appealing the Election Board's ruling to a legitimate court of law and hopefully getting a more thorough ruling. --

That is true, except I wouldn't say "more thorough ruling," I'd say "proper review." More below.

-- In January the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission had also ruled that Senator Cruz was eligible. --

Yes, it did. I am familiar with the contents of that ruling.

The criteria I use to distinguish between a "through" and "perfunctory" review is whether and how the reviewing entity addresses the arguments presented. I've seen cases with no record of analysis whatsoever (cert denied is a pretty good example of this - but at this stage there is no right to review anyway); to no analysis but a citation (give the case that controls the outcome); to reviews that state and address each argument relevant to reaching the decision; to cases (like the Arkeney case in Indiana, and even Marbury v. Madison) that state and discuss each argument relevant to the decision as well as additional arguments not necessary to decide the issue, and even arguments not presented at all.

Using that sort of criteria, the IL election board review is not thorough, it is not even a proper review. It contains no evidence whatsoever of analysis of the opposition's legal argument. The opposer's argument is not rebutted, it's case law citations are not mentioned and disposed of.

The NH ballot law commission did not get to the merits. It dismissed the challenge on the basis that it, the election commission, is not qualified to determine the NBC component of eligibility. It doesn't know what that is, and will not accept case law authority that is not deciding the issue of qualification, even if the case law authority correctly decides the case in hand.