O'Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd.

Decision Date21 June 1996
Docket NumberNo. 1-96-0717,1-96-0717
Citation281 Ill.App.3d 1108,667 N.E.2d 672,217 Ill.Dec. 583
Parties, 217 Ill.Dec. 583 Eileen O'CONNOR, Petitioner-Objector-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD, and its members, David Orr (by his designee, Daniel Madden), Jack M. O'Malley (by his designee, Donald Mizerk), and Aurelia Pucinski (by her designee, Ralph Schroeder); James Patrick Sheehan, Candidate; David D. Orr, in his official capacity as County Clerk of Cook County; The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, Illinois and its member commissioners, Michael Hamblett, Arnette Hubbard, and Richard A. Cowen, in their official capacities, Respondents-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Attorney David L. Clark, Chicago, for Appellant.

Michael E. Lavelle, Lavelle, Juneau & McCollom, Ltd., Oak Park, for Appellee Sheehan.

Justice HOURIHANE delivered the opinion of the court:

In this appeal, we are asked to interpret various provisions of the Election Code as they pertain to the nominating petitions filed on behalf of a candidate seeking nomination in the primary election held on March 19, 1996. The specific challenge to the petitions concerns the propriety of the circulators' verification that they were registered voters during the time the petitions were circulated. The circuit court ruled that the candidate's petitions complied with the Election Code. We affirm.

Background

Petitioner-objector, Eileen O'Connor, challenged the nominating petitions filed by respondent, James Patrick Sheehan, for the office of commissioner of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. O'Connor claimed that the petitions failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 7-10 of the Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1994). The Cook County Officers Electoral Board denied O'Connor's claim, and O'Connor sought administrative review in the circuit court.

O'Connor argued in the circuit court that Sheehan's name must be stricken from the ballot because Sheehan's nominating petitions did not contain a "circulator's oath" required by section 7-10 of the Election Code. According to O'Connor, the Code mandated that the circulators affirm that they were registered voters of the political division at all times during the circulation of the petitions. Sheehan, on the other hand, pointed out that a verbatim transcription is not required under section 7-10 and that he has complied with all statutory requirements. Sheehan's petitions contained the following affidavit, sworn by each circulator:

                "STATE OF ILLINOIS,        )
                                           )  §§
                COUNTY OF COOK             )
                                                     ___________________________________
                                                          (Signature of Circulator)
                                                     ___________________________________
                                                        (Signature of Notary Public)
                          (seal of stamp)
                My Commission Expires: ____________________"
                ----------
                

The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Sheehan's petitions fulfilled the statutory requirements.

O'Connor then sought an accelerated review of the circuit court's judgment in this court. Due to the expedited nature of this appeal, we entered an order, without opinion, on March 15, 1996, affirming the circuit court's decision. We now set forth our reasons in detail.

Analysis

Generally, a reviewing court must view an administrative agency's findings and conclusions on questions of fact as prima facie true and correct. 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 1994); City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board 135 Ill.2d 499, 507, 143 Ill.Dec. 220, 554 N.E.2d 155 (1990). A court may reverse the agency's factual findings only if it is clearly evident that the agency should have reached the opposite conclusion. Freeport, 135 Ill.2d at 507, 143 Ill.Dec. 220, 554 N.E.2d 155. If the question involved is one of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, the agency's finding receives deference, but the court is not bound by it. Freeport, 135 Ill.2d at 507, 143 Ill.Dec. 220, 554 N.E.2d 155.

At issue here is the interpretation of section 7-10 of the Election Code. This provision provides in pertinent part that

"[t]he name of no candidate for nomination * * * shall be printed upon the primary ballot, unless a petition for nomination has been filed in his behalf as provided in this Article in substantially the following form:

We, the undersigned, members of and affiliated with the ... party and qualified primary electors of the ... party, in the ... of ..., in the county of ... and State of Illinois, do hereby petition that the following named person or persons shall be a candidate or candidates of the ... party for the nomination for (or in case of committeemen for election to) the office or offices hereinafter specified, to be voted for at the primary election to be held on the ... day of ...,

                 .    .    .    .    .          Name                     Office                    Address
                       John Jones                 Governor               Belvidere, Ill
                      Thomas Smith            Attorney General            Oakland, Ill
                Name ..............................  Address 
                State of Illinois          )
                                           )  ss
                County of ...............  )
                    I, ..., do hereby certify that I am a registered voter and have been a
                      registered voter at all times I have circulated this petition, that I
                      reside at No. ...... street, in the ........ of ........ county of
                      ........ and State of Illinois, and that the signatures on this sheet
                      were signed in my presence, and are genuine, and that to the best of
                      my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of
                      signing the petitions qualified voters of the ........ party, and
                      that their respective residences are correctly stated, as above set
                      forth.
                                                        ...................................
                    Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..... day of .........., ......
                                                        ...................................
                    * * *." 10 ILCS 5/7 "10 (West 1994) (Emphasis added).
                

The statute then sets forth what information must be included in the contents of the petition. With regard to the circulator's statement, the statute provides that "[a]t the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a statement signed by a registered voter of the political division, who has been a registered voter at all times he or she circulated the petition for which the candidate is seeking a nomination, * * *." 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1994). The circulator's statement must "state" certain facts about the circulator and must "certify" other facts relating to the circulation of the petition and the signatures upon it. 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1994).

The dispositive issue here is whether the form of the circulator's affidavit contained in section 7-10 is mandatory. We hold that it is not.

In interpreting statutes, this court must ascertain and give effect to the true intent and meaning of the legislature. Pliakos v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission 11 Ill.2d 456, 143 N.E.2d 47 (1957). In so doing, we must give the language of the statute its plain and ordinary meaning; in other words, we may not declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports. Maloney v. Bower, 113 Ill.2d 473, 479, 101 Ill.Dec. 594, 498 N.E.2d 1102 (1986).

As noted, section 7-10 provides that no candidate's name shall be placed upon the primary ballot unless that candidate has filed a nominating petition "in substantially the following form * * *." 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1994) (Emphasis added). The word "substantially" is a relative term and must be interpreted in accordance with its context. Here, "substantially" means in the main, essentially, practically, nearly, almost or virtually. It does not mean identically or exactly alike, and thus does not connote a mandatory obligation as to the form of the affidavit.

If the legislature had intended to require that the nominating petition be in the exact form as set out in section 7-10, it would not have used the word "substantially." This court has the responsibility of interpreting a statute as written and cannot, by judicial fiat, usurp the role of the legislature. Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill.2d 293, 134 N.E.2d 249 (1956). Accordingly, we simply may not ignore the import of the word "substantially."

Further support for this interpretation is found in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Cunningham v. Schaeflein
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 4, 2012
    ...a circulator in the event he is needed to testify before an electoral board. See O'Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 281 Ill.App.3d 1108, 1112, 217 Ill.Dec. 583, 667 N.E.2d 672 (1996) (“The circulator's statement must ‘state’ certain facts about the circulator and must ‘certif......
  • Fort Dearborn Life Ins. Co. v. Holcomb
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 28, 2000
    ...539. When construing a statute, words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. O'Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 281 Ill.App.3d 1108, 1112, 217 Ill.Dec. 583, 667 N.E.2d 672 (1996). The word "substantially," as used in the context found in section 3-3, has been defined......
  • Cockrell v. Koppers Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 21, 1996
  • Zurek v. Cook Cnty. S Electoral Bd.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 7, 2014
    ...¶ 19, 369 Ill.Dec. 376, 986 N.E.2d 689 (quoting 10 ILCS 5/7–10 (West 2010)) see also O'Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 281 Ill.App.3d 1108, 1113, 217 Ill.Dec. 583, 667 N.E.2d 672 (1996) (“If the legislature had intended to require that the nominating petition be in the exact......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT