Cooke v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections

• Decision Date: 20 May 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 125386
• Citation: Cooke v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 2021 IL 125386, 183 N.E.3d 116, 451 Ill.Dec. 70 (Ill. 2021)
• Parties: David W. COOKE, Appellee, v. The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. (Committee for Frank J. Mautino, Appellant).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2021 IL 125386

183 N.E.3d 116

451 Ill.Dec. 70

David W. COOKE, Appellee,

v.The ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al. (Committee for Frank J. Mautino, Appellant).

Docket No. 125386

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed May 20, 2021.

J. William Roberts, Anthony J. Jacob, Adam R. Vaught, and Lari A. Dierks, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.

Jeffrey M. Schwab and James J. McQuaid, of Liberty Justice Center, of Chicago, for appellee.

JUSTICE GARMANdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In 2016, David W. Cooke filed a complaint against the Committee for Frank J. Mautino(Committee) with the Illinois State Board of Elections(Board).Cooke alleged that, in violation of the Election Code(Code), the Committee had filed inadequate expenditure¹ reports ( 10 ILCS 5/9-7(West 2014) ) and made expenditures that did not comply with section 9-8.10(id.§ 9-8.10).Ultimately, the Board held that the Committee willfully violated its order to amend its expenditure reports and imposed a $5000 fine against the Committee.Cooke appealed to the appellate court because the Board did not reach the merits of his complaint, namely, whether the Committee violated sections 9-8.10(a)(2)and9-8.10(a)(9)²(id.§ 9-8.10(a)(2), (9)).The appellate court remanded the cause to the Board with directions to reach the merits.Cooke v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 2018 IL App (4th) 170470, ¶ 95, 422 Ill.Dec. 949, 104 N.E.3d 516.On remand, the Board deadlocked in a 4 to 4 vote on both issues and therefore found that Cooke had not met his burden in establishing violations of either section.Again, Cooke appealed.Relevant here, the appellate court reversed the Board's findings that Cooke had not met his burden in establishing violations of sections 9-8.10(a)(2)and9-8.10(a)(9).2019 IL App (4th) 180502, ¶ 89, 438 Ill.Dec. 277, 146 N.E.3d 31.The Committee filed a petition for leave to appeal, which we allowed.Ill.S. Ct. R. 315(eff. Oct. 1, 2019).

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Due to the lengthy procedural history of this case, we set out only those facts that are pertinent to our review.³For 24 years, Frank J. Mautino(Mautino) served as an Illinois state representative.The Committee had been formed and functioned as a candidate political committee⁴ to promote Mautino's election and retention.On January 1, 2016, Mautino was appointed to the position of Illinois Auditor General.Prior to Mautino assuming that role, the Committee was dissolved.See30 ILCS 5/2-7(West 2014).In light of its dissolution, the Committee had filed its final report with the Board on December 30, 2015.See10 ILCS 5/9-5(West 2014).The Committee destroyed its records that were dated prior to 2014.Seeid.§ 9-7.

¶ 4 Cooke's Complaint

¶ 5 On February 16, 2016, the Board received Cooke's pro se complaint, which alleged various violations of article 9 of the Code(Act to Regulate Campaign Financing)(10 ILCS 5/art. 9(West 2014)).Cooke detailed how several newspapers had begun "questioning the documentation of the spending of Mr. Mautino's Campaign."Cooke's complaint noted "documentation issues" that were potentially violative of section 9-7, "Records and accounts."Id.§ 9-7.Also, Cooke's complaint focused upon two categories of the Committee's spending that were allegedly violative of section 9-8.10, "Use of political committee and other reporting organization funds."Seeid.;id.§ 9-8.10.Cooke observed that "[a] majority of the expenses are recorded in whole dollar amounts, which strains reason to believe these expenses are for actual services rendered."Cooke asserted that "extremely high amounts of expenses were allocated to Happy's Super Service in Spring Valley" and that the amounts totaled over $200,000 for just over a 10-year period.Additionally, Cooke complained that the Committee's documentation inappropriately listed expenditures as made directly to Spring Valley City Bank rather than to the ultimate recipient.

¶ 6 Closed Preliminary Hearing

¶ 7 On March 1, 2016, a closed preliminary hearing was held.Seeid.§ 9-21.Relevant here, the hearing officer recommended that the Board enter an order finding that the complaint was filed upon justifiable grounds and that the matter proceed to a public hearing unless the Committee opted to timely file amended reports with sufficient detail as to its expenditures to Happy's Super Service and Spring Valley City Bank.The Board determined that the complaint was filed on justifiable grounds and ordered the Committee to file amended reports.

¶ 8 Following the Board's order, the Committee sought a stay of the case so that Mautino would not have to choose to claim or waive the protection of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in the proceeding before the Board due to a pending, parallel federal criminal investigation.⁵Ultimately, the Committee's motion was denied, and the Committee was given until July 25, 2016, to file the amended reports.The Committee did not file the amended reports as ordered.Instead, the Committee filed another motion to stay, which was again denied by the Board.

¶ 9 Public Hearing

¶ 10 The matter proceeded to a public hearing.Of note, the hearing officer stated that the purpose of the public hearing was limited to determining whether the Committee justifiably declined to file the amended reports.Cooke objected to confining the public hearing to that issue only.Nonetheless, the parties presented evidence and testimony that went to the merits of Cooke's complaint, i.e. , whether the Committee had violated sections 9-8.10(a)(2)and9-8.10(a)(9).Specifically, the deposition testimony of the Committee's treasurer, Patricia Maunu, was presented.⁶Other evidence included reports detailing the Committee's contributions and expenditures and a December 14, 2012, letter to the Committee from a Board staff member, which sought clarification regarding a quarterly report as to expenditures for gas, travel expenses, expenses for a golf outing, and expenses for a county fair booth.

¶ 11 Relevant here, the Board found that, because the Committee's records prior to 2014 had been destroyed pursuant to statute, the Committee had not willfully violated its May 18, 2016, order to amend those reports.The Board also determined, however, that the Committee had willfully violated its May 18, 2016, order to the extent that it did not amend the disclosure reports filed in 2014 and 2015 to reflect an accurate breakdown between gas and repairs made at Happy's Super Service, identify the actual recipient of each itemized expenditure made to Happy's Super Service, and identify the specific purpose of any expenditures made to Spring Valley City Bank.The Board assessed the Committee a civil penalty in the amount of $5000.Seeid.§ 9-26.⁷

¶ 12 Cooke filed a motion to reconsider, which argued that the Board should have addressed the merits of his complaint.After holding a hearing, the Board denied Cooke's motion to reconsider by a 4 to 4 vote and subsequently issued a written order.

¶ 13 Remand by Appellate Court

¶ 14 Cooke appealed the Board's final order to the appellate court.See10 ILCS 5/9-22(West 2016).The appellate court remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings, i.e. , to address and issue a ruling on the merits of Cooke's complaint.Cooke , 2018 IL App (4th) 170470, ¶ 95, 422 Ill.Dec. 949, 104 N.E.3d 516.

¶ 15 Upon remand, the parties filed briefs, but no new evidence was submitted.Cooke argued that section 9-8.10(a)(9) prohibits expenditures for gas and repairs of a vehicle unless the vehicle is owned or leased by the committee and is used primarily for campaign purposes or for the performance of governmental duties.Because the Committee had paid Happy's Super Service directly for gas and repairs of personal vehicles, Cooke argued that the Committee had violated this section.

¶ 16 The Committee's position was that section 9-8.10(a)(9) was modified by section 9-8.10(c)( 10 ILCS 5/9-8.10(c)(West 2014)) and thus it was permissible for a committee to directly pay for gas and repairs of personal vehicles when those expenses were incurred in connection with the personal vehicles’ use for campaign and governmental purposes.⁸

¶ 17 As to section 9-8.10(a)(2), Cooke asserted that the way the Committee had made expenditures at Happy's Super Service and Spring Valley City Bank inevitably allowed for money to be used for personal purposes such that the Committee received nothing in exchange.For example, Cooke contended that, because the Committee was filling up individuals’ gas tanks, there was no way to ensure that all the gas would be used for campaign or governmental purposes.

¶ 18 Additionally, Cooke maintained that the Committee violated section 9-8.10(a)(2) because it cashed checks to Spring Valley City Bank in whole dollar amounts and never returned any cash.Cooke contended that it was "implausible" Mautino could know in advance of his travel what his travel expenditures would be and that the travel expenses inevitably cost less than the amount withdrawn.Further, Cooke asserted that Mautino could not say that he took less cash than what he spent because he would have been required to disclose such costs as a campaign contribution.Mautino never did so.

¶ 19 The Committee countered that the evidence did not show that it had paid more than the fair market value for the gas or repairs at Happy's Super Service or for the expenses it paid for with the funds withdrawn from Spring Valley City Bank.The Committee also defined "fair market value" as "the price a reasonable person would pay to purchase an item or service that is also charged to other people."

¶ 20July 10, 2018, Special Meeting of the Board

¶ 21 The Board held a special meeting on July 10, 2018.Cooke and the Committee presented oral argument as to the merits of Cooke's complaint.

¶ 22 The Board first addressed section 9-8.10(a)(9).Member Carruthers asked the Committee whether section 9-8.10(c...