Hester v. Kamykowski
| Decision Date | 20 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34567,34567 |
| Citation | 150 N.E.2d 196,13 Ill.2d 481 |
| Parties | Allen H. HESTER, Appellee, v. Louis F. KAMYKOWSKI et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Posanski, Johannsen, Krohn & Jacobs, Chicago (Roman E. Posanski, Charles D. Snewind, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
William R. Ming, Jr., Chicago, for appellee
Allen H. Hester, a resident and qualified voter of the village of Phoenix, filed a petition in the county court of Cook County to declare void the election of John Falica as village clerk and of Louis F. Kamykowski as police magistrate of the village. The court found that the form of ballot used did not conform to the requirements of law, and judgment was entered declaring the election of respondents null and void. This appeal followed.
There is no dispute as to the facts. On April 16, 1957, a regular election was held for the offices of village president, clerk, trustees, and police magistrate. The respondents, who ran as candidates of the Good Government Party, were opposed by certain independent candidates for whom a write-in campaign was conducted. For the office of village clerk John Falica received a vote of 711 as against 443 for his opponent. For the office of police magistrate Louis F. Kamykowski received 694 votes to 451 for his opponent.
The form of ballot consists of only one column, in which the names of candidates of the Good Government Party appear underneath the respective offices to be filled. No other names were on the ballot, nor were spaces provided to indicate where the names of write-in candidates might be inserted by the voter. The right half of the ballot was left completely blank, without designation of office to be filled, line for the writing of a name, or square for the marking of a cross.
On the back or outside of the ballot there appears a facsimile of the signature of John Falica, the incumbent clerk, but nothing appears to indicate his official capacity. The back does not bear the designation 'Official Ballot' nor does it show the date of the election. Neither on the face nor on the back is there a designation of the polling place for the particular ballot, although four polling places were used in the election. Examination of a ballot introduced as an exhibit further discloses that the printing thereon can easily be read through the paper.
It is required by statute that (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 46, par. 16-3.) Respondents do not deny that except for the facsimile signature these provisions were not complied with. It is urged, however, that they are merely directory in nature, and that the defects in the form of ballot are inconsequential irregularities which do not affect validity.
A proper determination of the question presented depends upon whether the statutory requirements were intended to be mandatory or merely directory. Failure to comply with a mandatory provision will render void the proceeding to which it relates, whereas the strict observance of a directory provision is not essential to validity. Where a statute, in prescribing the duties of officials in the holding of elections, expressly provides that the omission to perform them shall render the election void, then the courts are bound to give effect to the provision and pronounce the election void. But if the statute, as in most cases, merely prescribes the performance of certain acts in a particular manner, and does not declare that compliance is essential to the validity of the election, then the court must look to its purpose in deciding whether compliance is mandatory or directory. People ex rel. Cant v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 102, 103 N.E. 537.
It is not intended, of course, that directory provisions may be disregarded. All the requirements of election laws are mandatory in the sense that they impose the duty of obedience on those who come within their purview. But it does not follow from this that every departure or omission should vitiate the ballot or proceeding in question. Where the effect of a failure to comply is not prescribed, the courts must determine the matter from a consideration of the entire statute, its nature, its object, and the consequences which would result from construing it one way or the other. People ex rel. Agnew v. Graham, 267 Ill. 426, 436, 108 N.E. 699. In such an inquiry a literal compliance with prescribed forms should not be required if it appears that the spirit of the law has not been violated and the result of the election has been fairly ascertained. People ex rel. Woods v. Green, 265 Ill. 39, 106 N.E. 504. The whole purpose of the ballot as an institution is to obtain a correct expression of intention; and if in a given case the voter's intention can be gathered from the ballot it should be given effect despite irregularities of form, unless they are such as would tend to destroy the secrecy of the ballot. Gulino v. Cerny, 13 Ill.2d 244, 148 N.E.2d 724; Parker v. Orr, 158 Ill. 609, 41 N.E. 1002, 30 L.R.A. 227.
In People ex rel. Agnew v. Graham, 267 Ill. 426, 108 N.E. 699, 705, this court observed as follows: 'Questions affecting the fairness of elections are of vital importance in this country. Popular self-government depends upon their proper solution. The late Justice Brewer, in discussing these questions in an opinion said: 'The problem is to secure, first, to the voter a free, untrammeled vote; and, secondly, a correct record and return of the vote. It is mainly with reference to these two results that the rules for conducting elections are prescribed by the legislative power. But these rules are only means. The end is the freedom and purity of the election. To hold these rules all mandatory and essential to a valid election is to subordinate substance to form, the end to the means. Yet, on the other hand, to permit a total neglect of all the requirements of the statute and still sustain the proceedings is to forego the lessons of experience and invite a disregard of all those provisions which the wisdom of years has found conducive to the purity of the ballot box. Ignorance, inadvertence, mistake, or even intentional wrong on the part of local officials should not be permitted to disfranchise a district. Yet rules-uniformity of procedure-are as essential to secure truth and exactness in elections as in anything else. Irregularities invite and conceal fraud. " We further said in that same case, that while the legal safeguards which are thrown about the ballot must be faithfully observed by those who have been entrusted with their enforcement, yet under the pretense of enforcing them the will of the people should not be defeated by an honest mistake of election officials; that the literal compliance with prescribed forms will not be required if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Red Clay Consol. Sch. Dist.
...Ill.App.3d 123, 202 Ill.Dec. 481, 637 N.E.2d 1217, 1220 (1994) ; (conducting single-proposition analysis); see Hester v. Kamykowski, 13 Ill.2d 481, 150 N.E.2d 196, 200 (1958) (quality of ballot paper in context of ballot secrecy).63 Emery v. Hennessy, 331 Ill. 296, 162 N.E. 835, 837 (1928) ......
-
Pullen v. Mulligan
...void, whereas technical violations of directory provisions do not affect the validity of the affected ballots. Hester v. Kamykowski (1958), 13 Ill.2d 481, 150 N.E.2d 196. There is no universal formula for distinguishing between mandatory and directory provisions. Rather, whether a particula......
-
Jackson v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of Chi.
...no voter is disenfranchised, fraud is not present, and secrecy of the ballot is not impaired.” (Emphasis added.) Hester v. Kamykowski, 13 Ill.2d 481, 487, 150 N.E.2d 196 (1958). Here, the appellate court's error caused the ballots to become defective in that they no longer accurately listed......
-
Andrews v. Powell
... ... Hester v. Kamykowski, 13 Ill.2d 481, 484-85, 150 ... Page 252 ... N.E.2d 196, 199 (1958). Invalidating an election is, however, an extremely drastic ... ...