Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Bd.
Decision Date | 10 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 83-294,83-294 |
Citation | 446 N.E.2d 256,68 Ill.Dec. 522,112 Ill.App.3d 926 |
Parties | , 68 Ill.Dec. 522 Reverend Elias J. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD, Michael E. Lavelle, James R. Nolan, Corneal A. Davis and Charles E. Johnson, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Burton S. Odelson and Mark H. Sterk, Evergreen Park, for petitioner-appellant.
Michael Levinson and Franklin J. Lunding, Jr., Chicago, for respondent-appellee Municipal Officers Electoral Bd.
Nathaniel R. Howse, Chicago, for respondent-appellee Charles E. Johnson.
Petitioner appeals from an order affirming a decision by the Municipal Officers Electoral Board (the Board) striking his name from the February 22, 1983 Aldermanic Ballot. He contends that (1) the statement of economic interests he filed was in substantial compliance with pertinent sections of the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 127, par. 604A-101, 604A-104, 604A-105) (the Ethics Act) and the Election Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 46, par. 10-5); and (2) the removal of his name from the ballot was an improper sanction for violation of section 10-5-1 of the Election Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 46, par. 10-5.1).
As a candidate for Chicago alderman from the 3rd Ward, petitioner was required to file a statement of economic interests in relation to that office. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 46, par. 10-5.) That statement must also comply with section 4A-104 of the Ethics Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 127, par. 604A-104), which provides in relevant part:
"The statement of economic interests required
by this Article * * * shall contain substantially
the following:
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (TYPE OR HAND PRINT) ------------------------------------------------- (name) ------------------------------------------------- (office or position of employment for which this statement is filed)"
The pertinent portion of the statement filed by petitioner was as follows:
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS TO BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK (TYPE OR HAND PRINT) Reverend Elias J. JOnes 3rd Ward ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (name) Pastor of 1st Unity Missionary Baptist Church ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (office or position of employment for which this statement is filed)
Petitioner also filed petitions for nomination which included the title "Reverend" before his name which were admittedly in violation of section 10-5.1 of the Election Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 46, par. 10-5.1), which provides:
Objections to petitioner's nomination papers were the subject of a hearing before the Board, which struck his name from the ballot after determining that he had violated section 10-5.1 of the Election Code and that he failed to file a statement of economic interests as required by the Ethics Act. The Board's decision was affirmed by the trial court, and this appeal followed.
OPINIONPetitioner first contends that inclusion of the words "3rd Ward" next to his name constituted substantial compliance with the requirement that his statement of economic interest include "the office * * * for which this statement is filed."
Initially, we note that a factual determination of the electoral board will not be reversed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence (Panarese v. Hosty (1982), 104 Ill.App.3d 627, 60 Ill.Dec. 434, 432 N.E.2d 1333); that is, unless the decision lacks "some competent evidence in the record sufficient to support the agency finding" (Williams v. Butler (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 532, 538, 341 N.E.2d 394, 399).
The Board sustained the objections on the bases (1) that the petition violated section 10-5.1 of the Election Code; and (2) "for failure to file a Statement of Economic Interests in relationship to the office for which candidate is seeking election as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act." Petitioner agrees that absent the words "3rd Ward," handwritten after petitioner's name, the statement in question would not be in compliance with the Ethics Act, but it is his position that their inclusion brings the statement into compliance. He maintains that it may be presumed the statement was filed in relation to the aldermanic position, since it was filed concurrently with his nomination papers for that office. We note, however, not only that the statement is filed separately from other nomination papers and with a different governmental agency, but also that it makes no reference to those papers. Furthermore, such a statement is also filed by current public officials as well as by certain governmental employees and persons seeking employment, which further negates any presumption that the filing was in reference to an election.
It thus appears clear to us that the inclusion of the words "3rd Ward" does not describe the office of alderman of the 3rd Ward, as required not only by section 4A-104 of the Ethics Act but also by section 10-5 of the Election Code, which provides that "[n]omination papers * * * are not valid if the candidate named therein fails to file a statement of economic interests * * * in relation to his candidacy * * *." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 46, par. 10-5.) (Emphasis added.) In light thereof, we find that the Board's determination in this regard is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Petitioner further argues, relying on Havens v. Miller (1982), 102 Ill.App.3d 558, 57 Ill.Dec. 929, 429 N.E.2d 1292, that section 4A-104 is directory rather than mandatory, and maintains that removal from the ballot is therefore not a proper sanction for failure to comply. The Board contends that inclusion of the office sought is made mandatory by section 10-5 of the Election Code, which provides that all nomination papers are invalid if a candidate fails to file a statement "in relation to his candidacy."
A mandatory provision is "one the omission to follow which renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void." (Havens v. Miller (1981), 102 Ill.App.3d 558, 564, 57 Ill.Dec. 929, 933, 429 N.E.2d 1292, 1296), and the question presented by this argument is whether the legislature intended to create a mandatory provision by requiring that a statement be filed in relation to a candidacy. Where the language of a statute is plain, there is no need for interpretation (Totten v. State Board of Elections (1980), 79 Ill.2d 288, 38 Ill.Dec. 137, 403 N.E.2d 225); however, where interpretation is required, we will select the construction which leads to a logical result (Board of Education v. Community High School District No. 211 (1967), 89 Ill.App.2d 481, 232 N.E.2d 316), and we must consider the object to be attained (People v. Bratcher (1976), 63 Ill.2d 534, 349 N.E.2d 31) and the result of various interpretations of the act (People ex rel. Holland v. Edelman (1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 793, 327 N.E.2d 338).
Here, the provision in question should be considered not only in relation to the Election Code as a whole (Huckaba v. Cox (1958), 14 Ill.2d 126, 150 N.E.2d 832), but also in relation to section 4A-104 of the Ethics Act, to which specific reference is made. The Election Code requires that candidates comply with section 4A-104 which, in directory rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Miller
...consider the object to be obtained and the result of various interpretations of the act. (Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 926, 929, 68 Ill.Dec. 522, 446 N.E.2d 256.) Criminal or penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of an accused and nothing......
-
Victorson v. Department of Treasury
...plan void. See People v. Koval, 371 Mich. 453, 459, 124 N.W.2d 274 (1963). See also Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Bd., 112 Ill.App.3d 926, 929-930, 68 Ill.Dec. 522, 446 N.E.2d 256 (1983). Therefore, an unapproved plan, though it may be valid under federal civil rights law, is invali......
-
People v. Dugan
...consider the object to be attained and the result of various interpretations of the Act. (Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 926, 929, 68 Ill.Dec. 522, 446 N.E.2d 256.) Criminal or penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of an accused and nothing......
-
Rottman v. Ill. State Officers Electoral Bd.
...Id. at 668, 283 Ill.Dec. 320, 807 N.E.2d 1161. Those circumstances did not occur here. Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board , 112 Ill. App. 3d 926, 68 Ill.Dec. 522, 446 N.E.2d 256 (1983), is unhelpful because that case also did not involve whether a candidate could rely on a previous......