People ex rel. Richter v. Telford

• Decision Date: 09 December 1968
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 11092
• Citation: 103 Ill.App.2d 132,242 N.E.2d 464
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. Roy Randall RICHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William C. TELFORD, Coroner of the County of Sangamon; The Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Springfield, Illinois; County Clerk of Sangamon County, Illinois, Respondents-Appellees.

Page 464

242 N.E.2d 464

103 Ill.App.2d 132

The PEOPLE ex rel. Roy Randall RICHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William C. TELFORD, Coroner of the County of Sangamon; The

Board of Election Commissioners of the City of

Springfield, Illinois; County Clerk of

Sangamon County, Illinois,

Respondents-Appellees.

Gen. No. 11092.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Dec. 9, 1968.

James R. Potter, Springfield, for appellant.

Richard A. Hollis, State's Atty., J. Waldo Ackerman, Springfield, for appellees.

CRAVEN, Justice.

Roy Randall Richter, Democratic candidate for coroner of Sangamon County at the November 5, 1968, election, filed a petition for mandamus in the circuit court of Sangamon County against William C. Telford, Republican candidate for that office, and against the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Springfield and County Clerk of Sangamon County to require such respective officers to list the name of W. C. Telford on the ballot without the word 'Dr.' as a prefix and the letters 'O.D.' as a suffix.

The circuit court denied mandamus. Petitioner appealed to this court and moved for an immediate transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 302(d) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 110A, sec. 302(d)). The Supreme Court refused to order an immediate transfer. Thereupon, petitioner filed a motion in this court for immediate determination of this appeal and asked waiver of notice requirements. This court granted the motion for immediate determination, and heard oral arguments. On the day of oral arguments, this court ruled that the circuit-court order dismissing the petition for mandamus be affirmed, rendered a short statement supporting the ruling and stated that a formal opinion would follow.

The granting of a writ of mandamus in this type of case is discretionary. Mandamus will lie to command performance of an official act which is ministerial. The County Clerk and Board of Election Commissioners, in printing official ballots for an election, act in a ministerial capacity. Hence, we must look to the subject-matter and to the provisions of the Illinois Election Code, which statutorily sets forth the Clerk's duties.

The Election Code of Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 46, secs. 7--60 and 7--62) makes it the duty of the county clerk of a county and the board of election commissioners of a city having such a board to prepare the official ballot for election and 'to place upon the official ballot to be voted at the election the names of all candidates nominated for office, as herein provided, as shown by the certificate of the canvassing board * * *.' Section 16--3 of the Election Code provides that: 'The names of all candidates to be voted for in each election district * * * shall be printed on one ballot, * * *.'

'Name', as provided by the statute, should be given its usual sense and ordinary meaning unless it has become a word of art or has been given other accepted meaning. It ordinarily means the distinctive designation of a person or thing. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged (1966), p. 1501.) This does not include other descriptive terminology.

While this is a case of first impression in Illinois, a similar problem has been considered by the courts of our sister states of Missouri, New York and Ohio. Without exception, these courts have held that it is not permissible to place on an official ballot a characterization or designation before or after a candidate's name, as

'The ultimate test of fairness is that the ballot furnish to each elector a reasonable opportunity to express his choice, as where all the names are printed in the same style * * *. It would be neither fair nor practical to permit the insertion of such title or degrees with candidates' names, much less the myriad appellations and items of descriptive matter that might logically follow and which election fever and ingenuity would undoubtedly generate.' Toigo v. County Bd. of Elections, 51 Misc.2d 754, 273 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782--785 (Sup.Ct.1966).

See also: State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe, Mo.App., 382 S.W.2d 38; State ex rel. Whetsel v. Murphy, 122 Ohio St. 620, 174 N.E. 252; 122 O.S. 620; 26 Am.Jur.2d Elections sec. 218.

While the statutory provision (ch. 46, sec. 7--60) requires that the name of the candidates be placed on the ballot 'as shown by the certificate of the canvassing board', this can mean only the Name as so shown. The statute does not authorize any and all language shown on the certificate, including prefixes, suffixes, and other appellations or slogans to be printed on the ballot. The Clerk, acting in his ministerial capacity, is authorized to print on the ballot only the language provided by statute.

We deem the provisions of the Election Code controlling and conclusive of this matter. The contention of petitioner that the proposed listing of the name 'Dr. W. C. Telford, O. D.' directly violates Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 91, sec. 105.5, the Optometry Act, is here rejected. That act has no application to the manner of listing a name on an election ballot. Our opinion is further confirmed by the fact that the Election Code at one time provided, in section 7--60, that not only the name, but 'the name and description' of the candidate should be printed on the ballot. The words 'and description' were deleted by an amendment in 1955. Hence, the word 'Dr.' and the letters 'O. D.' would constitute 'description', not 'name', and should not be printed on the official ballot.

The Election Code, however, provides adequate mechanics for a...