Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School Dist. No. 40
| Decision Date | 20 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 35117,35117 |
| Citation | 16 Ill.2d 328,157 N.E.2d 59 |
| Parties | Henry SMITH, Appellant, v. CALHOUN COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 40 et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Johns F. Gibbons, Jerseyville, for appellant.
L. K. Hubbard, State's Atty., Carrollton, Ralph J. Moses, State's Atty., J. Clark Anderson, and Paul R. Durr, Hardin, for appellees.
This case involves the validity of the ballot used at an election which authorized the issuance of school bonds. The plaintiff, a taxpayer, brought suit in the circuit court of Calhoun County to enjoin the county clerks of Greene and Calhoun counties from extending the tax rate to provide for the payment of principal and interest on such bonds, in that the form of ballot used at the election was invalid. The circuit court entered a decree denying the injunction, and plaintiff appeals directly to this court, the case being one relating to revenue. Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 110, par. 75; Schoon v. Board of Education, 11 Ill.2d 91, 142 N.E.2d 41.
On March 11, 1958, the board of education of Community Unit School District No. 40, Calhoun and Greene Counties, duly adopted a resolution calling a special election for the purpose of submitting to the legal voters of the district a proposition to build and equip a new high school building, to build additional classrooms, and to issue school building bonds to the amount of $429,000 for such purposes. The resolution set forth the proposition to be voted upon, established precincts and polling places for the election, set forth the form of the ballot, the date of election and time of opening and closing the polls. A notice of special school election was duly published, and the election was held in conformity with the provisions of the resolution and notice.
Following the election, the board of education duly canvassed the returns, and by appropriate resolution found that the proposition was approved by a majority of the votes cast. Subsequently, the board adopted a resolution authorizing and directing the issuance of such bonds in the amount of $404,000, and providing for the levy of a tax for their payment. Certified copies of this resolution were filed in the offices of the county clerks of Calhoun and Greene counties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit to enjoin the sale of the bonds and the extension of the required tax rate.
The proposition set forth in the original resolution of the board, and in the notice of special school election was as follows:
'Shall the Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 40 Calhoun and Greene Counties, Illinois, be authorized to build and equip a new high school building on a site now owned by said District; and to build additional classrooms to the Kampsville School; and to issue school building bonds to the amount of Four Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand Dollars ($429,000.00) for the above purposes; said bonds to mature on January 1, in each of the years and in the amounts, as follows:
$ 5,000.00----1960 $23,000.00----1969
11,000.00----1961 24,000.00----1970
12,000.00----1962 25,000.00----1971
17,000.00----1963 26,000.00----1972
18,000.00----1964 28,000.00----1973
19,000.00----1965 29,000.00----1974
20,000.00----1966 30,000.00----1975
21,000.00----1967 31,000.00----1976
22,000.00----1968 32,000.00----1977
36,000.00----1978
Bonds maturing in the years 1960-1969, both inclusive, to bear interest at the rate of Four and One-half Per centum (4 1/2%) per annum; bonds maturing in the years 1970-1978, both inclusive, to bear interest at the rate of Four and Three-Quarters Per Centum (4 3/4%) per annum, payable semi-annually.'
The language of the proposition on the official ballot used at the election was identical to the foregoing proposition except that the figures '$32,000.00 . . . 1977' were omitted from the schedule of maturity dates on the ballot. The sole question presented upon this appeal is the effect of this omission. It is undisputed that the statutory provisions governing such election were complied with in all other respects.
Section 5A-13 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 122, par. 5A-13,) entitled, 'Public measures-Ballots,' provides in part:
'Whenever a public measure is submitted to be voted upon, the substance of such public measure shall be clearly indicated on the ballot and two spaces shall be left upon the right hand margin thereof, one for the votes favoring the public measure, to be desigated by the word 'yes,' and one for the votes opposing the measure, to be designated by the word 'no,' substantially in the following form:
Shall (Here print the substance of the public measure.)
Yes _____
No _____'
The legislature has required that the substance of the public measure shall be printed on the ballot, and the use of this language eliminates the requirement that the public measure be set forth in haec verba. We know of no authority, and none has been cited, to indicate that the schedule of maturities of a school bond issue is an essential part of the substance of the public measure, which must be printed on the ballot. Cf. Schoon v. Board of Education, 11 Ill.2d 91, 142 N.E.2d 41; Roll v. Carrollton Community Unit School Dist., 3 Ill.2d 148, 121 N.E.2d 1.
We have frequently held that where a special statute prescribes the form of the ballot there must be a substantial compliance with the special statutory mandate or the election is void. People ex rel. Kramer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 6 Ill.2d 266, 128 N.E.2d 710; People ex rel. Henry v. New York Central Railroad Lines, 381 Ill. 490, 45 N.E.2d 860. However, the School Code requires only that the substance of the public measure shall be printed on the ballot and the rule has been tempered by the qualification that not every deviation from the form of ballot prescribed by the applicable statute will render an election void. People ex rel. Kramer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 6 Ill.2d 266, 128 N.E.2d 710; Knappenberger v. Hughes, 377 Ill. 126, 35 N.E.2d 317.
In this case, the notice of the election set forth the public measure in full, including the total amount of the proposed bond issue, the interest rate, the complete schedule of maturities, the number and boundaries of the precincts, the date of the election and the hours the polls would open and close. It gave the voter, in advance of the election, all the information necessary for a complete understanding of every aspect of the proposition. We do not believe that the legislature intended, as a condition precedent to the validity of the election, that such detailed specifications be printed on the official ballot.
This view is sustained by the history of the school legislation with reference to the notice and ballot to be used in submitting public measures to the voters as a school election. Article 5A entitled 'School Elections' was added to the School Code in 1951. Sections 5A-10 and 5A-13 changed the prior enactments respecting the ballot and notice to be used in school elections where public measures were submitted. Section 5A-10 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Com'Rs
... ... explained that the Chinese language has over 40,000 characters and only the most commonly used ... Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School District No. 40, ... ...
-
Mashni Corp. v. Board of Election Com'Rs
...in words of plain meaning, so that it can be understood by persons entitled to vote." Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School District No. 40, 16 Ill.2d 328, 335, 157 N.E.2d 59 (1959). Not every deviation from the statutory form will render an election void; rather, "to have such effect the ......
-
Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist.
...estatute. The ballot in the case at bar contained not only what was required by the statute, but more. In Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School Dist., 16 Ill.2d 328, 157 N.E.2d 59, where the question of the validity of a ballot used at an election to authorize the issuance of school bonds ......
-
Gormley v. Lan
...doing the same here. See also Great Northern R. Co. v. Flaten, 225 N.W.2d 75 (N.D.Sup.Ct.1974); Smith v. Calhoun Comm. Unit School Dist. No. 40, 16 Ill.2d 328, 157 N.E.2d 59, 63 (Sup.Ct.1959); 26 Am.Jur.2d, Elections, § 221 at 51. None of the parties disputes the fact that the Legislature n......