Alvarez v. Williams
2014 IL App (1st) 133443
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Kenneth J. Williams was elected (2009) and reelected (2012) as a member and then president of the Thornton Township High School District 205 Board.
- Anita Alvarez, Cook County State’s Attorney, filed a quo warranto action alleging Williams’s 1985 Indiana felony forgery conviction (accountability theory) was an “infamous crime” under Ill. Election Code §29-15 and the School Code, rendering him ineligible to hold school board office.
- The trial court granted plaintiff summary judgment, finding the Indiana forgery conviction qualified as an infamous crime and thus Williams was statutorily ineligible; a later Indiana expungement occurred after the court’s ruling and was not considered.
- Williams argued on appeal that (1) he was statutorily eligible despite the conviction; (2) the term “infamous crime” is vague (due process); (3) §29-15 violates equal protection because it treats constitutional and legislatively created offices differently; (4) he was selectively prosecuted; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in limiting discovery.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, applied statutory construction principles, and analyzed prior Illinois authority about “infamous crime,” accountability liability, and legislative discretion to set qualifications for legislatively created offices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory eligibility to hold school board office | Williams’s 1985 Indiana forgery conviction is an "infamous crime" under Ill. Election Code §29-15 (which incorporates §124‑1) and thus disqualifies him | The repeal of §124‑1 and School Code amendments limit ineligibility; his conviction (accountability/aiding and abetting) is not within the intended scope | Court: §29‑15 remains effective by reference; accountability convictions (aiding/abetting) constitute infamous forgery; Williams was statutorily ineligible; summary judgment affirmed |
| Vagueness / Due process (term "infamous crime") | — | The term is vague and fails void‑for‑vagueness tests | Court: term is defined by former §124‑1 and longstanding precedent; not unconstitutionally vague |
| Equal protection — disparate treatment of constitutional vs. legislatively created offices | — | §29‑15 creates an irrational disparity because voting rights restore eligibility for constitutional office after sentence | Court: legislature may set qualifications for legislatively created offices; rational basis exists to protect public trust in local offices; equal protection claim fails |
| Selective prosecution | — | Plaintiff singled out Williams and treated similarly situated individuals differently | Court: Williams failed to show others similarly situated and an invidious classification; selective prosecution not established |
| Discovery limitation / procedural fairness | — | Trial court’s limits prevented necessary factual development | Court: no abuse of discretion; Rule 191(b) affidavit and cross‑motions were heard; summary judgment appropriate |
| Effect of subsequent expungement | — | Indiana expungement should negate ineligibility | Court: expungement occurred after the trial court’s ruling and is immaterial to the appeal before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodriguez, 229 Ill. 2d 285 (establishes Illinois accountability rule for criminal liability)
- People v. Hofer, 363 Ill. App. 3d 719 (upheld rational basis for barring felons from municipal elective office to protect public trust)
- Coles v. Ryan, 91 Ill. App. 3d 382 (discussed unequal restoration requirements for different office types)
- Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 481 (supreme court applied Hofer reasoning regarding eligibility distinctions)
- People ex rel. City of Kankakee v. Morris, 126 Ill. App. 3d 722 (forge/infamous crime discussion; felony involving moral turpitude is infamous)