Bettis v. Marsaglia
2014 IL 117050
| Ill. | 2015Background
- North Mac CUSD No. 34 adopted resolution to issue $2 million working cash bonds; Carolyn Bettis filed a petition to submit the proposition to voters for the April 9, 2013 election.
- Objectors Marsaglia and O’Neal challenged the petition sheets as not numbered or securely bound; the electoral board sustained those objections.
- Bettis filed a petition for judicial review under 10 ILCS 5/10-10.1(a) and served the three individual members of the Education Officers Electoral Board (plus other parties) by certified mail, but did not separately serve the board as an entity or name the board in the caption.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for noncompliance with section 10-10.1(a); the circuit court granted the motion and the appellate court affirmed.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave, found the dispute moot as to the underlying election but appropriate for the public-interest exception, and addressed whether serving each board member satisfies the statute’s requirement to "serve... the electoral board."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether serving each individual electoral-board member satisfies the statute’s requirement to “serve... the electoral board” under 10 ILCS 5/10-10.1(a) | Bettis: Serving every member of the board constitutes service on the electoral board; duplicate service on the board entity is unnecessary | Defendants: The statute requires service on the board as an entity in addition to its members; failure to serve the entity defeats jurisdiction | Court held serving every statutorily defined board member satisfies the requirement to serve the electoral board, so petitioner complied |
| Whether the petition must name the electoral board or its members or attach the board’s written decision to confer jurisdiction | Bettis: Statute does not require naming parties or attaching the board’s decision; only the four explicit statutory items are jurisdictional | Defendants: Failure to name/serve the board (or attach the decision) deprives the court of jurisdiction | Court held the statute’s explicit requirements are the jurisdictional prerequisites; naming parties and attaching the decision are not required |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the election passed | Bettis: Public-interest exception applies; issue recurring and guidance desirable | Defendants: Moot — election over | Court applied public-interest exception to resolve statutory interpretation question but declined to remand on the merits because the underlying election relief was moot |
| Whether appellate factual basis (petitions not numbered/bound) can affirm dismissal | Bettis: Not disputed for jurisdictional issue | Defendants: Even if procedural compliance excused, board’s factual ruling should be upheld | Court: That factual, case-specific issue is moot and not resolved; decision limited to jurisdictional/statutory interpretation questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Qualkinbush, 389 Ill. App. 3d 79 (Ill. App. 2009) (held service on both board entity and individual members required)
- Zack v. Ott, 381 Ill. App. 3d 545 (Ill. App. 2008) (construed section 10-10.1 to require service on electoral board members for due process)
- Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202 (Ill. 1985) (special statutory jurisdiction requires strict observance of statutory mode of procedure)
- Pullen v. Mulligan, 138 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 1990) (circuit courts have only statutory authority to hear election disputes)
- Jackson v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 2012 IL 111928 (Ill. 2012) (explains mootness in election cases and public-interest exception)