Dean v. Smith
2017 IL App (1st) 170404
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Deyon L. Dean filed nominating petitions in Dec. 2016 to run as an independent for Riverdale village president and submitted petitions bearing over 500 signatures.
- Objectors (Passmore and Cunningham) challenged the petitions under 10 ILCS 5/10-8, alleging Dean failed to disclose he was an independent candidate on the petition heading and submitted affidavits from 13 signers claiming they would not have signed if they knew he was independent.
- The Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained the objection, concluding that sections 10-3 and 10-4 of the Election Code require an independent candidate to indicate that status on nominating papers and struck Dean from the ballot.
- Dean sought judicial review in Cook County circuit court; the trial court affirmed the Board. Dean appealed to the First District Appellate Court, which accelerated the case because of the impending election and ordered relief pending opinion.
- The appellate court considered whether sections 10-3 and 10-4 (and related Code provisions) require independent candidates to identify their status on nominating petition headings and whether omission justified disqualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutes require independent candidates to state "independent" on nominating petition headings | Dean: statutes do not require stating independent status; his petitions met §10-4 plain-language requirements | Board/Objectors: reading §10-3 with §10-4 and §16-3 requires identifying independent status to avoid "generic" candidacy and voter confusion | Held: No. §10-3 and §10-4 do not require stating independent status on nominating petitions; striking was erroneous |
| Whether the Board could infer an unwritten requirement from §10-4's "other information" clause | Dean: residual language does not authorize creating new substantive requirements not in the statute | Board/Objectors: residual clause permits requiring party/status information to make petitions valid | Held: Court rejected inference; cannot read in new requirement absent clear statutory text |
| Whether §16-3 (ballot listing of independents) supports petition requirement | Dean: §16-3 only governs ballot layout, not petition content; its clarity undermines implication for petitions | Board/Objectors: §16-3 shows legislature expects independents to be labeled, implying similar petition requirement | Held: §16-3 does not impose petition content requirement and actually undercuts the Board’s inference |
| Whether substantial compliance or voter confusion evidence justified disqualification | Dean: not addressed because petitions met statutory requirements; substantial compliance unnecessary | Board/Objectors: affidavits from 13 signers show confusion, precluding substantial compliance | Held: Court resolved statutory-interpretation issue and found no statutory defect; therefore did not endorse striking based on submitted affidavits (did not reach substantial-compliance ruling) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tully v. Edgar, 171 Ill. 2d 297 (1996) (fundamental voting rights warrant careful judicial protection)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (electoral boards are administrative agencies; standards of review for administrative findings)
- Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL 120236 (2016) (statutory language must be given plain and ordinary meaning; courts may not read in exceptions)
- Cement Masons Pension Fund, Local 803 v. William A. Randolph, Inc., 358 Ill. App. 3d 638 (2005) (court may not supply omissions or annex new provisions under guise of interpretation)
- Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677 (1993) (appellate courts not repositories for undeveloped arguments; parties must present coherent briefing)