People el rel. Wofford v. Brown
76 N.E.3d 34
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lamont D. Brown was elected and sworn in as alderman of Harvey’s 4th ward on May 11, 2015; he had two prior felony convictions (1991, 1994).
- W.C. Wofford filed a petition for leave to file a quo warranto complaint (June 18, 2015) alleging Brown was ineligible under 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(b); the court initially granted leave and issued a TRO, later dissolved.
- Brown moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing quo warranto on public issues is for the Attorney General or State’s Attorney.
- Plaintiffs then filed an amended petition naming sitting aldermen Keith Price (6th ward) and Donald Nesbit (5th ward) as additional relators; Price is the sole appellant.
- The trial court denied leave to file the amended quo warranto petition, finding the aldermen’s interest was no different from the public’s and that the suit would cause “chaos.”
- The appellate court reversed, holding a sitting alderman (Price) has standing to seek leave to file quo warranto to remove an ineligible alderman and remanded with directions to grant leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sitting alderman has standing to obtain leave to file a quo warranto action challenging another alderman’s eligibility under 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(b) | Price: as a fellow alderman he has a private, fiduciary interest distinct from the public because Brown’s participation taints council votes and duties | Brown: quo warranto for public issues is for AG or State’s Attorney; private relators lack a distinct interest (citizen/taxpayer status insufficient) | Held: Price has standing — a sitting alderman’s interest in ensuring only qualified members vote is distinct, direct, substantial, and adverse to a usurper’s participation; leave to file must be granted |
| Whether the public interest justified denying leave (court’s discretion) | Price: public interest favors resolving eligibility to protect integrity and public confidence | Trial court: permitting the suit would cause chaos and not benefit the public | Held: public interest supports allowing the quo warranto action; trial court abused discretion in denying leave |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 206 Ill. 2d 541 (2003) (quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy; leave to file is discretionary)
- Henderson v. Miller, 228 Ill. App. 3d 260 (1992) (private relator must show a direct, substantial, adverse interest distinct from the public)
- Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 473 (2007) (statutory interpretation that felony conviction can disqualify municipal officeholders)
- People v. Hofer, 363 Ill. App. 3d 719 (2006) (disqualification provision protects public confidence in officials)
- Parker v. Lyons, 757 F.3d 701 (7th Cir.) (quo warranto’s purpose is to question lawful title to office)
- State ex rel. Morrison v. Freeland, 81 S.E.2d 685 (W. Va.) (members of a small governing body have a distinct interest in removing an ineligible colleague because a single vote can affect outcomes)