People el rel. Wofford v. Brown
2017 IL App (1st) 161118
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lamont D. Brown was elected and sworn in as alderman (4th ward), May 11, 2015; he had prior felony convictions (1991, 1994).
- W.C. Wofford filed for leave to bring a quo warranto action (June 2015) asserting Brown was ineligible under 65 ILCS 5/3.1‑10‑5(b); certified conviction records attached.
- Trial court granted leave to file initially and issued a temporary restraining order removing Brown’s exercise of aldermanic powers, but later dissolved the TRO and set briefing on standing.
- Wofford, joined by aldermen Keith Price (6th ward) and Donald Nesbit (5th ward), filed an amended petition for leave to file quo warranto; Brown moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The circuit court denied leave, finding the relators’ interest was no different than the public’s and that the suit would cause "chaos." Price appealed; the appellate court reviewed standing de novo and reviewed denial of leave for abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that a sitting alderman (Price) has a distinct private interest (fiduciary duty and direct effect on council votes) sufficient to obtain leave to file quo warranto to challenge Brown’s eligibility under section 3.1‑10‑5(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sitting alderman has standing to obtain leave to file a quo warranto action to remove another alderman for ineligibility (felony convictions) | Price: as an elected alderman he has a distinct, substantial, and adverse private interest—his oath, fiduciary duties, and the effect of Brown’s participation on council votes—different from the general public | Brown: the question is purely public; only AG or State’s Attorney may bring quo warranto; a citizen/taxpayer relator lacks a private interest | Held: Price has standing; his interest as a council member is distinct from the public and he may seek leave to file quo warranto |
| Whether public interest or potential "chaos" justified denying leave | Price: public interest favors resolving eligibility and protecting integrity of council business | Court below: allowing the suit would cause chaos and not benefit the public | Held: appellate court found public interest is served by resolving eligibility; denial was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 473 (Illinois 2007) (criminal conviction can disqualify a candidate for municipal office)
- People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 206 Ill. 2d 541 (Illinois 2003) (quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy governed by statute)
- People v. Hofer, 363 Ill. App. 3d 719 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (quo warranto appropriate to remove local official based on felony conviction; provision protects public confidence)
- Henderson v. Miller, 228 Ill. App. 3d 260 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (only AG/State’s Attorney or an interested relator who first requests them may bring quo warranto; private relator must show a distinct private interest)
- State ex rel. Morrison v. Freeland, 81 S.E.2d 685 (W. Va. 1954) (members of a multi‑member legislative body have an individual interest in ensuring only duly qualified members vote; persuasive on standing)