Stinson v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, 944 N.E.2d 862

Petitioner Michael Stinson filed for candidacy in November 2010 for the 28th Ward alderman election; Eileen Jackson objected to his candidacy alleging debt arrears to the City of Chicago under 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(b).
Jackson presented certified evidence showing an outstanding debt allegedly owed by Stinson; Stinson did not testify to negate the debt, offering only a list of people named Michael Stinson in Chicago.
Hearing officer found the debt owed by Stinson by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended disqualification; Board of Election Commissioners for Chicago, however, did not adopt the finding and allowed Stinson’s name on the ballot, citing insufficient notice of the debt.
Circuit court reversed the Board, holding the Board’s grounds for not adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation were unsupported, and ordered Stinson disqualified.
Section 3.1-10-5(b) makes a person in arrears on a city debt ineligible for elective municipal office and contains no notice requirement; the court conducted de novo review of statutory construction.
The appellate court affirmed, adopting the hearing officer’s factual finding of an outstanding debt and holding that notice is not required by the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 3.1-10-5(b) require notice to a candidate of an arrearage?	Stinson argues notice is required.	Jackson contends only debt existence matters; no notice requirement.	No notice requirement; statute concerns ineligibility for debt arrears regardless of notice.
What is the proper standard of review for statutory construction here?	De novo review of statutory language and intent.	Statutory interpretation guided by plain language.	De novo review applied to construction and application of the statute.
Did the Board’s decision fail to apply 3.1-10-5(b) correctly by allowing ballot access?	Board erred in not disqualifying based on debt.	Board’s decision was proper given lack of notice finding.	Board’s decision was clearly erroneous; petitioner's name must be disqualified.

City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (affirmative review of mixed questions of law and fact; respect for agency findings when appropriate)
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (mixed question of law and fact; prima facie true agency findings)
Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (2009) (statutory construction; de novo standard for language interpretation)