*1 Corrections, of to the Director the mandate copy Center, war- and the Stateville Correctional warden is confined. the defendant institution where den
Affirmed. (No. 70833. al.,
DOROTHY REED et v. STANLEY T. Appellees, al., et KUSPER, JR., Appellants. Rehearing
Opinion 1992. December filed 1, 1993. February denied *2 BILANDIC, J., no part. took
HEIPLE, J., dissenting.
Jack State’s and Kenneth L. Gillis O’Malley, Attorney, of Mizerk, and Donald Assistant State’s Attorneys, J. for Cook Officers Electoral Chicago, County appellant Board. Conti, & Adamski of Adamski A. and Karen
Gregory Reed et al. Conti, Dorothy of Chicago, appellees Bar- Pincham, of Chicago, appellees R. Eugene et al. J. bara Norman of the court: opinion
JUSTICE MORAN delivered the the this court This cause was remanded to v. Reed (Norman Court Supreme United States ad- 112 S. 279, 711, 698) 116 L. Ed. 2d Ct. U.S. whether impression: dress issue of first following include candi of political party failure a article slate under on invalidates entire dates its slate 1989, Stat. (Ill. Rev. (the Code) 10 of Election Code et does, and if it whether seq.); ch. 1—1 par. Code is unconstitu requirement”
tional. others 6, 1990, Norman and
On Barbara J. August their names on No filed (the petitions place Party) for office un 1990, election as candidates vember ballot Washington Party (Washington Party) der Harold name. filed as “new” 10 of the in Cook under article County seq.), 10—1 et even Code Rev. Stat. established though Washington Party already was Chicago. City offices, fielded candidates for all nonjudicial, countywide and for commissioners to elected at-large City Chicago commissioners), county within the (city to be elected from outside at-large City commissioners *3 and commissioners) of commissioners (suburban Chicago Chicago. of the Reclamation District of Greater Water objec others filed (the objectors) Reed and Dorothy nomination tions to the candidates’ Washington Party Code, contending of to section 10—8 the pursuant the num lacked Washington petitions requisite Party meet require of had other ber and failed signatures, ments of 10—2 of the Code Rev. Stat. 2). (the board) officers electoral board County Cook Washington and held objections
examined Novem- entitled on the appear Party candidates for the of the candidates ballot, exception with ber commissioners. and the suburban-district water district had failed to Party the Washington The board found that of necessary signatures number gather in of those candidates. support within those districts the board’s decision to the cir- objectors appealed court, cuit court of That in Cook an order filed on County. 20, 1990, affirmed the in September board’s decision part It and reversed it held that the failure of the sub- part. urban commissioners’ and the failure to candidacy present candidates resulted in a failure Washington re- submit slate” Code, section 10—2 of the and that therefore all quired by for the ineligible candidates were bal- lot.
This court then the circuit reviewed court’s decision to Illinois Court Rule Ill. 2d pursuant Supreme 302(b) (134 12, 1990, R. and entered an order on af 302(b)), October on firming the circuit court’s decision two separate First, this court held that grounds. could not use the Washington Party party
name because it was the name of an “established political Second, of the violation section 10—5 Code. party,” this court held that the failure of the suburban commis sioners’ resulted in the fail petitions Washington Party’s that, there ure to file a slate of candidates complete fore, with section comply its nomination did papers result, to ad 10—2. As a this court found it unnecessary on them remaining appeal, among dress the raised points failure to ju whether being Washington Party’s fatal to its candidates’ petitions. dicial candidates was the United States Court Supreme Subsequently, certiorari, decision, and our granted staying consequently 6, 1990, in the election to on November allowing proceed January accordance with the decision the board. On Court filed an Supreme opinion upholding that (1) though The Court held even decision board. moot; (2) was not over, the election was the controversy *4 rule, section the court’s of interpretation party-name of Code, right the first amendment 10—5 of the violated all of association; Washing- (3) disqualifying political because of signatures with sufficient ton of an un- imposed the failure their suburban component Washington on the requirement constitutional signature (4) and the suburban commissioner Party; for gain properly disqualified failing requisite However, did not con- of the Court signatures. number slate of to field a candi- judicial sider whether the failure , alternative for ground invalidating dates an provided held cir- slate, so entire as was Washington Party’s law not court, of Illinois had question cuit because 295, U.S. (Norman, our court. at been reviewed by Instead, 2d 112 S. Ct. the Su- 709.) 116 L. Ed. at at our court. question Court remanded this preme examination sec- requires Resolution of this issue of tion which states: desiring to
“Any persons of form a group hereafter State, throughout or in con political any district, or in other gressional, legislative any or (other district or in than a munici any political subdivision pality) single county, within a shall file with entirely pro the State Elections a as hereinafter petition, Board of vided; group persons desiring such hereafter any form a new shall file such political party any within clerk; petition such Any with the ***. throughout political party the formation of a new State, subdivision, or in such district or any *** filing be, case shall at the time of contain a com may all plete list candidates of offices State, in the or such district or subdivision filled be, ensuing the next election then to be may as the case at added.) held ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. (Emphasis 10—2. the following perti- 1—3 of the Code contains Section nent definitions: means governmental
“6. ‘Political or subdivision’ or district which elec- government, unit local school subdi- governmental held. ‘Political or may tions are *5 82 includes, Regional purposes,
vision’ also for election Trustees, Township Boards of School and Boards of School Trustees.
* * * means area which votes as a unit for any 14. ‘District’ officer, other than the State or a unit the election of district, includes, or school and but is government of local to, congressional judicial and dis legislative, not limited tricts, circuits, districts, county municipal judicial board wards, districts, pre school and sanitary and district board 1989, 46, added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. (Emphasis cincts.” pars. 3(6),(14).) units of since the Illinois Constitution defines
Accordingly, local counties Const. government including a or VII, art. then a must §1), county logically subdivision. governmental in this
The the determinative issue Party argues are considered to be judges county case is whether officers, claims that if find to be judges State and we officers, then no to slate them in obligation State there is dis- order to list of candidates have offers five rea- Party trict or subdivision.” State officers rather sons for considering judges file First, candidates do not judicial than officers. file they their with the nominating petitions county clerk — Second, of Elections in Springfield. with the State Board from appropriations by the State judges paid by Third, State under the Illinois Constitution. legislature Constitution divides VI, article section of the Illinois of one or more counties. the State into circuits judicial circuits multiple-county precludes judges The existence VI, Fourth, officers. article sections being county supreme, State Constitution provides nominated at and circuit court shall be appellate Fifth, 7—4 of the elections or section by petition. primary office or officer part by Code defines county judges. a list of which does not include examples giving if a also contends that even court to re the circuit lacked required, authority from the all ballot. move so, insists, since in Anderson v. This is Schneider re 67 Ill. 2d this court board’s reversed candidates under of an entire slate of “new” party moval 10—2 of when one of the Code for office. proved be ineligible the board Party,
In addition to the raised points makes some addi (which also is a to this action) *6 the of First, that judicial tional asserts observations. pur not election categorized
fices were question the means same subdivision as poses of the by which candidates were offices for the elected It contends that are categorized. judges by judicial the districts whereas the offices (or circuits), to elected Washington by slated candidates were be The board concludes that the “district” county. applicable for the offices at issue was the Cook judicial County judi district,1 coincidentally happens geo cial which only coterminous with the subdivision” of graphically “political its argument, Cook In further County. support cites to v. Cook Electoral County board Black Officers Ill. 750 F. wherein a Fed (N.D. 1990), Board Supp.
eral and or opinion district court issued memorandum challenges der in to several constitutional to response Illinois circuit decision in the instant case. That court’s State, court held that candidates are elected to judicial that, therefore, not they offices and need be county, in a as a parties slated new election result of by county requirement.” circuit, judicial District shall consti 1Or since “First Judicial VI, §7(a)), a Judicial Const. tute Circuit” art. whereas remaining multiple four districts are into circuits. subdivided hand, argue
The on the other objectors, judges officers, are not State on section 7—4 of the Code. relying State office as one voted for This defines provision by State, of the entire and defines electors qualified office as one voted for electors of the en- by qualified tire The claim that since Cook objectors County county. are voted for the electors of Cook judges by only County, must be officers. describe this they objectors as a red because the Code a new herring, requires issue for “all offices to be filled submit of the subdivision” nature regardless (i.e., assert objectors offices either State or county). field candi- was required general filled at the ensuing dates for all offices which, to the according election within Cook ob- County, if note that even judi- includes also jectors, judges. They to file with State Board required cial candidates clerk, the instead of the county proposed of Elections of its must still file names clerk. with the county all are however, that not responds
The Party, electorate. Some elected the entire Cook County elected from from the some are at-large county, elected district, and some are elected from the suburban the city *7 are not This further that suggest district. would 4(6) in section officers under the definition county 7— appear At first would glance, argument the Code. commissioners the notion that county conflict with are elected in a similar officers, since too they the Code However, 4(6) specifically manner. 7— offices. occupy states that those commissioners interpreta- centers upon Because this controversy of this court is 2, the role tion of a of section portion 10— effect and to give the intent of the legislature to ascertain intent, the courts In determining legislative to that intent. where language; the statutory should first consider en the courts must unambiguous, is clear language aids of resort to other without as enacted force the law Edgar Inc. v. Kraft, construction. statutory 178, 189. Ill. 2d is whether to be answered first question all availa for must disclose candidates intends to run in it those which just or positions,
ble we believe of this question, For purposes candidate. states, The statute clearly unambiguous.
the statute is political of a new for the formation “Any petition or State, po in such district party throughout *** shall at the be, subdivision, may as the case litical of such list of candidates contain a filing complete time of State, or such dis in the all filled offices ***.” the case be may trict or subdivision Rev. Stat. added.) (Ill. (Emphasis sub “political contested that'the It cannot
2.) seriously be as the Washing in is Cook question County, division” here offices countywide candidates for ton has slated Party clearly requires the statute Accordingly, Cook. shall formation of the for the offices to of candidates for all
contain a list complete (See of Cook County. subdivision filled within if the legislature at Anderson, 178-79.) Clearly, 67 Ill. 2d the names of to disclose only meant that a new has run, it plans for each office whom could have so stated. un- the statute is and one in which
The next question, offices of at issue are clear, offices is whether is Party the Washington which political subdivision Washing- of the so, If then the failure candidates. fielding those open judgeships ton to slate candidates for find it help- We would have a violation Code. been the statute ful to examine the interpretation was established board, the administrative agency of can- to the nominations objections hear and pass upon *8 46, didates office Rev. Stat. course,
9(2)). Of we are bound administrative by Decatur v. (City of of a statute. agency’s interpretation State, Municipal American Federation & Em County, Local 268 ployees, (1988), However, 122 Ill. 2d 361.) courts will and deference to an in give weight substantial of an statute terpretation ambiguous by agency with the administration and enforcement of the charged statute. Such an an informed interpretation expresses intent. A legislative source for ascertaining significant reason for this deference is that can make in agencies issues, formed on their judgments upon based experi v. expertise. (Illinois Telephone Consolidated Co. ence and Illinois Commerce Comm’n 95 Ill. 2d 152-53.) board, agree reasoning We with the and therefore its conclusion that at issue “are elected adopt govern of Cook as a unit local not from the County ment, Dis Judicial from County but rather the Cook trict" which is a different unit of (emphasis added), government. (Il VI, art. we §2.) Accordingly, Const. l. find that these offices are not of the same judicial “politi cal is Washington fielding subdivision” candidates. addition, any
In section 10—2 of the Code states to form a new desiring political party group persons district” shall file with State throughout any “judicial Elections, desiring Board of and that such group file shall any county form a new within political party if the legisla- clerk. Clearly, with ture intended had would legislature petition,
nominated on same in one loca- filed petitions have for these be provided there indicate tion. These different filing procedures the two sets of offices. is no between linkage required the Federal dis- are not we bound Finally, although Black, reasoning we do its adopt trict court’s decision reliance heavy the court issue, placed wherein to this elected *9 that, fact while the upon circuits, all of the candidates districts or separate to elected the slated by or separate county, of a specific subdivision political and suburban (e.g., city commissioners therein districts Black, are only there out in As commissioners). pointed a judicial in an Illinois instances three is Cook coextensive, one of which circuit) district (or counties are Illinois, multiple most of County. Throughout circuits. Consequently, form judicial to together grouped to the intent of contrary that it would be we believe slate requirement” the “complete to interpret legislature field judicial to the Washington to have required failure to do so therefore, find that its candidates, and we to its nominating petitions. was not fatal the first as to finding part
As a result of our us, opinion need not render remanded to we question require- as to the constitutionality is now This issue of section 10—2 of the Code. ment” 10—2 moot, satisfied since to. it was required the candidates that slating re- court with of the circuit Accordingly, judgment issue is reversed. gard to this
Reversed. in the consider- no part took JUSTICE BILANDIC this ation or decision of case. HEIPLE, dissenting:
JUSTICE in this majority opinion from the I dissent respectfully it assumes First, reasons. because following case for the under ex- the statute explanation without analysis connection, I believe In that ambiguous. amination is not is ambiguous. Second, major- because that the statute I to be that statute which believe a to meaning ity assigns Third, meaning majority erroneous. because the which the and, the statute assigns to renders unconstitutional thus, declining defective. I fault Finally, majority to deal which its errone- infirmity with constitutional ous statute creates. interpretation neces in discrete it is indulging analysis, Before more in examine the statute itself. statute sary question for the formation of a new provides “petition po *** *** *** shall litical subdivision party political at the list of candidates filing complete time contain *** *** filled of such for all offices to be Stat. subdivision.” Rev. “all is 2.) subject offices filled” phrase 10 — could be phrase two While possible interpretations. run mean that a must interpreted election, offices also be for all it could up *10 that the new simply to mean interpreted political it intends run for office. must list all of the candidates to Thus, it is ambiguous. to in statutes need be resolved
Ambiguities needs to be and and resolution thought, study analysis the choice of a for supported explanation with reasonable It simply does not do that. majority opinion meaning. no jus- it and offers meaning supporting chooses the likes tification. an of the stat- ambiguous choice for
My interpretation that list all candi- is the new must utory language to the to for office. Contrary dates that it intends not into the statute that new par- I would read majority, slates which complete ties are to offer full and required connec- on the ballot. In that include all are positions all of to that new list tion, parties reasonable require is file they to run at the time they intend no possi- This is so since there is their qualifying petition. a pri- at subsequent additional candidacies bility filling only on the ballot initially New parties get election. mary and do not have a political primary via the route election. to fairness. As
I am also concerned with fundamental deserve fairness, parties it would seem that political or to on of some equality. treated a equivalence basis case, parties since established being political That candidates, it not slates of does not offer full required to do It is so. require seem fair new political parties quite commonplace legally and established acceptable with many, to offer slates parties filled left most, cases of the blank. positions some difficult, if to of parties It is impossible, par fer slates in all locales. Even established political full if to do upon not meet this called requirement ties could case. on new polit so in To every impose requirement excusing political parties, ical while established parties, More amounts to denial of laws. equal protection right of citi over, such diminishes interpretation this, All zens to vote for candidates of their choice. article of the Illinois I, violates both
my opinion, Fed Constitution amendment fourteenth §2; Const., I, eral Const. art. U.S. Constitution. here is when we XIV.) point relevant
amend. in alterna a choice a statute interpreting have between one of will the statute constitu tive render ways, unconstitutional, and the we should choose tional other v. People the constitutional Robinson interpretation. 372 Ill. 505. all of the ac- fails on above opinion
Since majority I dissent. counts, respectfully