Filed 1/24/08 NO. 4-08-0020
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
RICHARD REYNOLDS, ) Appeal From Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Champaign County CHAMPAIGN COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL ) No. 07MR854 BOARD; MARK SHELDEN, In His Official ) Capacity as Champaign County Clerk for ) the County of Champaign and Member of ) the Champaign County Officers Electoral ) Board; STEVEN D. ZIEGLAR, In His ) Official Capacity as First Assistant ) State's Attorney as Designee of ) Champaign County State's Attorney JULIA ) R. RIETZ and Member of the Champaign ) County Officers Electoral Board; FRED ) WILKINSON, In His Official Capacity as ) Chief Deputy Circuit Clerk as Designee ) of LINDA FRANK, Champaign County Circuit ) Clerk and Member of the Champaign County ) Officers Electoral Board, ) Defendants, ) and ) BRENDAN M. McGINTY, as the Candidate To ) Honorable Whom Objections Were Raised, ) Thomas J. Difanis, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Richard Reynolds, filed a written objection
to the nominating petition of defendant, Brendan M. McGinty, a
Democratic candidate for the Office of Champaign County Board
District No. 9. Following a hearing before the Champaign County
Officers Electoral Board (Board), the Board voted 2 to 1 in favor
of the candidate and overruled the objection. Plaintiff peti-
tioned for administrative review in the circuit court, which
reversed the Board's decision. Defendant appeals.
The issue before us is whether defendant substantially complied with the requirement of section 7-10 of the Election
Code (Code) (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 2006)), which states that the
separate pages of the candidate's nominating petition must be
consecutively numbered. The provision of section 7-10 at issue
provides:
"The name of no candidate for nomination ***
shall be printed upon the primary ballot unless a
petition for nomination has been filed in his
behalf as provided in this [a]rticle in substan-
tially the following form:
* * *
Such sheets before being filed shall be
neatly fastened together in book form, by
placing the sheets in a pile and fastening
them together at one edge in a secure and
suitable manner, and the sheets shall then be
numbered consecutively." 10 ILCS 5/7-10
(West 2006).
In this case, the nominating petition consists of a total of four
pages which are numbered as follows: "1,2,1,1."
A two-person majority of the Board held the
consecutive-numbering requirement was directory rather than
mandatory and, alternatively, that even if the provision is
mandatory, the petition was in substantial compliance with the
statute. The third member of the Board, in dissent, voted to
sustain the objection, finding the consecutive-numbering require-
- 2 - ment is mandatory and the petition was not in substantial compli-
ance. On administrative review, the circuit court reversed the
Board majority, agreeing with the dissent. Defendant's name was
ordered stricken from the ballot.
Relying on an older case from this district, Williams
v. Butler, 35 Ill. App. 3d 532, 535, 341 N.E.2d 394, 397 (1976),
defendant renews his argument that the consecutive-numbering
requirement of section 7-10 is directory rather than mandatory.
Whatever force this court's observation to that effect may have
had when it was offered more than three decades ago, we believe
the proposition has been laid to rest by a host of subsequent
appellate decisions, including at least one from the supreme
court, which have held that the requirements of section 7-10 are
mandatory and not directory. Bowe v. Chicago Electoral Board, 79
Ill. 2d 469, 470, 404 N.E.2d 180, 180 (1980).
Thus, the question is reduced to whether substantial
rather than literal compliance with a mandatory statutory re-
quirement is applicable, and, if so, whether defendant demon-
strated such compliance. Defendant concedes the last two of the
four pages of his petition are not consecutively numbered. He
argues, however, that this deficiency neither posed an actual or
perceived threat to the electoral process nor remotely presented
any question of voter or challenger confusion or fraud, none of
which, he observes, have been alleged by plaintiff.
The familiar principles that guide our review have been
succinctly stated:
- 3 - "The findings of fact of an electoral
board are prima facie true and correct.
[Citation.] The function of a court on judi-
cial review is to ascertain whether the find-
ings and decision of the electoral board are
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[Citation.] A decision is against the mani-
fest weight of the evidence only if the oppo-
site conclusion is clearly evident. [Cita-
tion.] The fact that an opposite conclusion
is reasonable or that the reviewing court
might have ruled differently based upon the
same evidence will not justify a reversal of
the findings of an administrative agency.
[Citation.] Determinations as to the weight
of evidence and the credibility of witnesses
are uniquely within the province of the
agency [citation], and a court will not sub-
stitute its judgment for that of the agency
on such matters [citation]. Where the find-
ings of the agency are supported by competent
evidence in the record, its decision should
be affirmed. [Citation.]" King v. Justice
Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888, 672 N.E.2d
900, 902 (1996).
There is no question but that the requirements of the Code, and
- 4 - specifically the numbering of pages, serve multiple purposes.
It allows people to identify specific pages of a petition and to
refer to information contained thereon by reference to a page
number. It also prevents tampering, thereby preserving not only
the integrity of the petitions submitted but the election process
in general. Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill. App. 3d 557, 562, 546
N.E.2d 92, 95 (1989). By the same token, substantial compliance
with the Code is acceptable when the invalidating charge concerns
a technical violation of the statute that does not affect the
legislative intent to guarantee a fair and honest election.
Madden v. Schumann, 105 Ill. App. 3d 900, 903-04, 435 N.E.2d 173,
176 (1982).
Judged by these standards, we conclude the decision of
the Board overruling the objection should have been sustained by
the trial court. The petition consists of a total of four pages.
The first two (circulated by the candidate himself) are properly
numbered. The remaining two pages (circulated by two other
individuals on behalf of the candidate) are each numbered, as one
might expect, as page 1. The fact that they were not renumbered
when they were compiled and submitted on defendant's behalf is
clearly an error. However, given the limited number of pages
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 1/24/08 NO. 4-08-0020
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
RICHARD REYNOLDS, ) Appeal From Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Champaign County CHAMPAIGN COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL ) No. 07MR854 BOARD; MARK SHELDEN, In His Official ) Capacity as Champaign County Clerk for ) the County of Champaign and Member of ) the Champaign County Officers Electoral ) Board; STEVEN D. ZIEGLAR, In His ) Official Capacity as First Assistant ) State's Attorney as Designee of ) Champaign County State's Attorney JULIA ) R. RIETZ and Member of the Champaign ) County Officers Electoral Board; FRED ) WILKINSON, In His Official Capacity as ) Chief Deputy Circuit Clerk as Designee ) of LINDA FRANK, Champaign County Circuit ) Clerk and Member of the Champaign County ) Officers Electoral Board, ) Defendants, ) and ) BRENDAN M. McGINTY, as the Candidate To ) Honorable Whom Objections Were Raised, ) Thomas J. Difanis, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Richard Reynolds, filed a written objection
to the nominating petition of defendant, Brendan M. McGinty, a
Democratic candidate for the Office of Champaign County Board
District No. 9. Following a hearing before the Champaign County
Officers Electoral Board (Board), the Board voted 2 to 1 in favor
of the candidate and overruled the objection. Plaintiff peti-
tioned for administrative review in the circuit court, which
reversed the Board's decision. Defendant appeals.
The issue before us is whether defendant substantially complied with the requirement of section 7-10 of the Election
Code (Code) (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 2006)), which states that the
separate pages of the candidate's nominating petition must be
consecutively numbered. The provision of section 7-10 at issue
provides:
"The name of no candidate for nomination ***
shall be printed upon the primary ballot unless a
petition for nomination has been filed in his
behalf as provided in this [a]rticle in substan-
tially the following form:
* * *
Such sheets before being filed shall be
neatly fastened together in book form, by
placing the sheets in a pile and fastening
them together at one edge in a secure and
suitable manner, and the sheets shall then be
numbered consecutively." 10 ILCS 5/7-10
(West 2006).
In this case, the nominating petition consists of a total of four
pages which are numbered as follows: "1,2,1,1."
A two-person majority of the Board held the
consecutive-numbering requirement was directory rather than
mandatory and, alternatively, that even if the provision is
mandatory, the petition was in substantial compliance with the
statute. The third member of the Board, in dissent, voted to
sustain the objection, finding the consecutive-numbering require-
- 2 - ment is mandatory and the petition was not in substantial compli-
ance. On administrative review, the circuit court reversed the
Board majority, agreeing with the dissent. Defendant's name was
ordered stricken from the ballot.
Relying on an older case from this district, Williams
v. Butler, 35 Ill. App. 3d 532, 535, 341 N.E.2d 394, 397 (1976),
defendant renews his argument that the consecutive-numbering
requirement of section 7-10 is directory rather than mandatory.
Whatever force this court's observation to that effect may have
had when it was offered more than three decades ago, we believe
the proposition has been laid to rest by a host of subsequent
appellate decisions, including at least one from the supreme
court, which have held that the requirements of section 7-10 are
mandatory and not directory. Bowe v. Chicago Electoral Board, 79
Ill. 2d 469, 470, 404 N.E.2d 180, 180 (1980).
Thus, the question is reduced to whether substantial
rather than literal compliance with a mandatory statutory re-
quirement is applicable, and, if so, whether defendant demon-
strated such compliance. Defendant concedes the last two of the
four pages of his petition are not consecutively numbered. He
argues, however, that this deficiency neither posed an actual or
perceived threat to the electoral process nor remotely presented
any question of voter or challenger confusion or fraud, none of
which, he observes, have been alleged by plaintiff.
The familiar principles that guide our review have been
succinctly stated:
- 3 - "The findings of fact of an electoral
board are prima facie true and correct.
[Citation.] The function of a court on judi-
cial review is to ascertain whether the find-
ings and decision of the electoral board are
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[Citation.] A decision is against the mani-
fest weight of the evidence only if the oppo-
site conclusion is clearly evident. [Cita-
tion.] The fact that an opposite conclusion
is reasonable or that the reviewing court
might have ruled differently based upon the
same evidence will not justify a reversal of
the findings of an administrative agency.
[Citation.] Determinations as to the weight
of evidence and the credibility of witnesses
are uniquely within the province of the
agency [citation], and a court will not sub-
stitute its judgment for that of the agency
on such matters [citation]. Where the find-
ings of the agency are supported by competent
evidence in the record, its decision should
be affirmed. [Citation.]" King v. Justice
Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888, 672 N.E.2d
900, 902 (1996).
There is no question but that the requirements of the Code, and
- 4 - specifically the numbering of pages, serve multiple purposes.
It allows people to identify specific pages of a petition and to
refer to information contained thereon by reference to a page
number. It also prevents tampering, thereby preserving not only
the integrity of the petitions submitted but the election process
in general. Jones v. Dodendorf, 190 Ill. App. 3d 557, 562, 546
N.E.2d 92, 95 (1989). By the same token, substantial compliance
with the Code is acceptable when the invalidating charge concerns
a technical violation of the statute that does not affect the
legislative intent to guarantee a fair and honest election.
Madden v. Schumann, 105 Ill. App. 3d 900, 903-04, 435 N.E.2d 173,
176 (1982).
Judged by these standards, we conclude the decision of
the Board overruling the objection should have been sustained by
the trial court. The petition consists of a total of four pages.
The first two (circulated by the candidate himself) are properly
numbered. The remaining two pages (circulated by two other
individuals on behalf of the candidate) are each numbered, as one
might expect, as page 1. The fact that they were not renumbered
when they were compiled and submitted on defendant's behalf is
clearly an error. However, given the limited number of pages
involved, the fact that the two pages at issue are easily identi-
fied by the name of the individuals who circulated them, and the
lack of any claim of possible voter confusion, tampering, or
fraud by the plaintiff lead to the conclusion that the evidence
before the Board was sufficient to sustain its finding that the
- 5 - defendant substantially complied with the requirements of the
statute.
Plaintiff cites several cases in support of the trial
court's ruling which we find inapposite. Some of these address
the consecutive-numbering requirement under section 10-4 of the
Code. 10 ILCS 5/10-4 (West 2006). That provision, however,
contains a more onerous penalty provision for noncompliance with
the rule than does section 7-10. Apart from that distinction,
each of the cited cases, to the extent the opinion is clear,
involve factual contexts considerably different from the one
present here. In Hagen v. Stone, 277 Ill. App. 3d 388, 391, 660
N.E.2d 189, 190 (1995), two of four petitions at issue were
completely unnumbered. In El-Aboudi v. Thompson, 293 Ill. App.
3d 191, 193, 687 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (1997), none of the pages of
the nominating petition were numbered. Similarly, in Jones, 190
Ill. App. 3d at 559, 546 N.E.2d at 93, none of the pages were
numbered. As the court aptly noted in El-Aboudi, "a candidate
does not substantially comply with the requirements where he
completely ignores one [or more] of the statutory elements." El-
Aboudi, 293 Ill. App. 3d at 194, 687 N.E.2d at 1168.
Given the deference the court accords to Board deci-
sions in such matters, we conclude the record contains sufficient
evidence to support the Board's determination. Compliance was
admittedly not strict, but it was substantial nonetheless.
Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's judgment and rein-
state the County Officers Electoral Board's decision.
- 6 - Reversed; County Officers Electoral Board's decision
reinstated.
MYERSCOUGH and TURNER, JJ., concur.
- 7 -