Find Legal Information

SECOND DIVISION
FEBRUARY 26, 2004

Pedro De Jesus, Jr. (Candidate) filed nomination papers withthe Illinois State Board of Elections for nomination of theDemocratic Party to the office of representative in the GeneralAssembly for the 39th Representative District. The Candidatefiled a statement of economic interest (Statement) with theSecretary of State. The Secretary of State generated a receiptfor the Statement (Receipt), which the Candidate filed with hisnomination papers. In salient part, the Receipt states, "Yourstatement was filed on December 8, 2003 for the following office: CANDIDATE[.]" Felix Cardona, Jr. (Objector) filed an objectionwith the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago(Board) alleging that the Candidate's name should not be printedon the ballot for the March 16, 2004 primary election because theReceipt filed with the Board did not identify the office he isseeking. The Board overruled the objection and the circuit courtaffirmed the Board's order.

ANALYSIS

The Board is charged with "the formalities of ascertainingwhether a receipt for filing a statement of economic interestshas been filed together with the nominating papers" (Troutman v.Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d 247, 252, 509 N.E.2d 453 (1987)), andtherefore, we will give deference to its interpretation of theprovisions of the Election Code. See Bonaguro v. County OfficersElectoral Board, 158 Ill. 2d 391, 398, 634 N.E.2d 712 (1994). Because this case involves an examination of the legal effect ofa given set of facts--whether the information contained in theReceipt filed by the Candidate complies with the requirements ofthe Election Code--the Board's determination is best considered amixed question of fact and law. For mixed questions of fact andlaw, our Supreme Court has held that a clearly erroneous standardof review applies. See City of Belvidere v. Illinois State LaborRelations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). Accordingly, we will not reverse the Board's decision unless itis clearly erroneous. Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205.

This case hinges on the content of the Receipt filed withthe Board. The parties do not dispute that a Statement wastimely filed or that the Candidate filed a Receipt with theproper office. The Objector contends that the Candidate wasrequired to identify the office he is seeking on the Receipt andthat the appropriate sanction for this alleged error is theremoval of the Candidate's name from the March 16, 2004 primaryelection ballot.

In interpreting the Election Code in ruling on theobjection, the Board found: "Neither the Illinois GovernmentalEthics Act nor the Election Code prescribes the contents of thereceipt to be issued by the receiving officer upon the filing ofa statement of economic interests." The Board also noted itsreluctance "to disqualify the Candidate from the ballot when hemerely used and relied upon the receipt prepared and provided bythe Illinois Secretary of State, the State agency responsible forissuing such receipts." The Board further noted, "it cannot besaid that a receipt that does not identify the office, positionor unit of government for which the statement relates fails tostrictly comply with the statute when the statute itself does notrequire that the receipt contain such information."

Under the plain language of the Election Code, "[t]henomination of all candidates for members of the General Assemblyby all political parties *** shall be made in the manner providedin this article 8 and not otherwise." 10 ILCS 5/8-1 (West 2002). Section 8-8 provides the specific format for a petition fornomination to the General Assembly: the candidate's petitionshall state, "[the candidate] has filed a statement of economicinterests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act [5ILCS 420/1-101 et seq. (West 2002)]." 10 ILCS 5/8-8 (West 2002). Although it appears the Board implicitly accepted the Objector'sposition that a receipt of the filing of the statement ofeconomic interest is required to be filed with "the Candidate'sNomination Papers when such documents were filed with the CookCounty Clerk[,]" the Candidate contends otherwise. The Candidatestates in his brief: "There is no language in Section 8-8 thatrequires a candidate [for the General Assembly] to file a[statement of economic interest] receipt...." Because we decidethis case on the narrower issue of the sufficiency of the receiptactually filed, we need not resolve whether article 8 requiresthe filing of a receipt in this case.⁽¹⁾

The Objector claims that 10 ILCS 5/7-12 (West 2002) isapplicable in this case and requires the candidate to file areceipt. Even if article 7 applies to the nomination of membersfor the General Assembly, as the Election Board found, nothing inarticle 7 prescribes the contents for a receipt to be valid. 10ILCS 5/7-1 et seq. (West 2002). More to the point, nothing inarticles 7 or 8 prescribes that a receipt must contain a specificdescription of the office the candidate is seeking. 10 ILCS 5/7-1 et seq; 5/8-1 et seq (West 2002).

The Objector cites to a number of cases in an attempt tosupport his contention that the office must be included on theReceipt. However, not one of the cases cited deals withsufficiency of the contents of the Receipt. In Jones v.Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 112 Ill. App. 3d 926, 446N.E.2d 256 (1983), the issue was whether the candidatesufficiently identified the office sought in his statement ofeconomic interest; in Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 588N.E.2d 1119 (1992), the issue was the appropriate sanction forfiling an inadvertently untrue, inaccurate, or incompletestatement of economic interest; in Crudup v. Sims, 292 Ill. App.3d 1075, 686 N.E.2d 714 (1997), the issue was whether a candidatecould be removed from the ballot for filing an allegedly falsestatement of economic interest; in Requena v. Cook CountyOfficers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728, 733-34, 692N.E.2d 1217 (1998), the issue was the appropriate sanction forfailing to adequately identify the office sought on thecandidate's statement of economic interest; in Miceli v. Lavelle,114 Ill. App. 3d 311, 316, 448 N.E.2d 989 (1983), the issue waswhether the failure to file the statement of economic interestwithin the time period provided in the Election Code was fatal tothe candidate; in Troutman, 156 Ill. App. 3d at 252-53, the issuewas whether the election board had jurisdiction to adjudicate achallenge to the accuracy of the candidate's statement ofeconomic interest or whether the circuit court had original jurisdiction.

The two cases that deal directly with the receipt for thestatement of economic interest have no bearing on the facts inthe instant case. In Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board,337 Ill. App. 3d 334, 337-38, 785 N.E.2d 1014 (2003), the issuewas whether the absence of a time-stamped date on the receipt offiling of the statement of economic interest was fatal to thecandidates; in Bolger v. Electoral Board of the City of McHenry,210 Ill. App. 3d 958, 960-61, 569 N.E.2d 628 (1991), the issuewas whether the failure to file the receipt of filing of thestatement of economic interest with the appropriate office wasfatal to the candidate.

At oral argument, the Objector claimed that Bryant v. CookCounty Electoral Board, 195 Ill. App. 3d 556, 553 N.E.2d 25(1990), decided a receipt issue and supported his position. Despite the Objector's contention, Bryant is of no more supportto the Objector than the other cases he cited. In Bryant, theissue was the adequacy of the description of the political officethe candidate was seeking as set forth in the candidate'sstatement of economic interest. Bryant, 195 Ill. App. 3d at559. In Bryant, we never addressed the adequacy of the receiptfiled with the nominating petitions, as we have here.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Boardthat nothing in the Election Code requires the Receipt filed withthe nominating petitions identify the office the candidate isseeking. We, therefore, affirm the Board's order.

Affirmed.

WOLFSON, P.J., and CAHILL, J., concur.

1. But see section 17-1 of article 8 pertaining tovacancies. ("The resolution to fill the vacancy shall beaccompanied by a Statement of Candidacy, *** and a receiptindicating such nominee has filed a statement of economicinterests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.") 10 ILCS 5/8-17.1(4) (West 2002).