Find Legal Information

                                                                    SECOND DIVISION
                                                                    October 25, 2005

JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of the court:

The issue in this case is whether errors in Chinesetranslation on a ballot used in a referendum election held underthe Liquor Control Act of 1934 (the Act) (235 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq.(West 2004)) invalidated the election. The two errors were: (1)the transposition of the ward and precinct numbers in twolocations on the ballot; and (2) an imprecise translation of thephrase "sale at retail." While the trial court held omitting thewords "at retail" from the Chinese translation was acceptable, itinvalidated the election because of the transposition of the wardand precinct numbers. We affirm the trial court.

FACTS

On February 25, 2003, a referendum election was heldpursuant to the Act in the 45th Precinct of the 15th Ward (thePrecinct) in Chicago. For that election, the ballots werewritten in English, Spanish, and Chinese. The title at the topof the ballot read, "Alcoholic Liquor Proposition BallotMunicipal General Election Chicago, Illinois February 25, 2003." After the title, the ward and precinct numbers were given in theupper left-hand corner. Immediately after the ward and precinctnumbers, a "DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE AFFECTED" appeared. TheEnglish version of the description read as follows:

"Beginning at the intersection of S.Mozart St. and W. 63rd St., thence east on63rd St. to S. California Ave., thence southon S. California Ave. to W. 65th St., thencewest on 65th St. to S. Francisco Ave., thencenorth on S. Francisco Ave. to W. 64th St.,thence east on W. 64th St., to S. Mozart,thence north on S. Mozart to the place ofbeginning."

After accurate street descriptions were given in the threelanguages, the proposition up for vote appeared in a box. InEnglish, the proposition stated, "Shall the sale at retail ofalcoholic liquor be prohibited in this 45th Precinct of the 15thWard of the City of Chicago (as such precinct existed as of thelast General Election[)]?"

On March 14, 2003, plaintiffs Samour, Incorporated, by NiruPatel, and several registered resident voters from the Precinctfiled their verified complaint to contest the validity of thereferendum election against the defendant, the Board of ElectionCommissioners of the City of Chicago (the Board). The plaintiffsclaimed that the Chinese translation of the proposition toprohibit the retail sale of alcoholic liquor within the Precinctdid not comply with the form required by the Act. First, theChinese version was different than the English version because itasked voters whether alcohol shall be prohibited in the 15thprecinct of the 45th ward, instead of the 45th precinct of the15th ward. Second, the Chinese translation of the propositiondiffered from the English version because it asked voters whetherthe sale of alcohol should be prohibited rather than the sale atretail of alcoholic liquor.

At the bench trial, Hanlelore Mui, a freelance interpreterand translator of the Chinese language, testified on behalf ofthe plaintiffs. Although Mui was given a ballot from the 32ndPrecinct of the 48th Ward, the parties stipulated the mattersraised during her testimony were applicable to the complaintregarding the Precinct. Mui was asked about any differencesbetween the Chinese and English versions of the ballot. According to Mui, the Chinese version asked, "if the sale ofliquor in general should be prohibited *** in the 48th Precinctof 32nd district in Chicago City." Mui pointed out that theprecinct and ward numbers were transposed in the Chinese version. The same inversion of the numbers appeared in the upper left-handcorner of the ballot page. Mui said:

"The number of the precinct and thenumber of the ward was translated in aposition that could be easily confusing.

* * *

*** [f]or someone who doesn't know howto read the description of area then probablythey would think they are looking at thewrong ballot, but of course if the person canread the directions they can easily solvethat problem."

Mui also said the Chinese version of the ballot used theword "sale" without the additional term "at retail." Muiexplained that the Chinese word used would include all types ofsales including wholesale, resale, or for personal consumption. Mui concluded, "The [Chinese] translation has omissions ofimportant meaningful words from the original so [she] would sayit's not correct ***."

On cross-examination, Mui testified a more accuratetranslation of "at retail" would have used the Chinese character"ling shou" instead of "xiao shou" as used on the ballot.

Dr. Richard Gu testified on behalf of the Board. Dr. Gustudied and taught Chinese and English translations for 11 yearsat Northwestern University. Dr. Gu testified that a Chinesevoter would not be confused by the transposition of the ward andprecinct numbers because it was a common translation error. Heopined that Chinese voters would double-check the error and wouldrely on the area description, which was correct, rather than theward and precinct numbers.

Dr. Gu also testified the term "xiao shou" is generallytaught and understood to include retail sales. He said theChinese language has over 40,000 characters. Chinese teacherschoose to teach only the most commonly used words, so the generalpublic is not familiar with less commonly used words.

After weighing the testimony from Mui and Dr. Gu, the trialcourt determined, as a matter of law, the ballot's reference tothe sale of alcoholic liquor substantially complied with the Actdespite the omission of "at retail" from the Chinese translation. But the court also found the transposition of ward and precinctnumbers put a Chinese-speaking voter "in a different position"than English and Spanish-speaking voters. On that basis, thecourt found the ballot did not substantially comply with the Act. It invalidated the referendum.

DECISION

I. Standard of Review

The parties disagree about the appropriate standard ofreview to be applied in this case. In its opening brief, theBoard contends we should apply the de novo standard of reviewbecause the sole issue presented in this case--whether the ballotsubstantially complied with the Act--is a question of law. Plaintiffs contend the trial court made its decision afterweighing the testimony at trial and, as a result, we should disturb its findings only if we find them against the manifestweight of the evidence. In reply, the Board contends that thisappeal presents a mixed question of fact and law, which requiresthe clearly erroneous standard of review.

"[A] mixed question [of law and fact] is one in which thehistorical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law isundisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy thestatutory standard, or whether the rule of law as applied to theestablished facts is or is not violated." Moss v. Deptartment ofEmployment Security, 357 Ill. App. 3d 980, 984, 830 N.E.2d 663(2005).

In this case, we must decide whether the Chinese translationon the ballot substantially complied with the Act. See Krauss v.Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 287 Ill.App. 3d 981, 984, 681 N.E.2d 514 (1997).

Typically, substantial compliance with the Act is a questionof law. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984. Here, it becomes amixed question of law and fact because we must decide statutorycompliance based on facts presented through witness testimonyregarding English-to-Chinese translations. The trial judgeweighed those facts. Accordingly, we review the case under theclearly erroneous standard. Moss, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 984.

II. Substantial Compliance with the Act

Both parties agree the only question we must answer iswhether the ballot used in the February 25, 2003, municipalelection in the Precinct substantially complied with the Act.

Section 9-6 of the Act provides the form of the propositionto be used in a local referendum as follows:

"The proposition shall be insubstantially the following form:

Shall the sale at retail of alcoholicliquor (or alcoholic liquor other than beercontaining not more than 4% of alcohol byweight)(or alcoholic liquor containing morethan 4% alcohol by weight in the originalpackage and not for consumption on thepremises) be prohibited in (or at) ...?" 235ILCS 5/9-6 (West 2002).

The section also requires the proposition ballot to contain"a common description of the precinct in plain and nonlegallanguage" unless the election official determines that adescription will not fit on the ballot used in the election. 235ILCS 5/9-6 (West 2002). If the description is not included onthe ballot, large printed copies of the precinct's description"shall be prominently displayed in the precinct polling place atthe election." 235 ILCS 5/9-6 (West 2002).

When a statute specifies the form of the ballot, the ballotmust substantially comply with the statutory mandate or theelection is void. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984, citing Smithv. Calhoun Community Unit School District No. 40, 16 Ill. 2d 328,332, 157 N.E.2d 59 (1959). The test we must apply to determinesubstantial compliance is whether voters were given "as clear analternative as if the statutory form had been identicallyfollowed." Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984, citing Dick v.Roberts, 8 Ill. 2d 215, 221, 133 N.E.2d 305 (1956). If theballot gives the voter a clear opportunity to express ameaningful choice either for or against a measure, it issufficient. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984.

Another consideration is whether voters would be misled orconfused by the ballot. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984; seealso People ex rel. Davis v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R.R.Co., 48 Ill. 2d 176, 182, 268 N.E.2d 411 (1971) (no contention orlikelihood that the deviation in the ballot confused voters). Voters challenging the validity of a local option election do nothave to allege or prove actual voter confusion. Krauss, 287 Ill.App. 3d at 983.

Keeping these principles in mind, we first turn to thetransposition of ward and precinct numbers on the face of theballot.

A. Transposition of Ward and Precinct Numbers

Both parties agree that the ward and precinct numbers werewritten incorrectly in Chinese in two places on the ballot. Thatis, on the upper left-hand corner of the ballot the English andSpanish references to the ward and precinct were accurate, firstthe number of the ward--15--and then the number of the precinct--45. But the Chinese translation had it reversed--Ward 45,Precinct 15. Then, in the body of the question to be voted on,the Chinese translation again incorrectly referred to the 45thward and the 15th precinct.

The Board contends that despite these errors the ballotsubstantially complied with the Act. The Board contends Chinese-speaking voters would not be confused by the error for tworeasons: (1) the error is common when translating the order ofnumeric designations from English to Chinese; and (2) thedescription of the Precinct by its boundaries appeared correctlyon the ballot.

The parties focus on two cases: Havlik v. Marcin, 132 Ill.App. 2d 532, 270 N.E.2d 189 (1971), and Love v. Marcin, 47 Ill.App. 3d 715, 365 N.E.2d 100 (1977).

In Havlik, the ballots used in a local referendum heldpursuant to the Act asked voters whether the sale of alcoholicliquor should be prohibited in "this precinct." Voterschallenging the election contended the ballot was "inadequate"and "ambiguous" because the proper name of the precinct was notused. This court found the ballots substantially complied withthe Act because the words "this precinct" gave voters a clear andunderstandable statement of the alternatives before them. Thecourt noted that although some citizens may not know or rememberthe number of their precinct or ward, "every voter ofintelligence would know that the words 'this precinct' applied tothe compact geographical area within which [the voter's] home andpolling place are located." Havlik, 132 Ill. App. 2d at 536-37.

In Love, voters challenging the election contended theballots were vague and imprecise, because the legal descriptionsprovided only the ward and precinct numbers, without furtherdescription. The court found the ballots complied with thestatute, which, at the time, did not require "a commondescription of the precinct in plain and nonlegal language" (see235 ILCS 5/9-6 (West 2002)). Love, 47 Ill. App. 3d at 718.

This case is different than Love and Havlik. In thosecases, the wording used to describe the precinct, althoughallegedly vague, was correct. That cannot be said of the twodesignations of ward and precinct numbers on the ballot in thiscase.

"A substantial copy of the form of the ballot designated inthe statute must evidently be one that contains the essence ofthe form in the statute--one giving the correct idea but notnecessarily the exact expressions in the statutory form." (Emphasis added.) People ex rel. Howard v. Chicago & EasternIllinois R.R. Co., 296 Ill. 246, 248, 129 N.E. 846 (1921). We donot believe two incorrect references to the ward and precinctnumbers meet the threshold of substantial compliance.

If the erroneous references were the only descriptions ofthe ward and precinct appearing on the ballot, then the Chinese-speaking voters indisputably would have been denied a clearchoice regarding area affected by their vote to prohibit the saleof alcoholic beverages. But our inquiry does not end here,because the ballots in question included a correct commondescription of the Precinct, providing its street boundaries asrequired by section 9-6 (235 ILCS 5/9-6 (West 2002)).

The words "DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE AFFECTED" appear abovethe description. We must decide whether this common descriptionsaves the ballot. That is, did the precinct's common descriptionalleviate any confusion caused by the incorrect ward and precinctnumbers and provide Chinese-speaking voters a meaningful choiceeither for or against the measure?

In this case, the expert witnesses disagreed about whetherChinese voters would be confused by the conflicting descriptionsof the precinct. Mui testified that confusion was likely "forsomeone who [did not] know how to read the description of thearea," while Dr. Gu said voters would have relied on the commondescription because the mistake in the numbers was a commontranslation error. The trial court obviously accepted Mui'stestimony on this issue.

Strictly speaking, these were not errors in form. Thesewere errors in substance. A Chinese-speaking voter wasconfronted with a ballot that in two places told him or her thequestion to be voted on related to some other ward and precinct. Whether the incorrect translations put Chinese-speaking voters ina position different than English and Spanish-speaking voters, asthe trial court found, is not the basis for our conclusion thatthe trial court reached the right result. Rather, we concludeChinese-speaking voters were deprived of a clear opportunity toexpress a meaningful choice either for or against the measure. The danger of voter confusion was too great. Voters should nothave to wonder why they were handed a particular ballot.

In Krauss, voters challenged the election because theSpanish translation appearing on the ballot did not comply withSection 9-6 of the Act. There, several words were misspelled orincorrectly translated into the Spanish. For example, "debida,"the Spanish word meaning "to owe," appeared in place of "bebida,"the word for beverage or drink. Additionally, the Spanish wordfor precinct was misspelled, and the phrase "since the lastelection" was not translated correctly.

This court found the ballot did not substantially comply. We said:

"The Board may not argue that a littledisenfranchisement is harmless. *** Once theBoard affirmatively undertook to provide theSpanish versions of the local optionreferendum, it had an obligation to do socorrectly."

We do not believe the trial court clearly erred when itfound the ballot in this case did not substantially comply withthe Act.

B. Omission of Chinese Character Meaning "Retail Sale"

The Board contends the trial court correctly decided theballot substantially complied with the Act despite the omissionof the Chinese character meaning "retail sale." Plaintiffscontend the Chinese translation should have used the character"ling shou," which means "retail sale," rather than "xiao shou,"which simply means "sale."

Because we find transposition of the ward and precinctnumbers was fatal to the election, there is no need to considerwhether omission of the Chinese character meaning "retail sale"voided the election.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court's finding that the ballot atissue did not substantially comply with the Act because thedescription of the ward and precinct numbers was wronglytranslated in two places on the ballot.

Affirmed.

GARCIA, P.J., and HALL, J., concur.