{ "id": 150214, "name": "EILEEN O'CONNOR, Petitioner and Objector-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "O'Connor v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board", "decision_date": "1996-06-21", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201496\u20140717", "first_page": "1108", "last_page": "1114", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 1108" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "405 N.E.2d 799", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 2d 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5480076 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" }, { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/81/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 N.E.2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ill. App. 3d 900", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5471255 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/105/0900-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 N.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ill. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2716524 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/8/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 N.E.2d 1102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3173748 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/113/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 N.E.2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2785795 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/11/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 N.E.2d 155", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 Ill. 2d 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3256350 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" }, { "page": "507" }, { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/135/0499-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 564, "char_count": 12326, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.3315998345849507 }, "sha256": "5c65c86c27eeeac664305f03e018f6cea87c7a06c95016796400d7e31b180d58", "simhash": "1:99ffb2fbc5647e38", "word_count": 2009 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:30.087160+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "EILEEN O\u2019CONNOR, Petitioner and Objector-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE HOURIHANE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this appeal, we are asked to interpret various provisions of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 1994)) as they pertain to the nominating petitions filed on behalf of a candidate seeking nomination in the primary election held on March 19, 1996. The specific challenge to the petitions concerns the propriety of the circulators\u2019 verification that they were registered voters during the time the petitions were circulated. The circuit court ruled that the candidate\u2019s petitions complied with the Election Code. We affirm.\nBackground\nPetitioner-objector, Eileen O\u2019Connor, challenged the nominating petitions filed by respondent James Patrick Sheehan for the office of commissioner of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. O\u2019Connor claimed that the petitions failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 7 \u2014 10 of the Election Code (Code) (10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994)). The Cook County Officers Electoral Board (Board) denied O\u2019Connor\u2019s claim, and O\u2019Connor sought administrative review in the circuit court.\nO\u2019Connor argued in the circuit court that Sheehan\u2019s name must be stricken from the ballot because Sheehan\u2019s nominating petitions did not contain a \"circulator\u2019s oath\u201d required by section 7 \u2014 10 of the Election Code. According to O\u2019Connor, the Code mandated that the circulators affirm that they were registered voters of the political division at all times during the circulation of the petitions. Sheehan, on the other hand, pointed out that a verbatim transcription is not required under section 7 \u2014 10 and that he has complied with all statutory requirements. Sheehan\u2019s petitions contained the following affidavit, sworn by each circulator:\n\"STATE OF ILLINOIS, )\n) ss\nCOUNTY OF COOK )\nI, _, do hereby certify , that I am (print name of circulator) a registered voter of the political division for which the candidate is seeking nomination, that I reside at-street, in the (City) (Village) of_(Zip Code)-, County of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and certify that the signatures on this sheet were signed in my presence on the following date/dates _and are genuine, and further certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were, at the time of signing the petition duly qualified, legal and registered voters of the DEMOCRATIC Party in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois, and that their respective residences are correctly stated as above set forth.\n(Signature of Circulator)\nSigned and sworn to (or affirmed) by\n(Name of Circulator)\nbefore me, this_day of_, 1995,\n(Signature of Notary Public)\n(Seal of Stamp)\nMy Comission Expires:__\u201d\nThe circuit court affirmed the Board\u2019s decision, ruling that Sheehan\u2019s petitions fulfilled the statutory requirements.\nO\u2019Connor then sought an accelerated review of the circuit court\u2019s judgment in this court. Due to the expedited nature of this appeal, we entered an order, without opinion, on March 15, 1996, affirming the circuit court\u2019s decision. We now set forth our reasons in detail.\nAnalysis\nGenerally, a reviewing court must view an administrative agency\u2019s findings and conclusions on questions of fact as prima facie true and correct. 730 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 110 (West 1994); City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 135 Ill. 2d 499, 507, 554 N.E.2d 155 (1990). A court may reverse the agency\u2019s factual findings only if it is clearly evident that the agency should have reached the opposite conclusion. Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 507. If the question involved is one of law, such as the interpretation of a statute, the agency\u2019s finding receives deference, but the court is not bound by it. Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 507.\nAt issue here is the interpretation of section 7 \u2014 10 of the Election Code. This provision provides, in pertinent part, that\n\"[t]he 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 Article in substantially the following form:\nWe, the undersigned, members of and affiliated with the ... party and qualified primary electors of the ... party, in the ... of..., in the county of ... and State of Illinois, do hereby petition that the following named person or persons shall be a candidate or candidates of the ... party for the nomination for (or in case of committeemen for election to) the office or offices hereinafter specified, to be voted for at the primary election to be held on the ... day of..., ...\nName Office Address\nJohn Jones Governor Belvidere, Ill.\nThomas Smith Attorney General Oakland, Ill.\nName\nAddress\nState of Illinois)\n) ss.\nCounty of.....)\ndo hereby certify that I am a registered voter and have been a registered voter at all times I have circulated this petition, that I reside at No.. . . street, in the... of.. . county of.. . and State of Illinois, and that the signatures on this sheet were signed in my presence, and are genuine, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petitions qualified voters of the . . . party, and that their respective residences are correctly stated, as above set forth.\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this . . . day of\n***.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994).\nThe statute then sets forth what information must be included in the contents of the petition. With regard to the circulator\u2019s statement, the statute provides that \"[a]t the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a statement signed by a registered voter of the political division, who has been a registered voter at all times he or she circulated the petition, for which the candidate is seeking a nomination ***.\u201d 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994). The circulator\u2019s statement must \"state\u201d certain facts about the circulator and must \"certify\u201d other facts relating to the circulation of the petition and the signatures upon it. 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994).\nThe dispositive issue here is whether the form of the circulator\u2019s affidavit contained in section 7 \u2014 10 is mandatory. We hold that it is not.\nIn interpreting statutes, this court must ascertain and give effect to the true intent and meaning of the legislature. Pliakos v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm\u2019n, 11 Ill. 2d 456, 143 N.E.2d 47 (1957). In so doing, we must give the language of the statute its plain and ordinary meaning; in other words, we may not declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports. Maloney v. Bower, 113 Ill. 2d 473, 479, 498 N.E.2d 1102 (1986).\nAs noted, section 7 \u2014 10 provides that no candidate\u2019s name shall be placed upon the primary ballot unless that candidate has filed a nominating petition \"in substantially the following form.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994). The word \"substantially\u201d is a relative term and must be interpreted in accordance with its context. Here, \"substantially\u201d means \"in the main,\u201d \"essentially,\u201d \"practically,\u201d \"nearly,\u201d \"almost\u201d or \"virtually.\u201d It does not mean \"identically\u201d or \"exactly alike\u201d and, thus, does not connote a mandatory obligation as to the form of the affidavit.\nIf the legislature had intended to require that the nominating petition be in the exact form as set out in section 7 \u2014 10, it would not have used the word \"substantially.\u201d This court has the responsibility of interpreting a statute as written and cannot, by judicial fiat, usurp the role of the legislature. Belfield v. Coop, 8 Ill. 2d 293, 134 N.E.2d 249 (1956). Accordingly, we simply may not ignore the import of the word \"substantially.\u201d\nFurther support for this interpretation is found in the statutory language which follows the suggested outline in section 7 \u2014 10. That language requires\n\"a statement signed by a registered voter of the political division, who has been a registered voter at all times he or she circulated the petition, for which the candidate is seeking a nomination, stating the street address or rural route number of the voter *** and certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his presence; and either (1) indicating the dates on which that sheet was circulated, or (2) indicating the first and last dates on which the sheet was circulated, or (3) certifying that none of the signatures on the sheet were signed more than 90 days preceding the last day for the filing of the petition.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 10 (West 1994).\nThus, section 7 \u2014 10 requires the circulator either to (i) indicate the dates on which the petition circulated, or (ii) indicate the first and last dates on which the sheet was circulated, or (iii) certify that none of the signatures were made more than 90 days preceding the last day for the filing of the petition. However, the circulator\u2019s affidavit set forth in section 7 \u2014 10 does not contain any language to this effect. Thus, if the form of the affidavit set forth in section 7 \u2014 10 is viewed as mandatory, section 7 \u2014 10 would be internally inconsistent. No inconsistency exists, however, if the form is viewed as merely directory or suggestive.\nMoreover, O\u2019Connor\u2019s interpretation of section 7 \u2014 10 ignores the rules of English grammar. The word \"statement\u201d is the subject of the sentence and is modified by the phrase \"signed by a registered voter, who had been a registered voter at all times he or she circulated the petition.\u201d Thus, the voter who signs the statement must be (i) a registered voter and (ii) a registered voter at all times during which the petition was circulated. However, these qualifications are not included in the list of what the statement must \"state\u201d or \"certify,\u201d which immediately follows the modifying phrase. According to that list, the statement must \"stat[e]\u201d certain facts about the circulator (his or her address) and \"certify! ]\u201d other facts relating to the circulation of the petition and the signatures which appear on it. The provision cannot be read to require that the circulator\u2019s statement must \"state\u201d or \"certify\u201d that he or she was a registered voter at the time of circulation.\nFinally, this court rejected a similar challenge to nominating petitions which did not contain the circulator\u2019s affidavit in the form set out in section 7 \u2014 10. Madden v. Schumann, 105 Ill. App. 3d 900, 435 N.E.2d 173 (1982). In Madden, this court held that where, as here, the circulator\u2019s oath deviated from the statutory form contained in section 7 \u2014 10, but nonetheless fully complied with the requirements set forth in a later paragraph of the same section, the candidate was deemed to have satisfied all statutory requirements. Madden, 105 Ill. App. 3d at 901-02.\nMadden was decided in 1982, and although the legislature has since amended section 7 \u2014 10, it has not seen fit to delete the word \"substantially\u201d or otherwise indicate that the suggested affidavit is mandatory despite our holding in Madden. The legislature is presumed to know the construction the courts have placed upon a statute and is free to change court interpretations of its legislation. Williams v. Crickman, 81 Ill. 2d 105, 111, 405 N.E.2d 799 (1980). By amending section 7 \u2014 10 and retaining the language previously interpreted by this court in Madden, it must be assumed that the legislature intended for the amendment to have the same interpretation previously given. Williams, 81 Ill. 2d at 111. Accordingly, we hold that the form of the affidavit contained in section 7 \u2014 10 is merely suggestive or directory, not mandatory, and that Sheehan\u2019s petitions complied with the requirements of section 7 \u2014 10.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcNULTY, P.J., and COUSINS, J., concur.\nO\u2019Connor does not argue that those who circulated Sheehan\u2019s petitions were not registered voters at the times the petitions were circulated. Her sole contention is that the circulators never attested to that fact.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE HOURIHANE" } ], "attorneys": [ "David L. Clark, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Michael E. Lavelle, of Lavelle, Juneau & McCollom, Ltd., of Oak Park, for appellee James Patrick Sheehan." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "EILEEN O\u2019CONNOR, Petitioner and Objector-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201496\u20140717\nOpinion filed June 21, 1996.\nDavid L. Clark, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMichael E. Lavelle, of Lavelle, Juneau & McCollom, Ltd., of Oak Park, for appellee James Patrick Sheehan." }, "file_name": "1108-01", "first_page_order": 1126, "last_page_order": 1132 }