{ "id": 894466, "name": "DEBRA POWELL et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE EAST ST. LOUIS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board", "decision_date": "2003-02-19", "docket_number": "No. 5-03-0071", "first_page": "334", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "337 Ill. App. 3d 334" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "103 Ill. App. 3d 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5479750 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663", "parenthetical": "although a public agency may have deliberated at a closed session, the actions taken at such a meeting are not necessarily null and void" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/103/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ill. App. 3d 1020", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 365875 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1031", "parenthetical": "even if private deliberations violated the Open Meetings Act, the violation did not render the proceedings null and void" }, { "page": "1031" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/269/1020-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 Ill. App. 3d 897", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 132487 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "908", "parenthetical": "even when the meeting was closed to the public, the actions taken at it were not necessarily void" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/321/0897-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 453269 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "courts must enforce mandatory requirements substantially contributing to the integrity of the election process" }, { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/192/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 Ill. App. 3d 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 173581 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/307/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 958", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2534352 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "959-60" }, { "page": "959" }, { "page": "959-60", "parenthetical": "\"must\" is reflective of a mandatory requirement" }, { "page": "960" }, { "page": "960" }, { "page": "960" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/210/0958-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 11026, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.295182926004081e-07, "percentile": 0.6208361954693111 }, "sha256": "f85f9d36bed2fd342471389f3312b1e4244775ba8a494daac8f7f77cb4aa0478", "simhash": "1:97993b69d201c063", "word_count": 1789 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:38.563173+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DEBRA POWELL et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE EAST ST. LOUIS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WELCH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDebra Powell, Martha E. Young, and Marlene E. Smoot (petitioners) appeal from an order of the circuit court of St. Clair County affirming the decision of the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of East St. Louis (Board) to invalidate petitioners\u2019 nomination papers. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nFACTS\nOn December 16, 2002, petitioner Powell filed nomination papers for reelection to the office of mayor of the City of East St. Louis, and petitioners Young and Smoot filed for the election to the office of city council, to be voted on at the consolidated primary election on February 25, 2003. On December 20, 2002, Karen Cason, Eddie Lee Jackson, and Edward Russell (respondents) filed objections to petitioner Powell\u2019s nomination papers, alleging that petitioner Powell had failed to file, with her nomination papers, a receipt for the filing of a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. Respondents Ca-son and Russell filed objections to the nomination papers of petitioners Young and Smoot, alleging that each candidate had failed to file a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk and had failed to file, with their nomination papers, a receipt for the filing of a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. See 10 ILCS 5/10 \u2014 8 (West 2000).\nOn December 30, 2002, Board members and respondents Barbara Greenwood, Fannie Jones, and Elmer D. Jones conducted a public hearing regarding the objections. Before the Board, the parties stipulated that petitioner Powell had filed a statement-of-economic-interests receipt but that the receipt was not file-stamped by the St. Clair County clerk and that petitioners Young and Smoot had each failed to file a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. After argument, the Board adjourned the hearings and announced that it would deliberate in a closed session.\nOn December 31, 2002, the Board sustained the objections to petitioners\u2019 nomination papers and ordered that, in the February 25, 2003, election, petitioner Powell\u2019s name shall not appear on the ballot as a candidate for mayor and that the names of petitioners Young and Smoot shall not appear on the ballot as candidates for the city council.\nPetitioners filed their petitions for the judicial review of the Board\u2019s decision, and after a hearing on January 24, 2003, the circuit court affirmed the Board\u2019s findings and decision. The circuit court held that the Board\u2019s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court also held that in a judicial review proceeding under the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2000)) the circuit court did not have the authority to entertain allegations of violations of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2000)). On January 30, 2003, petitioners filed their notices of appeal from the decision of the circuit court.\nANALYSIS\nBolger v. Electoral Board of the City of McHenry\nPetitioners assert that in invalidating their nomination papers, the Board abused its discretion, the Board\u2019s sanction was overly harsh, the Board\u2019s decision was based on precedent that was distinguishable and not controlling, and the Board\u2019s decision was abusive because the candidates substantially and in good faith complied with the election laws.\nSection 10 \u2014 5 of the Election Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201cIf the nomination papers of any candidate and the statement of economic interest of that candidate are not required to be filed with the same officer, the candidate must file with the officer with whom the nomination papers are filed a receipt from the officer with whom the statement of economic interests is filed showing the date on which such statement was filed. Such receipt shall be so filed not later than the last day on which nomination papers may be filed.\u201d 10 ILCS 5/10 \u2014 5 (West 2000).\nIn Bolger v. Electoral Board of the City of McHenry, 210 Ill. App. 3d 958, 959-60 (1991), the court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the above-quoted Election Code provision, prescribing the time limit for filing a receipt from the officer with whom the statement of economic interests was filed, did not make it mandatory to file the receipt. In Bolger, although the plaintiff filed his nomination papers with the city clerk and filed his statement of economic interests with the county clerk, he did not file with the city the receipt he had received from the county when he filed his statement of economic interests. Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 959. The election board in Bolger had determined that the fifing of the receipt with the local election official is mandatory and that Bolger\u2019s failure to do so invalidated his nomination papers; the board refused to allow his name to be on the ballot. Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 959-60 (\u201cmust\u201d is reflective of a mandatory requirement); see also DeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 307 Ill. App. 3d 381 (1999), aff\u2019d, 192 Ill. 2d 63 (2000) (courts must enforce mandatory requirements substantially contributing to the integrity of the election process).\nIn reviewing the board\u2019s decision, the court in Bolger stated as follows:\n\u201cIt is absolutely clear from the language used by the legislature that plaintiff was required to file the receipt he received from the county with the local election official sometime during the period in which his nomination papers could be filed. The failure to do so left his nomination papers incomplete. *** [P]laintiff s failure to comply with this requirement renders his nomination papers invalid.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960.\nFollowing Bolger, we reject petitioner Powell\u2019s contentions that invalidating her nomination papers for failing to file a file-stamped receipt for the fifing of a statement of economic interest was overly harsh or that the Election Code does not expressly authorize the Board to invalidate her nomination papers if a receipt, filed-stamped by the county clerk, does not accompany her nomination papers filed with the city. We also reject petitioner Powell\u2019s argument that Bolger is distinguishable because she filed a receipt with the appropriate office, although it had not been file-stamped by the county clerk. Petitioner Powell was required \u201cto file the receipt [she] received from the county with the local election official\u201d (Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960), and the receipt must indicate \u201cthe date on which such statement was filed\u201d with the county clerk (10 ILCS 5/10 \u2014 5 (West 2000)). This she did not do.\nAlternatively, petitioners argue that because they \u201csubstantially and in good faith complied with the applicable election laws,\u201d their removal from the ballot \u201cfor merely technical violations is abusive.\u201d In her capacity as a public officeholder, petitioner Powell had previously filed a statement of economic interests with the St. Clair County clerk. She had also timely filed with the Board her nominating papers and a receipt evidencing the filing of a statement of economic interests with the county clerk, although that receipt was not file-stamped by the county clerk. Petitioners Young and Smoot each filed a statement of economic interests with the Board but not with the St. Clair County clerk. While we may agree with petitioners\u2019 argument that they \u201csubstantially and in good faith complied with the applicable election laws,\u201d the argument that substantial compliance is sufficient was specifically rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court in DeFabio v. Gummersheimer, 192 Ill. 2d 63, 66 (2000). Gummersheimer held that a mandatory provision of the Election Code must be enforced even where parties agree there is no knowledge or evidence of fraud or corruption. We are bound by the holding of Gummersheimer.\nPetitioners were required \u201cto file the receipt [they] received from the county with the local election official\u201d (Bolger, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 960), and the receipt must indicate \u201cthe date on which such statement was filed\u201d with the county clerk (10 ILCS 5/10 \u2014 5 (West 2000)). In the case of petitioner Powell, the receipt was not file-stamped by the county clerk as having been received, and therefore, petitioner Powell\u2019s nomination papers were incomplete. Petitioners Young and Smoot had neither filed with the county clerk a statement of economic interests nor filed with their nominating papers a receipt evidencing such filing. As in the case of petitioner Powell, their nomination papers were incomplete. Petitioners\u2019 failure to comply with the requirements of the Election Code rendered their nomination papers invalid. Bolger is dispositive. Petitioners\u2019 claims fail.\nOpen Meetings Act\nPetitioners also argue that the Board deliberated in private at the hearing in violation of Illinois\u2019s Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2000)) and that, therefore, the Board\u2019s decision to remove them from the ballot is null and void.\nSection 2 of the Open Meetings Act requires that meetings of public bodies be held in public, with certain exceptions. 5 ILCS 120/2 (West 2000). Assuming, arguendo, that the Board\u2019s deliberations in private were in violation of the Open Meetings Act, the Open Meetings Act does not necessarily render the Board\u2019s proceedings null and void. See People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 321 Ill. App. 3d 897, 908 (2001) (even when the meeting was closed to the public, the actions taken at it were not necessarily void); Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 337 v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 338, 269 Ill. App. 3d 1020, 1031 (1995) (even if private deliberations violated the Open Meetings Act, the violation did not render the proceedings null and void); Betts v. Department of Registration & Education, 103 Ill. App. 3d 654, 663 (1981) (although a public agency may have deliberated at a closed session, the actions taken at such a meeting are not necessarily null and void).\nWe would not condone violations of the Open Meetings Act; however, even if there was a violation of that statute as alleged, we are unwilling to remand on the basis of such an error. See Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 337, 269 Ill. App. 3d at 1031.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County.\nAffirmed.\nHOPKINS, EJ., and KUEHN, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WELCH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Beverly Powell, of East St. Louis, and Stephen E McGlynn, of Belleville, for appellants.", "John J. Kurowski and Michael W. Tackett, both of Kurowski, Bailey & Shultz, P.C., of Belleville, for appellees Barbara Greenwood, Fannie G. Jones, and Elmer D. Jones.", "Robert E. Becker and Garrett P. Hoerner, both of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., of Belleville, for appellees Edward Russell, Karen Cason, and Eddie Lee Jackson." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DEBRA POWELL et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE EAST ST. LOUIS ELECTORAL BOARD et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201403\u20140071\nOpinion filed February 19, 2003.\nBeverly Powell, of East St. Louis, and Stephen E McGlynn, of Belleville, for appellants.\nJohn J. Kurowski and Michael W. Tackett, both of Kurowski, Bailey & Shultz, P.C., of Belleville, for appellees Barbara Greenwood, Fannie G. Jones, and Elmer D. Jones.\nRobert E. Becker and Garrett P. Hoerner, both of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., of Belleville, for appellees Edward Russell, Karen Cason, and Eddie Lee Jackson." }, "file_name": "0334-01", "first_page_order": 352, "last_page_order": 357 }