{ "id": 3832258, "name": "FELIX CARDONA, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Cardona v. Board of Election Commissioners", "decision_date": "2004-02-26", "docket_number": "No. 1-04-0255", "first_page": "342", "last_page": "346", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 342" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "553 N.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ill. App. 3d 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2492794 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/195/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "569 N.E.2d 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 958", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2534352 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "960-61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/210/0958-01" ] }, { "cite": "785 N.E.2d 1014", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 Ill. App. 3d 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 894466 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/337/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "448 N.E.2d 989", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 Ill. App. 3d 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3591389 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/114/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 1217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 Ill. App. 3d 728", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 45720 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/295/0728-01" ] }, { "cite": "686 N.E.2d 714", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 Ill. App. 3d 1075", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1725093 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/292/1075-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 N.E.2d 1119", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. 2d 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3278337 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/147/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 N.E.2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 Ill. App. 3d 926", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5432389 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/112/0926-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 Ill. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 821407 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" }, { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/181/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "634 N.E.2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 Ill. 2d 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 780274 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/158/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 N.E.2d 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3504709 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" }, { "page": "252-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0247-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 468, "char_count": 9073, "ocr_confidence": 0.758, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.093516304538404e-08, "percentile": 0.38037024552396687 }, "sha256": "5ed87fc8dfb6f47c1d700b29eb6161a4adea98ed77a3c5fc031e7b1366c56802", "simhash": "1:1715302c7c22fc00", "word_count": 1505 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:33.584383+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "FELIX CARDONA, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., RespondentsAppellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GARCIA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPedro De Jesus, Jr. (Candidate), filed nomination papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections for nomination of the Democratic Party to the office of representative in the General Assembly for the 39th Representative District. The Candidate filed a statement of economic interest (Statement) with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State generated a receipt for the Statement (Receipt), which the Candidate filed with his nomination papers. In salient part, the Receipt states, \u201cYour statement was filed on December 8, 2003 for the following office: CANDIDATE^]\u201d Felix Cardona, Jr. (Objector), filed an objection with the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago (Board) alleging that the Candidate\u2019s name should not be printed on the ballot for the March 16, 2004, primary election because the Receipt filed with the Board did not identify the office he is seeking. The Board overruled the objection and the circuit court affirmed the Board\u2019s order.\nANALYSIS\nThe Board is charged with \u201cthe formalities of ascertaining whether a receipt for filing a statement of economic interests has been filed together with the nominating papers\u201d (Troutman v. Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d 247, 252, 509 N.E.2d 453 (1987)), and therefore, we will give deference to its interpretation of the provisions of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2002)). See Bonaguro v. County Officers Electoral Board, 158 Ill. 2d 391, 398, 634 N.E.2d 712 (1994). Because this case involves an examination of the legal effect of a given set of facts \u2014 whether the information contained in the Receipt filed by the Candidate complies with the requirements of the Election Code \u2014 the Board\u2019s determination is best considered a mixed question of fact and law. For mixed questions of fact and law, our supreme court has held that a clearly erroneous standard of review applies. See City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). Accordingly, we will not reverse the Board\u2019s decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205.\nThis case hinges on the content of the Receipt filed with the Board. The parties do not dispute that a Statement was timely filed or that the Candidate filed a Receipt with the proper office. The Objector contends that the Candidate was required to identify the office he is seeking on the Receipt and that the appropriate sanction for this alleged error is the removal of the Candidate\u2019s name from the March 16, 2004, primary election ballot.\nIn interpreting the Election Code in ruling on the objection, the Board found: \u201cNeither the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act nor the Election Code prescribes the contents of the receipt to be issued by the receiving officer upon the filing of a statement of economic interests.\u201d The Board also noted its reluctance \u201cto disqualify the Candidate from the ballot when he merely used and relied upon the receipt prepared and provided by the Illinois Secretary of State, the State agency responsible for issuing such receipts.\u201d The Board further noted, \u201cit cannot be said that a receipt that does not identify the office, position or unit of government for which the statement relates fails to strictly comply with the statute when the statute itself does not require that the receipt contain such information.\u201d\nUnder the plain language of the Election Code, \u201c[t]he nomination of all candidates for members of the General Assembly by all political parties *** shall be made in the manner provided in this article 8 and not otherwise.\u201d 10 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 1 (West 2002). Section 8 \u2014 8 provides the specific format for a petition for nomination to the General Assembly: the candidate\u2019s petition shall state, \u201c[the candidate] has filed a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act [5 ILCS 420/1 \u2014 101 et seq. (West 2002)].\u201d 10 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 8 (West 2002). Although it appears the Board implicitly accepted the Objector\u2019s position that a receipt of the filing of the statement of economic interest is required to be filed with \u201cthe Candidate\u2019s Nomination Papers when such documents were filed with the Cook County Clerk,\u201d the Candidate contends otherwise. The Candidate states in his brief: \u201cThere is no language in Section 8 \u2014 8 that requires a candidate [for the General Assembly] to file a [statement of economic interest] receipt ***.\u201d Because we decide this case on the narrower issue of the sufficiency of the receipt actually filed, we need not resolve whether article 8 requires the filing of a receipt in this case.\nThe Objector claims that section 7 \u2014 12 (10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 12 (West 2002)) is applicable in this case and requires the candidate to file a receipt. Even if article 7 applies to the nomination of members for the General Assembly, as the Election Board found, nothing in article 7 prescribes the contents for a receipt to be valid. 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2002). More to the point, nothing in article 7 or 8 prescribes that a receipt must contain a specific description of the office the candidate is seeking. 10 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 1 et seq., 8 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2002).\nThe Objector cites to a number of cases in an attempt to support his contention that the office must be included on the Receipt. However, not one of the cases cited deals with sufficiency of the contents of the Receipt. In Jones v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 112 Ill. App. 3d 926, 446 N.E.2d 256 (1983), the issue was whether the candidate sufficiently identified the office sought in his statement of economic interest; in Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 588 N.E.2d 1119 (1992), the issue was the appropriate sanction for filing an inadvertently untrue, inaccurate, or incomplete statement of economic interest; in Crudup v. Sims, 292 Ill. App. 3d 1075, 686 N.E.2d 714 (1997), the issue was whether a candidate could be removed from the ballot for filing an allegedly false statement of economic interest; in Requena v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728, 733-34, 692 N.E.2d 1217 (1998), the issue was the appropriate sanction for failing to adequately identify the office sought on the candidate\u2019s statement of economic interest; in Miceli v. Lavelle, 114 Ill. App. 3d 311, 316, 448 N.E.2d 989 (1983), the issue was whether the failure to file the statement of economic interest within the time period provided in the Election Code was fatal to the candidate; and in Troutman, 156 Ill. App. 3d at 252-53, the issue was whether the election board had jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge to the accuracy of the candidate\u2019s statement of economic interest or whether the circuit court had original jurisdiction.\nThe two cases that deal directly with the receipt for the statement of economic interest have no bearing on the facts in the instant case. In Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Board, 337 Ill. App. 3d 334, 337-38, 785 N.E.2d 1014 (2003), the issue was whether the absence of a time-stamped date on the receipt of filing of the statement of economic interest was fatal to the candidates; and in Bolger v. Electoral Board of the City of McHenry, 210 Ill. App. 3d 958, 960-61, 569 N.E.2d 628 (1991), the issue was whether the failure to file the receipt of filing of the statement of economic interest with the appropriate office was fatal to the candidate.\nAt oral argument, the Objector claimed that Bryant v. Cook County Electoral Board, 195 Ill. App. 3d 556, 553 N.E.2d 25 (1990), decided a receipt issue and supported his position. Despite the Objector\u2019s contention, Bryant is of no more support to the Objector than the other cases he cited. In Bryant, the issue was the adequacy of the description of the political office the candidate was seeking as set forth in the candidate\u2019s statement of economic interest. Bryant, 195 Ill. App. 3d at 559. In Bryant, we never addressed the adequacy of the receipt filed with the nominating petitions, as we have here.\nCONCLUSION\nFor all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Board that nothing in the Election Code requires the Receipt filed with the nominating petitions to identify the office the candidate is seeking. We, therefore, affirm the Board\u2019s order.\nAffirmed.\nWOLFSON, P.J., and CAHILL, J., concur.\nBut see section 8 \u2014 17.1 pertaining to vacancies (\u201cThe resolution to fill the vacancy shall be accompanied by a Statement of Candidacy, *** and a receipt indicating such nominee has filed a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act\u201d). 10 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 17.1(4) (West 2002).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GARCIA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Odelson & Sterk, Ltd., of Evergreen Park (Burton S. Odelson, of counsel), and Thomas A. Jaconetty, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Coston, Fioretti & Liehtman, of Chicago (Robert W. Fioretti and Edward E. Campbell, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FELIX CARDONA, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., RespondentsAppellees.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 04\u20140255\nOpinion filed February 26, 2004.\nOdelson & Sterk, Ltd., of Evergreen Park (Burton S. Odelson, of counsel), and Thomas A. Jaconetty, of Chicago, for appellant.\nCoston, Fioretti & Liehtman, of Chicago (Robert W. Fioretti and Edward E. Campbell, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0342-01", "first_page_order": 360, "last_page_order": 364 }