{ "id": 4261204, "name": "SAMOUR, INC., by Niru Patel, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners", "decision_date": "2005-10-25", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201404\u20143630", "first_page": "12", "last_page": "19", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 12" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "129 N.E. 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 Ill. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5055051 ], "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/296/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill. App. 3d 715", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3367668 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/47/0715-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 N.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Ill. App. 2d 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2531020 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "537" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/132/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 N.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "no contention or likelihood that the deviation in the ballot confused voters" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2908088 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182", "parenthetical": "no contention or likelihood that the deviation in the ballot confused voters" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/48/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 N.E.2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ill. 2d 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2714769 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/8/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 N.E.2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2761320 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/16/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 N.E.2d 514", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 Ill. App. 3d 981", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 521015 ], "weight": 8, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" }, { "page": "983" }, { "page": "987" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/287/0981-01" ] }, { "cite": "830 N.E.2d 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 980", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4136441 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "984" }, { "page": "984" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/357/0980-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 715, "char_count": 17397, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.497341544922815e-08, "percentile": 0.39975979294545744 }, "sha256": "e1765b377a62c6b39e7d48869b62f209a35fd9b91763a9e9c8ca7397ea1ba0c0", "simhash": "1:2ffea68d3fe6a830", "word_count": 2871 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:25.526171+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "SAMOUR, INC., by Niru Patel, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe issue in this case is whether errors in Chinese translation on a ballot used in a referendum election held under the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (the Act) (235 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 1 et seq. (West 2004)) invalidated the election. The two errors were: (1) the transposition of the ward and precinct numbers in two locations on the ballot; and (2) an imprecise translation of the phrase \u201csale at retail.\u201d While the trial court held omitting the words \u201cat retail\u201d from the Chinese translation was acceptable, it invalidated the election because of the transposition of the ward and precinct numbers. We affirm the trial court.\nFACTS\nOn February 25, 2003, a referendum election was held pursuant to the Act in the 45th Precinct of the 15th Ward (the Precinct) in Chicago. For that election, the ballots were written in English, Spanish, and Chinese. The title at the top of the ballot read, \u201cAlcoholic Liquor Proposition Ballot Municipal General Election Chicago, Illinois February 25, 2003.\u201d After the title, the ward and precinct numbers were given in the upper left-hand corner. Immediately after the ward and precinct numbers, a \u201cDESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE AFFECTED\u201d appeared. The English version of the description read as follows:\n\u201cBeginning at the intersection of S. Mozart St. and W 63rd St., thence east on 63rd St. to S. California Ave., thence south on S. California Ave. to W. 65th St., thence west on 65th St. to S. Francisco Ave., thence north on S. Francisco Ave. to W 64th St., thence east on W 64th St., to S. Mozart, thence north on S. Muzart to the place of beginning.\u201d\nAfter accurate street descriptions were given in the three languages, the proposition up for vote appeared in a box. In English, the proposition stated, \u201cShall the sale at retail of alcoholic liquor be prohibited in this 45th Precinct of the 15th Ward of the City of Chicago (as such precinct existed as of the last General Election[)j?\u201d\nOn March 14, 2003, plaintiffs Samour, Incorporated, by Niru Patel, and several registered resident voters from the Precinct filed their verified complaint to contest the validity of the referendum election against the defendant, the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago (the Board). The plaintiffs claimed that the Chinese translation of the proposition to prohibit the retail sale of alcoholic liquor within the Precinct did not comply with the form required by the Act. First, the Chinese version was different than the English version because it asked voters whether alcohol shall be prohibited in the 15th precinct of the 45th ward, instead of the 45th precinct of the 15th ward. Second, the Chinese translation of the proposition differed from the English version because it asked voters whether the sale of alcohol should be prohibited rather than the sale at retail of alcoholic liquor.\nAt the bench trial, Hanlelore Mui, a freelance interpreter and translator of the Chinese language, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. Although Mui was given a ballot from the 32nd Precinct of the 48th Ward, the parties stipulated the matters raised during her testimony were applicable to the complaint regarding the Precinct. Mui was asked about any differences between the Chinese and English versions of the ballot. According to Mui, the Chinese version asked, \u201cif the sale of liquor in general should be prohibited *** in the 48th Precinct of 32nd district in Chicago City.\u201d Mui pointed out that the precinct and ward numbers were transposed in the Chinese version. The same inversion of the numbers appeared in the upper left-hand corner of the ballot page. Mui said:\n\u201cThe number of the precinct and the number of the ward was translated in a position that could be easily confusing.\n*** For someone who doesn\u2019t know how to read the description of area then probably they would think they are looking at the wrong ballot, but of course if the person can read the directions they can easily solve that problem.\u201d\nMui also said the Chinese version of the ballot used the word \u201csale\u201d without the additional term \u201cat retail.\u201d Mui explained that the Chinese word used would include all types of sales including wholesale, resale, or for personal consumption. Mui concluded, \u201cThe [Chinese] translation has omissions of important meaningful words from the original so [she] would say it\u2019s not correct ***.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, Mui testified a more accurate translation of \u201cat retail\u201d would have used the Chinese character \u201cling shou\u201d instead of \u201cxiao shou\u201d as used on the ballot.\nDr. Richard Gu testified on behalf of the Board. Dr. Gu studied and taught Chinese and English translations for 11 years at Northwestern University. Dr. Gu testified that a Chinese voter would not be confused by the transposition of the ward and precinct numbers because it was a common translation error. He opined that Chinese voters would double-check the error and would rely on the area description, which was correct, rather than the ward and precinct numbers.\nDr. Gu also testified the term \u201cxiao shou\u201d is generally taught and understood to include retail sales. He said the Chinese language has over 40,000 characters. Chinese teachers choose to teach only the most commonly used words, so the general public is not familiar with less commonly used words.\nAfter weighing the testimony from Mui and Dr. Gu, the trial court determined, as a matter of law, the ballot\u2019s reference to the sale of alcoholic liquor substantially complied with the Act despite the omission of \u201cat retail\u201d from the Chinese translation. But the court also found the transposition of ward and precinct numbers put a Chinese-speaking voter \u201cin a different position\u201d than English- and Spanish-speaking voters. On that basis, the court found the ballot did not substantially comply with the Act. It invalidated the referendum.\nDECISION\nI. Standard of Review\nThe parties disagree about the appropriate standard of review to be applied in this case. In its opening brief, the Board contends we should apply the de novo standard of review because the sole issue presented in this case \u2014 whether the ballot substantially complied with the Act \u2014 is a question of law. Plaintiffs contend the trial court made its decision after weighing the testimony at trial and, as a result, we should disturb its findings only if we find them against the manifest weight of the evidence. In reply, the Board contends that this appeal presents a mixed question of fact and law, which requires the clearly erroneous standard of review.\n\u201c[A] mixed question [of law and fact] is one in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.\u201d Moss v. Deptartment of Employment Security, 357 Ill. App. 3d 980, 984, 830 N.E.2d 663 (2005).\nIn this case, we must decide whether the Chinese translation on the ballot substantially complied with the Act. See Krauss v. Board of Election Commissioners, 287 Ill. App. 3d 981, 984, 681 N.E.2d 514 (1997).\nTypically, substantial compliance with the Act is a question of law. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984. Here, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact because we must decide statutory compliance based on facts presented through witness testimony regarding English-to-Chinese translations. The trial judge weighed those facts. Accordingly, we review the case under the clearly erroneous standard. Moss, 357 Ill. App. 3d at 984.\nII. Substantial Compliance With the Act\nBoth parties agree the only question we must answer is whether the ballot used in the February 25, 2003, municipal election in the Precinct substantially complied with the Act.\nSection 9 \u2014 6 of the Act provides the form of the proposition to be used in a local referendum as follows:\n\u201cThe proposition shall be in substantially the following form: Shall the sale at retail of alcoholic liquor (or alcoholic liquor other than beer containing not more than 4% of alcohol by weight) (or alcoholic liquor containing more than 4% alcohol by weight in the original package and not for consumption on the premises) be prohibited in (or at) ...?\u201d 235 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 6 (West 2002).\nThe section also requires the proposition ballot to contain \u201ca common description of the precinct in plain and nonlegal language\u201d unless the election official determines that a description will not fit on the ballot used in the election. 235 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 6 (West 2002). If the description is not included on the ballot, large printed copies of the precinct\u2019s description \u201cshall be prominently displayed in the precinct polling place at the election.\u201d 235 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 6 (West 2002).\nWhen a statute specifies the form of the ballot, the ballot must substantially comply with the statutory mandate or the election is void. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984, citing Smith v. Calhoun Community Unit School District No. 40, 16 Ill. 2d 328, 332, 157 N.E.2d 59 (1959). The test we must apply to determine substantial compliance is whether voters were given \u201cas clear an alternative as if the statutory form had been identically followed.\u201d Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984, citing Dick v. Roberts, 8 Ill. 2d 215, 221, 133 N.E.2d 305 (1956). If the ballot gives the voter a clear opportunity to express a meaningful choice either for or against a measure, it is sufficient. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984.\nAnother consideration is whether voters would be misled or confused by the ballot. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 984; see also People ex rel. Davis v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co., 48 Ill. 2d 176, 182, 268 N.E.2d 411 (1971) (no contention or likelihood that the deviation in the ballot confused voters). Voters challenging the validity of a local option election do not have to allege or prove actual voter confusion. Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 983.\nKeeping these principles in mind, we first turn to the transposition of ward and precinct numbers on the face of the ballot.\nA. Transposition of Ward and Precinct Numbers\nBoth parties agree that the ward and precinct numbers were written incorrectly in Chinese in two places on the ballot. That is, on the upper left-hand corner of the ballot the English and Spanish references to the ward and precinct were accurate, first the number of the ward \u2014 15\u2014and then the number of the precinct \u2014 45. But the Chinese translation had it reversed \u2014 Ward 45, Precinct 15. Then, in the body of the question to be voted on, the Chinese translation again incorrectly referred to the 45th ward and the 15th precinct.\nThe Board contends that despite these errors the ballot substantially complied with the Act. The Board contends Chinese-speaking voters would not be confused by the error for two reasons: (1) the error is common when translating the order of numeric designations from English to Chinese; and (2) the description of the Precinct by its boundaries appeared correctly on the ballot.\nThe 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).\nIn Havlik, the ballots used in a local referendum held pursuant to the Act asked voters whether the sale of alcoholic liquor should be prohibited in \u201cthis precinct.\u201d Voters challenging the election contended the ballot was \u201cinadequate\u201d and \u201cambiguous\u201d because the proper name of the precinct was not used. This court found the ballots substantially complied with the Act because the words \u201cthis precinct\u201d gave voters a clear and understandable statement of the alternatives before them. The court noted that although some citizens may not know or remember the number of their precinct or ward, \u201cevery voter of intelligence would know that the words \u2018this precinct\u2019 applied to the compact geographical area within which [the voter\u2019s] home and polling place are located.\u201d Havlik, 132 Ill. App. 2d at 537.\nIn Love, voters challenging the election contended the ballots were vague and imprecise, because the legal descriptions provided only the ward and precinct numbers, without further description. The court found the ballots complied with the statute, which, at the time, did not require \u201ca common description of the precinct in plain and nonlegal language\u201d (see 235 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 6 (West 2002)). Love, 47 Ill. App. 3d at 718.\nThis case is different than Love and Havlik. In those cases, the wording used to describe the precinct, although allegedly vague, was correct. That cannot be said of the two designations of ward and precinct numbers on the ballot in this case.\n\u201cA substantial copy of the form of the ballot designated in the statute must evidently be one that contains the essence of the form in the statute, \u2014 one giving the correct idea but not necessarily the exact expressions in the statutory form.\u201d (Emphasis added.) People ex rel. Howard v. Chicago & Eastern Illinois R.R. Co., 296 Ill. 246, 249, 129 N.E. 846 (1921). We do not believe two incorrect references to the ward and precinct numbers meet the threshold of substantial compliance.\nIf the erroneous references were the only descriptions of the ward and precinct appearing on the ballot, then the Chinese-speaking voters indisputably would have been denied a clear choice regarding area affected by their vote to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. But our inquiry does not end here, because the ballots in question included a correct common description of the Precinct, providing its street boundaries as required by section 9 \u2014 6 (235 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 6 (West 2002)).\nThe words \u201cDESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE AFFECTED\u201d appear above the description. We must decide whether this common description saves the ballot. That is, did the precinct\u2019s common description alleviate any confusion caused by the incorrect ward and precinct numbers and provide Chinese-speaking voters a meaningful choice either for or against the measure?\nIn this case, the expert witnesses disagreed about whether Chinese voters would be confused by the conflicting descriptions of the precinct. Mui testified that confusion was likely \u201cfor someone who [did not] know how to read the description of the area,\u201d while Dr. Gu said voters would have relied on the common description because the mistake in the numbers was a common translation error. The trial court obviously accepted Mui\u2019s testimony on this issue.\nStrictly speaking, these were not errors in form. These were errors in substance. A Chinese-speaking voter was confronted with a ballot that in two places told him or her the question to be voted on related to some other ward and precinct. Whether the incorrect translations put Chinese-speaking voters in a position different than English- and Spanish-speaking voters, as the trial court found, is not the basis for our conclusion that the trial court reached the right result. Rather, we conclude Chinese-speaking voters were deprived of a clear opportunity to express a meaningful choice either for or against the measure. The danger of voter confusion was too great. Voters should not have to wonder why they were handed a particular ballot.\nIn Krauss, voters challenged the election because the Spanish translation appearing on the ballot did not comply with section 9 \u2014 6 of the Act. There, several words were misspelled or incorrectly translated into the Spanish. For example, \u201cdebida,\u201d the Spanish word meaning \u201cto owe,\u201d appeared in place of \u201cbebida,\u201d the word for beverage or drink. Additionally, the Spanish word for \u201cprecinct\u201d was misspelled, and the phrase \u201csince the last election\u201d was not translated correctly.\nThis court found the ballot did not substantially comply. We said:\n\u201cThe Board may not argue that a little disenfranchisement is harmless. *** Once the Board affirmatively undertook to provide the Spanish versions of the local option referenda, it had an obligation to do so correctly.\u201d Krauss, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 987.\nWe do not believe the trial court clearly erred when it found the ballot in this case did not substantially comply with the Act.\nB. Omission of Chinese Character Meaning \u201cRetail Sale\u201d\nThe Board contends the trial court correctly decided the ballot substantially complied with the Act despite the omission of the Chinese character meaning \u201cretail sale.\u201d Plaintiffs contend the Chinese translation should have used the character \u201cling shou,\u201d which means \u201cretail sale,\u201d rather than \u201cxiao shou,\u201d which simply means \u201csale.\u201d\nBecause we find transposition of the ward and precinct numbers was fatal to the election, there is no need to consider whether omission of the Chinese character meaning \u201cretail sale\u201d voided the election.\nCONCLUSION\nWe affirm the trial court\u2019s finding that the ballot at issue did not substantially comply with the Act because the description of the ward and precinct numbers was wrongly translated in two places on the ballot.\nAffirmed.\nGARCIA, EJ., and HALL, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "James M. Scanlon and Joan T. Agnew, both of James M. Scanlon & Associates, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.", "Michael E. Lavelle and William J. Cooley, both of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SAMOUR, INC., by Niru Patel, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201404\u20143630\nOpinion filed October 25, 2005.\nRehearing denied December 5, 2005.\nJames M. Scanlon and Joan T. Agnew, both of James M. Scanlon & Associates, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.\nMichael E. Lavelle and William J. Cooley, both of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0012-01", "first_page_order": 30, "last_page_order": 37 }