Zapolsky v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd.

FIRST DIVISION
May 26, 1998

No. 1-98-0532

NADINE M. ZAPOLSKY, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Petitioner-Appellant, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL )
BOARD and its members HON. )
DAVID D. ORR (by his designee )
Daniel P. Madden); HON. AURELIA )
PUCINSKI (by her designee Jeff )
Jacob); HON. RICHARD A. DEVINE )
(by his designee David A. )
Bonoma); LAURA A. POTTER, )
Objector; DAVID ORR, in his )
official capacity as COUNTY CLERK )
OF COOK COUNTY; THE BOARD OF )
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE )
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, )
and its member Commissioners )
LANGDON D. NEAL, RICHARD A. )
COWEN, THERESA M. PETRONE, )
in their official capacities, ) Honorable
) Donald Devlin,
Respondents-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Nadine M. Zapolsky, seeks judicial review of a
judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the Cook
County Officers Electoral Board (Electoral Board) which declared
the nominating papers of petitioner invalid and removed
petitioner from the Democratic Party primary ballot for March 17,
1998. On appeal, petitioner contends the Electoral Board's
decision was erroneous because it misinterpreted section 7-10 of
the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1996)). We affirm.
Petitioner filed papers as a candidate for the Democratic
Party nomination for the office of commissioner of the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(Reclamation District). Her nominating papers included her
receipt of filing of her statement of economic interests, her
statement of candidacy, her affirmation of loyalty, and
nominating petitions containing signatures of voters.
Both her statement of candidacy and her receipt for filing
of her economic interests described the office sought by
petitioner as:
"Commissioner of the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to fill
the vacancy for the unexpired two (2) year term."

The nominating petitions, signed by voters, described the
office sought by petitioner as:

"Commissioner of the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago."

Laura Potter objected to the papers on grounds which
included, inter alia, that the identification of the office on
the nominating petitions was confusing. Specifically, paragraph
21 of her objection alleged:

"21. The Nomination Papers contain petition
sheets circulated and filed on behalf of the
Candidate [that] merely list the office sought as
'Commissioner of the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago' and do
not identify the vacancy for which they are filed,
to fill the unexpired two year term of Joseph
Gardner and such are not a proper or complete
description of the office sought by the Candidate,
and all such petition sheets and all signatures
contained therein are invalid. Failure to
properly identify the particular vacancy sought,
particularly where there are at large positions
for six year terms as Commissioners of the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago that will be on the ballot for nomination
by electors of the Democratic Party on March 17,
1998 creates confusion in the mind of the public
and does not adequately inform signers of the
Candidate's petitions of the office being sought."

After a hearing, the Electoral Board sustained this
objection, declared the nominating petitions confusing and
invalid for failing to comply with section 7-10 of the Election
Code (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1996)), and removed petitioner's name
from the primary ballot. Petitioner filed for judicial review in
the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the Electoral
Board's decision and petitioner filed this appeal.
On appeal, the issue is whether the Electoral Board erred in
determining that petitioner failed to comply with section 7-10 of
the Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1996). Since the issue
is a question of law, our review is independent of the Electoral
Board, and not deferential. Stephens v. Education Officers
Electoral Board, Community College District No. 504, 236 Ill.
App. 3d 159, 161 (1992).
Section 7-10 of the Election Code prescribes the form and
content of nominating petitions for public office. Section 7-10
provides that the name of no candidate for nomination shall be
printed upon the primary ballot unless a petition for nomination
has been filed in his behalf and it contains, among other things,
the office that the candidate seeks. The prescribed form of
petition also contains a sworn certificate as to the genuineness
of the signatures, party affiliation and correctness of residence
of those signing the petition.
Section 7-10 further provides:
"Each petition must include as a part thereof, a
statement of candidacy for each of the candidates
filing, or in whose behalf the petition is filed.
This statement shall set out the address of such
candidate, the office for which he is a candidate,
shall state that the candidate is a qualified
primary voter of the party to which the petition
relates and is qualified for the office specified
***, shall state that he has filed (or will file
before the close of the petition filing period) a
statement of economic interests as required by the
Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, shall request
that the candidate's name be placed upon the
official ballot, and shall be subscribed and sworn
to by such candidate *** ." 10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West
1996).
Petitioner cites Lewis v. Dunne, 63 Ill. 2d 48 (1976), in
support of her claim that the Election Board misinterpreted
section 7-10. Lewis addressed a judicial candidate who failed to
designate the specific vacancy in his statement of candidacy as
required by section 7-10 of the Election Code, but did
specifically state the vacancy he sought on his nominating
petitions signed by the voters. The court held that Lewis was
entitled to have his name placed on the ballot because "there was
no basis for confusion as to the office for which the nominating
papers were filed." Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 53.

The court further found:

"The apparent purpose of the requirement that
a statement of candidacy be included as a part of
a candidate's nominating papers is to obtain a
sworn statement from the candidate establishing
his qualifications to enter the primary election
for the office he seeks. In this respect, we
perceive no difference in the qualifications for
Judge of the Appellate Court, First Judicial
District, and Judge of the Appellate Court, First
Judicial District, to fill the vacancy created by
the retirement of the Honorable Robert E. English.
In our judgment, petitioner substantially complied
with the provisions of section 7-10 which require
that the statement of candidacy set out 'the
office for which he is a candidate,' and we hold
that the decision of the Cook County Officers
Electoral Board to the contrary was in error."
Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 53.

Lewis is distinguishable. Lewis addressed a statement of
candidacy, signed by the candidate, which did not specifically
name the vacancy sought and its relationship to petitions, signed
by numerous voters, which did specifically name the vacancy.
The court focused its analysis on the statement of candidacy, its
import in the nominating papers and its purpose in conjunction
with the nominating petitions. The court found that the apparent
purpose of the requirement that a statement of candidacy be
included as a part of a candidate's nominating papers was to
obtain a sworn statement from the candidate establishing his
qualifications to enter the primary election for the office he
sought. The court reconciled the discrepancy in the documents in
favor of retaining the candidate on the ballot by finding that
the statement of candidacy was in substantial compliance with the
statute because there "was no basis for confusion as to the
office for which the nominating papers were filed." Lewis, 63 Ill. 2d at 53.
Here, we address not the statement of candidacy, but the
nominating petitions that must be signed by registered voters.
10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1996). The apparent purpose of the
nominating petitions signed by voters is to expand the informed
participation of members of the respective parties in their
primary election. Nominating petitions should be free from a
"basis for confusion" as to the office for which they are filed.
A potential signatory to a nominating petition has the right to
know the specific vacancy sought by the candidate so that the
signatory may make an informed decision to sign the petition or
support another candidate for the same vacancy.
It is uncontroverted that there were numerous vacancies on
the Reclamation District up for election and that petitioner's
nominating petitions did not specifically name the vacancy sought
by petitioner. Further, it is uncontroverted that petitioner
obtained signatures from registered voters by failing to inform
them of the specific vacancy she sought.
We find that petitioner's nominating petitions failed to
comply strictly or substantially with section 7-10 of the
Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-10 (West 1996)), because the petitions
were not free from a "basis for confusion" as to the office for
which they were filed.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Affirmed.
CAHILL, J., and WOLFSON, J., concur.