security thank you your honors good morning michael caspar oh ho i'm behalf of the petition of chris ward this is an election case that poses the question of whether or not an electoral board which rules upon candidate eligibility has the authority to invalidate a candidates nominating petitions where that candidate has not yet satisfied a constitutional residency requirement in this case the petition chris ward filed petitions to run for the office of circuit court judge from the fourth sub circuit of the twelfth circuit at the time he did not reside at him within that subcircuits the time he filed the nominating petition issue presented to the electoral board there was a challenge to his candidacy based upon the statement in his statement of candidacy that i am quote legally qualified to hold such office close quote the issue as i said was whether or not you are told board has the ability to invalidate a candidates nominating petitions where the candidate has not yet satisfied the constitutional residency requirement the electoral mord ruled that it did not the circuit court reversed it divided appellate court affirmed the circuit court in reverse and you are told and it first blush that statement seems like a fairly sweeping statement that the candidate who has not yet satisfied the constitutional residency require but in fact that is the answer the answer is no the electoral board was right and the reason for that is that it's always been the law in illinois out of curiosity council i guess it's it's your position that he has to be eligible at the moment he's selected general elections the right correct that's what you're on so i mean is there i mean i'm just thinking about the climate in which we live in the economy in which we live he's living in a different county and but on the day of the election right he has to have established residency in that county is there a raised period is that moment when the clock ticks when the board certified on that day what think and i think the answer is clear and i think the answer is election day and in fact every decision of any court or any electoral board anywhere in illinois of which i am aware has determined that residenc measured beginning on election day that's the starting point and in fact i think that's consistent with article six section eleven you must be a resident of the unit that selects you well that selection only happens on one then again i requires a candidate for any office legislative judicial executive to file a statement of candidates in this case the way that they can be an idea all right i think the best way to to understand this is to note that all candidates for all offices have to file a statement of candidacy it contains exactly the same line for judicial executive legislative offices it's exactly the same every court of which i am aware for example the legislature the legislature has a two year durational residency requirement so you have to live in the district for two years prior to the election every court has that has decided this question has decided that starts on election day last year the election was on november second two thousand and ten that meant that a candidate for the legislature had to live in that district on november second two thousand and eight two years before the election however this is where it gets complicated you have to file your statement  exactly one year before the election november two thousand and nine so a candidate who moved into the legislative district on november first two thousand and eight is qualified on the baby submit their petitions they have not yet satisfied that requirement they have not been a resident for those two years but no court has ever said that it's not in fact a two year inquiry it's a three year requirement because the language of the statement of candidacy is phrased in the present  so that when the candidate signs it they say that i am legally qualified going back to my example a candidate who moved in on nov first two thousand and eight when he signs that paper on november second two thousand and nine he has not  resolves in favor of the question of residency being there's i think that sect section eleven has a temporal reference of the unit that selects and that means on the date of i believe i believe that that's i believe that that's probably the proper interpretation although i don't think it's as clear as it is with residency because there is this temporal reference of selection which is a present tense phrase just like the statement a few minutes so i think that that's probably right a law student who has not yet become licensed the the constitution provides section eleven provides that you must have that qualification to be a judge not to be a candidate so if if that person doesn't then become a licensed attorney then they're subject to all sorts of penalties the most the most obvious being a quorum to action should they be successful in the election so any challenges to the eligibility whether it's residency or having a law license would necessarily happen after the election under your interpretation it's not it's a little more nuanced than that let's say it's residency so going back to the durational residency of the legislature let's legislative candidate then i think that the process is a little bit different the question that in the tora bora takes up is whether or not a candidate can meet the eligibility requirements again the candidate  who moved in on november one two thousand and eight is eligible because he will have lived in that district for two years preceding the election if you move in on november third two thousand and eight i think is petitions are subject to challenge well i think it's less likely sure but it's certainly possible that a person could file to run in a legislative or executive race for purposes of and stay in there only first with the intent of surviving the challenge period and then move out that's that's an entirely possible thing and so i think that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone would file reside in the legislative or within the state of illinois for purposes of executive offices but then move out prior to the think i'm certainly no expert on compatibility of office questions but i think that it's impossible to run for two judicial offices you cannot serve in two different offices at the same time therefore they are incompatible which happens with some pre until they are like but again i think that the provision in the election code which prohibits you from being certified as a candidate for incompatible offices would preclude you from filing in more than for more than one judicial vacancy in stat they're right and what you don't know is whether or not they will satisfy the constitution he example that i use of the person who moved in november first two thousand and eight on the date that they filed their petitions they are not legally qualified th constitution has three qualifications costs one for legislators one for executives and one for judges and for legislators it's to you if there's a two year duration for executives there's a three year  judges there is no duration the election code provision that requires you to file your nominating papers one years one year before the election has the effect of imposing a one year defacto residency requirement that's what it does it says that a judicial candidate must live in that district one year prior to the election and and there is a long line of cases that we cite in our brief not only from this court but from every other court in the country including the united states supreme court that stands for the proposition where the constitution sets forth the qualifications for an office the legislature is without power to change them so that for this candidate the filing period was one year before the election so there was a defacto one year residency requirement set not by the constitution but by the general assembly and that could be changed and in fact about two weeks after i filed my reply brief in this case the governor signed a public act ninety six dash one thousand and  eight he changed the filing so next year candidates for the same office will have to live in the district two weeks longer than candidates did last year that has the effect of extending the durational residency requirement for this office position that where the constitution sets forth the requirements for an office the legislature is without the power to enhance them and i don't think it can be disputed that by imposing  one year requirement matt making you file this paper one year in advance that imposes a one year residency requirement and i don't think that's permitted by the constitution so in  no i don't believe it does the it assuming that that is the intent and i believe it is too willing to encourage judges to reside in the subcircuits too to have greater geographic diversity i don't forget changes this at all mr ward would require required to live in the for subsequent in order to service a charge from that it's absurd absolutely and in fact the legislature concerned was the opposite was not an act and that was not so much that candidates would move in to serve constructions the vote to cause his name to appear on the ballot a candidate must be eligible for the office of judge the import of the words cause his name doesn't that mean that eligibility for office is a condition analogy what's happening with respect to the temporal nature of the legislature but you know most specific question is what what does that mean cause cause his name to appear and i think it means that a person who will satisfy the eligibility requirement all of the eligibility requirement to be a judge and ordered and the residency requirement is that you be a resident of the unit that selects you the unit does not select you the day you file your nominated papers the unit selects you on election day so that a person who resides in that unit on election day satisfies the eligibility require a going back to my example of the legislature there is no but there would be for the words may cause a name which is a person eligible for the office of judge doesn't that indicate a person already eligible for the office of judge may cause his name to appear on the bill i'm not i don't believe that that's w that that that necessarily means i think that what it means is that a person who satisfies the eligibility criteria and in this case it is it or you would read it a person who satisfies the eligibility  perot's which would be residency on the election made causes name to appear on the bill is that then that's just a little stream interpretation of the person eligible no i don't think it is i don't think it is and i think that the eligibility criteria for all of these offices have to be read sort of in part material and so there is no similar cause in the article regarding the legislature or the executive says that mean  condition precedent to running for those offices i think in section twelve the purpose of section twelve is to use is to indicate that judges will be elected as opposed to some other form of selection and so there is no evidence  to in the constitutional record to support the contention the judges are to be treated differently than legislators or executives for purposes of determining when residency is measured your entire argument as to center on the words resident of europe which selection as opposed to section five to seven of the election code which requires a candidate to say i am legally qualified which sounds like it's present day i'm section well of the article six it uses the present tense verb selects the election code says use the present tense as well as this court has noted in the sink is decision from a couple years ago regarding eligibility for municipal off that also uses the present tense section seven days ten of election code when it says in the statement of candidacy i am legally qualified so the tension arises in that both are phrased in the present tense but one takes place a year earlier than the other and the see this case is particularly interesting in this case and in sync is this court ruled that in order to be eligible to run for a municipal office you could not be in  municipal code said in order to be eligible you could not be in a rears on it that's the misspelling as an eligibility for office this court ruled that that meant to run for office as well relying on the present tense nature of the statement of can would we have to overrule saying it's no i don't believe so and the reason for that is that that's a statutory provision not a constitutional one but the first time i read sync is in thing that immediately popped into my head is how does this affect the racial residents how does this affect racial residency because a candidate who is live in their legislative district for one year on the date they sign their eye with their statement of candidacy is under every decision that i am aware of eligible to run but if because that they s yes i believe i believe that i believe that's right yes i believe that that's what the constitution provides and kane would do page county if you live in the county but your residence is in the suburbs or yes i allotted or serve unless they live in the suburbs are correct but that's exactly right so the difference is the campaign piece of it and the surface right the question is the question really is not whether or not you have to reside in the unit to be a judge nobody disputes that the question is whether or not the electoral board has the authority to invalidate a candidates nominating papers when they have not yet satisfied that residency requirement and this is the first case that i'm aware of involving a judicial can court that i'm aware of has ever held that an electoral board has the authority to invalidate the candidates nominating papers where they have not yet satisfied the durational the of the residents who aren't but they can't the question is always not have they done it yet but can they do it at all and that's because to rule otherwise is to extend the durational residency requirement by a year or since the enactment last summer by the legislature by year in two weeks and i don't think that the constitution supports an interpretation where the legislature has the ability to extend the duration of any residency the prior constitution had a five year residenc if that is the case because the statement of candidacy is phrased in this in the present tense through residency requirement for legislative office just grew from two years to three and from the executive offices before the eleven twelve board the position taken by mr ward was that he had to be a resident of the judicial sub circuit only by the date where he would be sworn in for office not the date of election the date of swearing in before this court has taken the position that it's the date of election now i would note that neither nowhere in article six you find a basis for either of those positions there is nothing in our judiciary article that speaks of a temporal reference that has to do with the date of election or with the date of swearing in neither of those positions is grounded  now the position switched again today at the podium because we heard for the first time today that the issue in this case is whether intellectual board has the authority or jurisdiction to rule and authority or jurisdiction of intellect for a board to pass on constitutional qualifications for office that issue is not before you it has not been briefed by the parties it is not presented by the  case called miers moses versus wright and in that case the issue presented was passing on constitutional qualifications for office and pepe to address that issue if you like the authority to pass on constitutional qualification for office comes from section ten dash ten of the electoral code but that issue is not before you this case in the issues that are before you boil down to half a dozen points or so the first is that our constitution imposes a residency requirement for judicial office the second is that there must necessarily be a deadline for complying with that work why there must necessarily be a deadline because whenever there is an eligibility requirement for office you have to have a deadline for satisfying it otherwise it's an enforceable the third point is that we have to assume that the delegates to the one nine hundred seventy constitutional convention were aware of this need to match a ineligibility requirement in section eleven of the article six of the constitution they establish three eligibility requirements for judicial office it must have a law license it must be a united states citizen and you must be a resident of the proper electoral unit they knew when they drafted that that no one is a lawyer but birth they also know that most of us don't reside in the same home for our to the entirety of our lives there had to be a point in time by which you had to become a lawyer and there had to be a point in time by which you establish residence they knew just as we know that you can't measure that in a vacuum it has to be by reference to a point in time and that brings me to the fourth of the six points about which we really shouldn't have any doubt either it is almost unimaginable delegates the nine hundred seventy constitutional convention established eligibility requirements for judicial office but somehow end up left did or forgot to set a deadline for meeting now that point  somewhat surprisingly actually disputed in this case you heard it disputed this morning and if you look in the briefing you'll see it again on page twenty one of the appellant brief the opening for if he says that article does not need any temporal reference point it on page eight of his reply brief the reader rates that this case is entirely about the statutory provisions now i put it to you that that simply isn't plausible we really should be loath to conclude that the constitutional convention of the delegates the constitutional convention either overlooked or punted on this issue of a deadline we asked some questions about the constitutional convention and the choices that were made there yes in terms of the executive and the legislature there are durational residency requirements correct yes and it's also true that prior to the nine hundred seventy constitution there were durational residency a residence requirement which used a racial but they took out the for two years or three years or four years or five years preceding the election next so in terms of the legislature and the executive to do racial residency is explicit correct yes it is also explicit for the judiciary article but not quite the same way not with the same words that's right but so explain to me where they made a choice of two years or three that someone must be a resident they are and that makes them very rigid and it ties them in no way to the duped to the date on which appear on the ballot what i think they must have decided for judges if they thought it was too rigid to say that it was two years three years or five years but they didn't set a date and that is what section twelve says section twelve sets a person eligible for the office of judge may cause his name to appear on the bell and then that words inception twelve for the primary so we know that this is not in reference soley to general elections section twelve says on its face that you have to be eligible to cause your name for the legislative branch but controlled by article four of the constitution it operates independently in its own right and quite apart from article six nothing you reach within the senate i understand of course the very different the to here is in the other sections the constitution to do racial residency is clear two years three years and am i correct that runs to the date of election two years from the data collection yes because those provisions explicitly say two years preceeding his election they have the phrase so it's very clear as to the timing in no sections and not that this section does not have that clear language you agree with that yes and that's because this section does not run from the date of election this section of wrongs from the first time that you were name will appear on a ballot and for established party candidates that was at the primary and we know that that's exactly what was contemplated because section twelve states one that say's that you must be eligible you know order to cause your name to appear on the ballot quote unquote at the primary so it is ten to a definite point in time it's just not the election it is a ballot requirement for the first time you appear on the ballot which may be the primary and the argument that the same would hold true under your theory for legislative candidates when they file their candidates either petitions a year ahead of time they have not completed for example the exams get near someone who's moved in a year before the primary has not completed its two year durational residency to be elected in legislative or executive branch candidate in the state need only seven residents by the date of election not by the date they submit their nominating petitions or the primary and we know that because those articles articles four and five expressly say preceeding his election it's those words preceeding his election which mr casper would like to read into article six but are not present in article six in place of the words preceeding his election in article six we don't have a reference to the date of the general election we have instead referenced the date on the first day on which you would appear on a ballot when you call it your name to be on the ballot the delegates to a convention made a decision we know from the text that the date would be preceding the election for left to officials in the executive and legislative branch but not in the judicial branch in the judicial branch it is by the date of the primary and as judge now so i put to you that it's just not plausible to conclude as my opponent does that the constitution doesn't speak to this he can't find a plausible temporal reference in the constitution and so he a you that the only temporal reference is in the election code and that the election clearly cannot god meant the constitutional qualifications for office and therefore is unconstitutional the doctrine of constitutional avoidance would also coun you not to come to that conclusion if we can avoid declaring the the sections of the election close which require you to state in the present tense that you are eligible for office when you file your papers you should avoid that and it's easy to avoid and this brings me to the fifth point we have a constitutional text before us if that text provides an answer the question we are being asked this court could and should stop them start the analysis right there and the six point and really these are the only six points you need to decide this case is that the constitution is clear section twelve article six by  ning language a step which is a deadline it states that a person quote eligible for the office of judge may quote cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for judge unquote eligible to hold judicial office eligibility comes before handed to see that is the syntax of the sentence and eligible candide it may cause you must be eligible first that's what section twelve sets section a letter and in turn tells us that an eligible person is somebody who has the right residence as united states citizen and has a law license unless and until you are resident you have a long license and you are a citizen you are eligible for judicial office and unless you are eligible for judicial office you can't cause your name to appear on the ballot and that is all we need to know to resolve this case by his own admission mr ward was not a resident of the fourth judicial subcircuits the time he filed his nominating petitions consequently he was not eligible to appear on the ballot that is i understood his ultimate answer to be you could be a resident any place except you had to be a resident of the subcircuits as of the date of the election your answer would be you have to be a member of president of the sub circuit as of the date of filing selects he says one can satisfy the residency requirements by residing in the circuit or sub circuit because that is the unit that issue about the unit of course was inserted into this case by the dissenting judge in the third district and it had not been in this case before neither party has adopted it now and i think that that is also addressed by this court's opinion in t c s on page three hundred twenty five of this court's opinion in ts the court observed that the unit that selects a judge may be a division of the circuit in other words a sub circuit so this is the result that has been reached both by interpretation any voter entering the voting booth should be able to trust that all candidates with names on the ballot are in fact eligible to serve if they are elected and that means if their judicial candidates that they already have the right residence they already have a law license and they are all ready citizens on the other side of this case what you have is a proposal who would allow that would allow  names on the ballot when the election even though they're completely in eligible to serve that's no way to conduct an election voters have a right to know before they cast their ba undermine theory yes under his theory two person decides not to move in the cost is tremendous you have to run in the election and you've completely undermined the confidence of the voters and the integrity and the sanctity of election results they cast their votes believing that the majority will with selected judicial officer and you're going to tell them next after the election that it was a contingent outcome you were vote was actually only going to choose the judge who would if that judge also decided to change webster no voter should is sure doesn't that apply to legislators going back to the legislation that we're the same problem there is no we do not it is true that there is no perfect deadline ok it is also true that somebody after they assume office could switch residences to we can't preclude the possibility that somebody will switch residence what we have for the legislators and for the executive branch officials is that they've already maintained a year or two years of residence in one place and i correct that in redistricting years that there's a different provision in the vote that were the case and i don't know whether it is or not as you're painting it we would be giving the voters that notice ahead of time because the provision of statutory law well you would be telling them ahead of time but you were absolutely correct we have lots of traditional legislative and executive branch officials who are elected by geographic residence sometimes that residence must obtain throughout the duration of their office there is no system that can keep somebody from moving once they're in office and say oh you never should have been elected to the first place that's what pro war chair was for and that's why we have it what we're looking for and what the constitutional framers had mind was a system that will work in the majority of cases in fact in the vast majority of cases if you tell somebody you've got to be a resident for two years preceding the date of election that has always in the state guaranteed that that's never happened it's a parade of horribles it's not realistic so in practice both legislative and executive branch officials are residents of the proper electoral unit when they file their nominated petitions well we arguing for is exactly the same standard for judicial officers and it is the one thing flows from the constitutional right which there is no one other people shouldn't have to hold their breath when they vote cross their fingers wait to see if the majority will be honored if somebody happens to pass the bar or becomes a united states citizen were in fact moved thank you  does the stablish residency by the election we have to have another election if it's a primary race is that correct you can't know our would be it would the other already win in the general election who had garnered enough votes but not enough to residents if the candidate has not established residency by the time the general election occurs i don't believe that person is eligible for the office which means they could not be sworn into the office if and in terms of residency i don't think that's the case he talked about common sense we think a common sense approach is that the same form there all candidates have to file means the same thing all candidates are required to file a statement candidacy it says i am qualified their argument says that it means i am qualified in the present tense for judicial candidates but it doesn't mean that for executive and legislative think what i'm what i'm suggesting is that a candidate for the legislature who is not yet satisfied to two years is not subject to invalidity through the latrobe or process even though at the time they filed their statement of candidacy they were not they have not satisfied but i believe that the the date and we talk about this a little bit in our in our reply brief the date is the general election because that's the only date that the judges selected and in fact their interpretation means that how long you have to live in the same circuit what happens election doesn't change the constitutional meeting of whenever a person is selected a person is not selected even if they're on a post until the general election i think that is the date upon which a person is selected to any office  refers to selection of judges not party nominees and so the other thing fits in under the respondents theory how long you have to live in the sub circuit depends on what kind of candidate you are democrats and republicans have to live in the some sort of for a year before the election and green party candidates had to last year or two but next year they won't because they're not an established party anymore but if you're an independent or a new party candidate you have to live in the in the district i think two hundred thirty days last then if you are an established party candidate we think that residency requirements should be uniform and should be easy to understand they should be easy to find and they should be measured based on election day the same way that they are f legislative candidates and executive can if there's any further question and one other question just as freeman asked you about the unit that selects it and i didn't fully understand your response i thought you initially said it didn't matter