## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Suprem e Court

Wisnas ky-Bettorf v

. Pierce , 2012 IL 111253

Caption in S upreme Court: WHI TNEY WI SNASKY-B ETTORF, Appellant, v. PEGGY PI ERCE et al. , Appellee s.

Docke t No. 111253

Filed Marc h 22, 2012

Held ( Note : This syl lab us

con st it ute s no pa r t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e
c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) Where a candida te was desig nated by her party afte r a primary in which it had no name on the ballot and there was no write-in, the Election Code require ment that a “resolu t i o n filling the vaca ncy ” be filed wit hin three day s was not applicable
, and fail u re t o comply did not justify her exclusion from the ballot.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Appellate Court for the Fifth District; hear d in that court

on appea l from the Circuit Court of S t. Clai r C o u n ty , the Hon. Andre w J . Gleeson, Judge , presiding

.

J udg ment J udg ments reve rsed.Counsel on

Appea l Br ian M. Funk, of O’F allon, for a

ppellant.

Robert J

. Spr agu e, o f Sprague & Urba n, and Gar

rett P. Hoer

ner, of Be ck er, Paulson, Hoer

ner & Thompson, P.C., all of Be lleville, for appellee

.

J ustices J USTI CE FREEMAN delivere d the judgme nt of the court, with opinion. Chief J ustice Kilbride a

nd J ustices Thom as, Garman, Karmeier
, Bur ke, and The is concurr ed in the judg ment and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Petitioner, Whit ney Wis nasky -B ettorf, appea ls from the circ uit court’s order sustaining petitioner’s removal from the ballot for the ge nera l elec tion held on November 2, 2010. A divided panel of the appellate court aff irmed (403 I ll. App. 3d 1080), and we g rante d leave to appea l (I ll. S. Ct. R. 315 (ef f. Fe b. 26, 2010)). We now reve rse the judgme nts of the circ uit and appe llate cour

ts.

¶ 2 Ba ckground ¶ 3 At the Republican Party ’s g ener al p ri m ar y el ec t i o n h eld on Fe bruar y 2, 2010, no candidate’s name for the office of board of revie w for St. Clair County , I llinois
, was printed

on the ballot, and no candidate was nominated as a write-in for that office

. Acc ording ly
, on Marc h 25, 2010, the St. Clair C o u n t y centr al committee of the Republican Party (the committee) held a meeting at which it passed a motion desig nating p et i t i o n er as the appointee f

or ca ndidacy for the of fice of boar d of re view member

. ¶ 4 On April 1, 2010, the committee filed a “re solution/ cer tificate of appointment” with the county cler

k of St. Clair County , indicating that the executive committee of the Republican Party in St. Clair County had voted to nominate petitioner for the office of board of revie w member a s require d pursuant to section 7-61 of t he Election Code (10 I L CS 5/ 7-61 et seq

. (West 2010)). On April 16, 2010, p et i t ioner filed her nominating petitions with the cler k toge ther with the notice of appointment, her statement of candida cy and her rec eipt for filing a stateme nt of ec onomic interests. ¶ 5 On April 26, 2010, the objector, Peg g y Pierce
, fi l ed a v er i fi ed o b j ector’s petition reque sting that petitioner’s name not a ppear on the ballot for elec tion to the office of board of revie w member b ec ause the resolution was not filed within three day s as require d by section 7-61. On April 30, 2010, the St. Clair County elec toral boar d held a he aringon the objection. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the St. Clair County elec toral board sustained the

-2-objection and remove d petitioner’s name from the ballot f or the g ener al elec tion to be held

on November 2, 2010. In doing so, the St. Clair County elec toral board stated the committee

was require d to file a resolution under section 7-61 in order to fill the vaca ncy in nomination and that this resolution was to be fil ed wi t hin three day s afte r t he commit tee’ s meeting on Marc h 25, 2010. ¶ 6 On May 3, 2010, the St. Clair County elec toral board enter ed a written decision, order ing that petitioner’s name was to be remove d from the ballot for the November 2, 2010, g ener al elec tion. On May 10, 2010, petitioner soug ht judicial revie w in the circ uit court of St. Clair County , arguing that: (1) the committee was not required to file a resolution under section 7-61 in order for petitioner to fill the g ener al primary vaca ncy , and (2) even if the committee

wer e re quired to file a

resolution, the objections in this case w ere untimely

. ¶ 7 On J une 2, 2010, the circ uit court held a hear ing on the petition. Pet i t i o n er as k ed the court for relief

, specific ally to ha

ve her name place d back on the ballot for that elec tion. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the circ uit court confirme d the decision of the St. Clair County elec toral boar d. ¶ 8 A divided panel of our appellate court aff irmed, holding section 7-61 require d the filing of a resolution under the circ umstances. 403 I ll

. Ap p

. 3 d 1080. The dissenting justice conclude d that the amende d portion of section 7-61 sets forth a distinct proce du re for situations such as the case at hand and specific ally substitut es a “notice of appointment” for the filing of a resolution. 403 I ll. App. 3d at 1091 (Spomer, J ., dissenting)

. Petitioner seeks

reve rsal of the judgme nt of the appe llate cour t.

¶ 9 ANALYSI S ¶ 10 Mootness ¶ 11 We must initially addre ss the contention that this matter is moot g iven that the November 2010 elec tion has alre ady occur red and the petitioner does not reque st a new elec tion if she

wer e to pre vail in this appeal. ¶ 12 One exception to the mootness doctrine allows a court to resolve an otherwise moot issue if the issue involves a substantial pub l i c i n t erest. Petitioner invokes this exception specific ally reque sting that this cour t clar ify this are a of the law for future elec tions. The criter ia for application of the public interest exceptio n ar e: (1 ) the public nature of the question, (2) the desirability of an authoritative deter mination for the purpose of guiding public office rs, and (3) the likelihood that the question will rec ur. In re A Minor , 127 I ll. 2d 247, 257 (19 8 9 ); People ex rel. W allace v. Labrenz
, 411 I ll. 618, 622 (1952). A clea r showing of eac h criter ion is require d to bring a case within the public interest exception. See Kohan v. Rimland School for Autisti c Children , 102 I ll. App. 3d 524, 527 (1981). ¶ 13 The prese nt c ase meets this test. I ssues reg arding the filling of vaca ncies in nomination of a public office are of substantial public interest. The appellate court co rr ec t ly observe d that issues reg arding this subject are long- standing and have not been addre ssed by courts or

-3-the l eg islature (Phelan v. County Officers El ectoral Board
, 240 I ll. App. 3d 368, 371, 381

(1992))

. See T

h u r s t o n v. State Board of Elections
, 76 I ll. 2d 385, 387-88 (1979); Administrative Offic e of the I llinois Courts, 1981 Annual Report to the Supreme Court of I llinois 22. An authoritative guide for future controve rsies is neede d; the issue will li k ely

rec ur. We there fore will address the me rits of this cause.

¶ 14 Election Code ¶ 15 The quest i o n b ef o re us is whether an established political party must file a re solution pursuant to section 7-61 of the Election Code (10 I L CS 5/7-61 (West 2010)) in order to fill

a vaca ncy in nomination when no candidate appea red on the primary ballot and no write-in candidate was nominated. Regar d i n g o u r standard of revie w, fac tual finding s made by an el ector al board will not be disturbed unless they are ag ainst the manifest weigh t o f t h e evidenc e. Girot v. Keith
, 212 I ll. 2d 372, 378-79 (2004). We are not bound, howeve r, by the board’ s interpre tation of a statute. King v. Justice Party , 284 I ll. App. 3d 886, 888 (1996). The construction of a statute is a questio n o f l aw, which we revie w de novo

. Sylve ster v. Industrial Comm’n , 197 I ll. 2d 225, 232 (2001). ¶ 16 The primary rule of statutory interpre tation a nd construction, to which a ll other canons and rules are subordinate, is to asce rtain and eff ectuate the tru e i n t en t an d meaning of the l egi s lature. People ex rel. Hanrahan v. W hite
, 52 I ll. 2d 70, 73 (1972). In interpre t i n g a statute, a court must g iv e t h e leg islative languag e its plain and ordinary meaning

. Illinois Power Co. v. Mahin
, 72 I ll. 2d 189 (1978). I f the languag e of the statute is plain, clea r, and unambiguous, and if the leg islative intent can be asce rtained there from, it must preva il and will be g iven effec t b y t h e courts without resor ting to other aids for construction. In re Marriage of Logston , 1 0 3 I l l

. 2 d 266 (1984). Also, the statute should be evaluated as a whole; eac h provision should be construed in connec tion with ever y other section. Bonaguro

v. County Officers Electoral Board
, 158 I ll. 2d 39 1 , 3 9 7 (1994). Statutes should be construed, if possible, so that no term is rende red superf luous or meaning less. Bonaguro , 158 I ll. 2d at 397. ¶ 17 The objection in this case was based on section 7-61 of the Election Code. We note that section 7-61 consists of multipl e para graphs which addre ss differ ent circ umstances in which

vaca ncies in nomination occ ur. Ac cording to the objection, section 7-61 require s the filing of a resolution in this case

. In so arguing, the objector relied upon para g raph 3, which states:

“Any vaca

ncy in nomination under the provisions of this Article 7 occur ring on
or afte r the primary and prior to cer tification of candidates by the cer tifying board or office r, m ust be fill ed prior to the date of cer tification. Any vaca

ncy in nomination

occur ring afte r cer

tification but pr ior to 15 day s befor e the g ener al elec tion shall be filled within 8 day s afte r the event cr ea t i n g the vaca ncy

. The resolution filling the

vaca ncy shall be sent by U.S. mail or persona l delivery to the ce rt i fy i n g office r or board within 3 day s of the action by which the vaca ncy was filled; provided, if such resolution is sent by mail and the U.S. postmark on t h e envelope containing such

-4-resolution is dated prior to the expiration of such 3 day limit
, the resolution shall be deeme d filed within such 3 day limit

. Fa ilure to so transmit the resolution within the time specifie d in the Section shall authorize the cer tifying office r or board to cer tify the orig inal candidate. Vac ancie s shall be filled by the office rs of a loc al municipal or t ownship political party as specified i n subsection (h) of S ection 7- 8 , o ther than

a statewide political party , that is established only within a municipality or township and the manag ing committee (or leg islative committee in case of a candidate for State Senator or repr esentative committee in the case of a candi d at e fo r State Represe ntative in the Gene ral Asse mbly or State centr al committee in the ca se of a candidate for statewide office
, including but not limit ed to the office of United States Senator) of the respe ctive political party for the territoria l are a in which such vaca ncy
occur s.” 10 I L CS 5/ 7-61 (West 2010).

In response , petitioner maintains that para g raph 3 does not a pply to the situation pre sent in this case—wher e no name had appea red on the primary ballot—and that para g raph 9 controls in such situations. W e agree

. ¶ 18 The plain languag e of section 7-61, when read in its entirety
, reveal s t h at para g raph 3, quoted above, does not apply wher e no established political party candidate was printed on the g ener al primary ballot for a particula r office and no person was nominated as a write-in candidate at the g ener al primary elec tion. Rathe r, para g raph 3 applies to situations wher e a candidate has been nominated at the primary and a vaca ncy in nomination occur s as a result of the death or resignation of that person nominated. There are four para g raphs in section 7- 61 which addre ss the “re solution to fill the vaca ncy ”: para g raphs 3, 4, 5, and 6. There is languag e in two of those para g raphs that makes it clea r that the filing of the resolution ref ers to situations wher e a candidate was nominated at a primary

. For example, the fourth sentenc e in para graph 3 states: “F ailure to so transmit the resolution within the time specifie d in this Section shall authorize the certifying office r or board t o cer tify the original candidate.” 10 I L CS 5/7-61 (West 2010). Moreove r, para g raph 4 of t h e statute, which sets forth the information that must be included in the re solution, st ates:

“T he resolution to fill a vaca ncy in nomination shall be duly acknow ledg ed befor e an office r qualified to take acknow ledg ments of deeds and shall include, upon its face , the followinginformation: (a) the name of

the orig inal nominee and the office vaca ted; (b) the da te on which the va canc y

occur red; (c) the name and addre ss of the nominee selec ted to fill the vaca ncy and the date of selec tion.” 10 I L CS 5/ 7-61 (West 2010).
These ref ere nces to the “orig i n al candidate” and the “orig inal nominee” make no sense in

case s such as this wher e no orig inal candidate or nominee exis ted. ¶ 19 In contra st, para g raph 9 specific ally sets forth the proce dure to be followed in situations such as those he re, i.e. , wher e no name was put forth on the primar y ballot and no write- in

-5-candidate was nominate d by primary voters. Para g raph 9 state s:
“I f the name of no established political party candidate was printed on the consolidated primary ballot for a particula r office and if no person was nominated as
a write-in candidate for such office
, a vaca ncy in nomination shall be cre ated which may be filled in acc ordanc e with the require ments of this Section. I f the name of no established political pa

rty candidate was printed on the g ener al primary ballot for a particula r office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidat e fo r s u ch office
, a vaca

ncy in nomination shall be filled only by a person desig nated by the appropr iate committee of the political party and only if that desig nated pe rson files nominating petitions with the number of signatures require d for an established party candidate for that office within 75 day s afte r the day of the g ener al primary

. The circ ulation period for those petitions beg ins on the d ay t h e appropr iate committee desig nates that p er s o n

. T he person shall file his or her nominating petitions, statements of candida cy , notice of appointment b y t h e appropriate committee, and receipt of filing his or her statement of economic interests toge ther. The elec t o ra l b o ar d s having jurisdiction under Section 10-9 to hear and pass upon objections t o nominating petitions also shall hear and pass upon objections to nomination petitions filed by candidates under this par agraph.” 10 I L CS 5/ 7-61 (West 2010). ¶ 20 We note that the curr ent para g raph 9 was amende d in 2009. The amendment, which we nt into eff ect on J anuar

y 1, 2010, added sp ec i fi c require ments for a vaca ncy in nomination when no e stablished political party candidate was pr inted on the g ener al primary ballot. 1 ¶ 21 I n such situations, para g raph 9 provides that the vaca ncy in nomination may be f i l l ed only when the following four conditions are met: (1) the person to fi l l t h e v aca ncy in nomination has been “designated by the appropr iat e co mmitt ee of the political party” in question, (2) the designated person obt ains nominating petitions with the number of signatures require d for an est ab l ished party candidate for that office
, with the circ ulation period to beg in “on the d ay t h e appropr iate committee desig nates that person,” (3) the desig nated person has filed, toge ther, the following require d documents, within 75 day s afte r the day of the g ener al primary : “his o r h er nominating petitions, statements of candida cy , notice of appointment by the appropriate committee, and rec eipt of filing his or her statement

A re view of the p r e a me n d ed versi on of par agraph 9 of sec ti on 7- 61 re inf orc es our 1 int erpre ta ti on. W e pr ovide i t a s a m ean s of compari son : “I f the name of no est a b l i s h e d p oli ti cal par ty can did at e was pri nte d on the

con sol ida te d pri m ary bal lot for a par ti cul ar off ic e and if no per son was nominat ed as a wri te

- in can did at e for suc h offi ce, a v aca ncy in nominat ion sha ll be c re at ed wh ic h m ay be fi ll ed in acc o r d a nce wit h the re qui re m ent s of thi s Sec ti on. I f the name of no est abl is hed pol it ic al par ty can did at e was pri nte d on the genera l pri m ary bal lot for a par ti cul ar off ic e and if no per son was nominat ed as a wri te

- in can did at e for suc h off ic e, a vacanc y in nominat ion sha ll be cr eat ed, butno c and ida te of th e pa rt y for t he o ff

ic e s hal l be li st ed on the bal lot at the genera l el ect ion unl ess suc h vacanc y is fi ll ed in acc ord anc e wit h the re qui re m ent s of thi s Sec ti on wit hin 60 days af te r the dat e of the genera l pri m ary.”10 I LCS 5/7

- 61 (W est 2008 ).

-6-of economic interests,” and (4) “[t] he elec toral boards having jurisdiction under Section 10-9

to hear and pass upon objections to nominating petitions also shall hear and pas s upon objections to nomination petitions filed by candidates under [paragraph 9].” 10 I L CS 5/7-61 (West 2010). We note that the require ment that the candidate who is filling a vaca ncy cre ated by rea son of a lack of candidate on the primary ballot must file nomination petitions with the number of signatures require d for an established party is inconsistent with the require ments set forth in para g raphs 3 throug h 8, which do not require that nomination petitions be filed. Finally
, para g raph 9 does not include the word “re solution”; thus it is rea sonable to conclude that para g raph 9 doe s not require the filingof a r esolution in the case a t bar. ¶ 22 The ame n d ed langua g e of para g raph 9 makes clear that the l eg islature int ended that in situations wher e there is no orig inal candidate on the ballot and no write-in, a candida te must

now show, basic level, “grassroots” s up p o rt by complying with the require ments in para g raph 9 that wer e not p re v iously included in para g raph 9 prior to the amendment. To hold otherwise would be clea rly ag ainst the leg islative intent in making this amendment and ag ainst this state’s position in favor of ballot acc ess for candidates running for public office

. See Hossfeld v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 398 I ll. App. 3d 737, 743 (2010). ¶ 23 Our conclusion that para g raph 3 does not apply to a vaca ncy cre ated by rea son of a lack of candidate on the primary ballot is further streng thened by the leg islative history of Public Act 86-809, which amende d para g raph 9. The statements from the House debate indicate that the leg islature intended to pr ovide spec ific re quirements exclusive to a candidate who fills

a v acancy when no one was nominated in the primary to serve as that party ’s can d i d at e nomination. 96th I ll. Gen. Assem., House Procee dings, April 2, 2009, at 7, 10 (statements of Represe ntatives For

tner and Gra

ham). These same comments further reve al that the leg islature viewe d the re quirements in par agraphs 3 throug h 8 to apply to those candidates who fill a vac ancy

when ther e wa s a ca

ndidate on the pr imary

ballot. Id. ¶ 24 Finally
, we note that the appellate court relied upon dicta contained in Forcade- Osborn

v. Madison County Electoral Board
, 334 I ll. App. 3d 756, 759 (2002). Howeve r, ForcadeOsborn was decided prior to t h e amendment of paragraph 9, and whatever persua siveness Forcade- Osborn ’s dicta might have once ha d is now ext inguishe d.

¶ 25 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 26 For the fore g oing rea sons, the judgme nts of the circ uit and appellate courts are reve rsed.

¶ 27 J udg ments reve rsed.

-7-