## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Carlasare v. Will C

ount y Of fice rs Electoral Board

, 2012 IL App (3d) 120699

Appellate Court Caption MARI O P. CAR L ASARE, DONALD A. MORAN, REED BIBL E, CHES T E R J

. STRZEL CZY K I I I
, CHRI S MI CHAEL GRI FF I N, SANTI NO L ETTI ERI
, and J OH N J

. SANCHEZ
, J R., PetitionersAppellants, v. WI L L COUNTY OFF I CERS EL ECTORAL BO ARD, NANCY SCHUL TZ -VOO TS, Chairman, and In Her Capac ity as Wil l County Clerk, PAMELA McGUIRE, a M em b er , MARY TATROE, a Member, RON A. LUL L O, DOL ORES M. HORNB ECK, ROBI N AMBROSIA, PAUL M. ANDERSON, M. MI C HAEL REI L LY, and PEGGY S. MATHEWS, R espondents-A ppellees.

District & N o. Third District Docke t Nos. 3-12-0699, 3-12- 0700, 3-12-0701, 3- 12-0702, 3-12- 0703, 3-12-0704, 3- 12-0705 cons.

Filed September 19, 2012

Held (Note : This sy ll abus

co n st it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the R e

por te r 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

. ) The candidates selec ted by the Democr atic Party to fill vaca ncies left for

sever al districts of the county board in a particula r county following the primary elec tion wer e entitled to be on the ballot for the g ener al elec tion; there fore
, the decision of the elec toral board that the desig nation proce ss used by the party was improper was reve rsed, since the proce dures used did not violate sect i o n 7 -6 1 of the Election Code, which g overns such situations.Dec ision Under

Review Appea l from the Cir cu i t Court of Wil l County
, Nos. 12-MR-1589, 12- MR-1590, 12-MR-1591, 12-MR-1592, 12-MR-1593, 12-MR-1594, 12- MR-1595; the Hon. Ba

rbar a N. Petrung aro, Judge , presiding

.

J udg ment Reverse d and re manded; mandate issued immediately

.

Counsel on Appea l Scott Pyles, of Rathbun, Cservenyak & Kozol, L L C, and J oseph M. Cernug el, of Kroc key
, Cernug el, Cowg il l
, C l ark & Pyles, Ltd., both of J oliet, for appe llants.

J ames Glasg ow, State’s At t orney , of J oliet (Philip A. Mock, Assistant State’s Attorney
, of counsel), for appellee Wil l County Offic ers Electora l Boa rd.

Richard J

. Kava

nagh, of Kava

nagh Grumley & Gorbold, L L C, of J oliet, Edwar d E. Ronkowski, of Mokena, and J ohn Fog arty , J r., of L aw Offic e of John Foga

rty , J r., of Chica g o, for other appellee s.

Panel J USTI CE CARTER delivered the judg ment of the c ourt, with opinion.
J ustices Ly

tton and Wright conc urre d in the judgme nt and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Petitioners, Mario P. Carlasa re, Donald A. Moran, Reed Bible, Chester J

. Strz elczy k I I I
, Chris Michae l Griffin, Santino L ettieri, and J ohn J

. Sanchez, J r. (collec tively ref err ed to as the candidates), filed a petition for judicial revie w of a decision of the Wil l County Offic ers Electora l Boa

rd (the elec toral bo ar d ), wh i ch order ed the Wil l County cler k to reje ct the nomination paper s of t h e ca n d i dates for the November 2012 elec tion for the Wil l County board. After a hear ing, the trial court confirme d the elec toral board’ s ruling

. The candida tes appea l. We reverse the decisions of the elec toral board and the trial court, order that the candidates be place d on the ballot immediately
, and rema nd this case for further proce eding s.

¶ 2 FACTS ¶ 3 After the Marc h 2012 primary elec tion, the Democr atic Central Commi ttee (the c entra l

-2-committee) in Wil l County was left with sever al vaca ncies in nomination in various districts of the Will C ounty

board for the Novembe r 2012 ele ction. Pursuant to the Election Code, 1 since no can didate had been set forth on the ballot or nom inated as a write-in candida te i n the primary elec tion, a candida te had to be desig nated by a district committee for eac h county board district, which was to be comprised of only the prec inct committeemen for that district. See 10 I L C S 5 / 7 -7, 7-8.01, 7-61 (West 2010). The org anization convention of the centr al committee was sc heduled to re convene on May 9 (the May meeting ). At the May meeting
, ca n d idates were designated for eac h vaca nt slot in eac h of t he W ill County board d i s t ri ct s (the districts). Those candidates, the seve n petitioners in this appea l, obta ined the requisite signatures and filed the nece ssary nomination paper s to run as Democr atic candidates for the county board in e ach of

the var ious districts. ¶ 4 In J une, a ch al l en ge wa s fi l ed as to the nomination paper s of the candidates by the following objectors: Ron A. Lull o , Dolores M. Hornbe ck, Robin Ambrosia, Paul M. Ander son, M. Michae l Reilly
, and Peggy S

. M at hews (collec tively ref err ed to as the objectors)

. The objectors alleg ed that the nomination paper s wer e invalid, in part, because the desig nation proce ss was fata lly flawe d i n t hat a proper district committee was never formed to make the des i gnation beca use: (1) all of the prec inct committeemen for eac h district wer e not g iven rea sonable and timely notice that such action would be taken during
, o r i m m ed i at ely afte r, the May meeting ; and (2) Scott Pyles, the chair man of the centr al committee, participated in the desig nation proce ss a s the de facto chair man of eac h district committee, even though he was only a prec inct committeeman for one of the districts and

was not elig ible to participate on the district committee for any other district. The objection

was later expanded to include an alleg ation that the designation proce ss was improper in that the desig nations wer e made by subcommittees of the district committe es , which wer e

err oneously appointed by the centr al committee as a whole, rather t h an b y the district committees themselves. ¶ 5 A hearing was held over two day s in J une and J uly befor e the ele ct o ra l b o ar d

. T h e evidenc e prese nted at that hear ing rele vant to the issue raised on appea l can b e b ri ef l y summarized as follows. Scott Pyles testified that he was elec ted the chair man of the centr al committee at its org anization convention, which initially convene d on April 18 (t h e Ap ril

m eeting). Pyles spoke at the April meeting and informed the prec inct committeemen wh o

wer e prese nt that they neede d to desig nate candidates for the county board for the upcoming elec tion, that they would do so at the May meeting (the rec onvening of the centr al committee
org anization convention), and that it was important for them to be at that meeting

. Pyles did
not reme mb er wh o was prese nt at the April meeting when he made that announce ment or what he spe cifica lly

said and did not have a copy of t he minutes for that meetingwith him at the ele ctora l board hear ing. A notice of the May meeting was sent by e-ma il to all of the
prec inct committeemen (appr ox imately 100). The notice indicated that at the date, time, and location listed, the centr al committee would rec onvene its reor g anization convention. An email addre ss and phone number wer e provided in the case the rec ipients had any questions.

Unle ss oth erwis e no te d, a ll of th e da te s l is te d ar e f

rom the year 2 012. 1

-3-A notice wa s also posted on the Interne t.

¶ 6 At the M ay meeting , there wer e about 50 to 100 people present. During the discussion of new business, Pyles ag ain informed the prec inct committeemen of the need to de signate candidates for the county board spot s an d t o l d t h em that meeting s to do so would be held di rectly afte r the ong oing meeting

. Pyles asked for volunteers to serve on the district subcommittees. At the end of the centr al committee meeting or afte r the meeting was over, the district subcommittees met and desig nated their candida tes. Pyles, as chair

man, was a de facto member of eac h district subcommittee but did not participate in the selec tion proce ss. The desig nated candidates wer e provided with information packe ts reg arding the steps they neede d to take to obtain the nomination. During Pyles’s testimony
, the wr i t t en notice that

was e-ma iled to all of the committeemen and the minutes from the May meeting wer e offe red into ev i d en ce by the obj ector s. Pyles stated t hat he would stipulate to those documents. I n addition, the elec toral board had befor e it a list of the prec inct committeemen for eac h of the county board districts in question. ¶ 7 Ka re n Go n z al ez , t h e secr etar y of the centr al committee and one of the p re ci n ct committeemen, testified that she sent out the above notice reg arding the May meeting to all of the prec inct committeemen by e-ma il. A written notice with the same information was also
sent by United States mail. Gonzalez confirme d that Pyles had spoken about the matter at both the April and May meeting s. Gonzalez stated that she used a computer program which showed whethe r t h e e-ma il notices had been rec eived but did not have the results of that
program with her

. 2 ¶ 8 At least one prec inct committeeman was called to testify from eac h county board district wher e there was a vaca

ncy

. The testimony from tho s e wi t n es ses varie d. Some of the witnesses reme mbere d Pyles discussing the vaca ncies at the conventions; others did not

reme mber or did not think he had done so b u t ac kn owledg ed that they may have been disinterested or out of the room at the time. Some of the witness es t est ified that they had

rec eived a notice, either by e-ma il or by mail; others did not remember g etting a not ice. In addition, one witness testified that he did not g et a notice of the May meeting but also stated that he was in Florida for the winter months, including the dates o f the April and May meeting s. Another witness testified that he did not g et a notice of the May meeting but stated that he was informed about the need to desig nate candidates at a meeting he had attended in his local township. ¶ 9 At the conclusion of the hear ing, on J uly 24, the three -per s o n elec toral board issued a written decision. Wit h one member dissenting, the elec toral board found that the desig nation
proce ss was improper

and that the nomination paper s of the candidates should be re jected. The elec toral board held that notice was a mandatory require ment of the Election Code and that notice of the dis t ri ct co mmitt ee meeting s was defic ient in this case beca use a written notice, which would have specifie d that district committee or subcommittee meeting s wer e to be held at or immediately afte r the May meeting for the purpose of making desig nations,

Gonzale z was no t s ubpo ena ed t o t est if y or t o br ing doc um ent s. T he a tt orn eys dec ide d t o 2 cal l h er as a wi tne ss when the y lear nedth atshe was pr ese nt forth e e le ct ora l b oar d he ar ing.

-4-was never sent and beca use no evidenc e was prese nted as to whom oral notice was direc ted
to or as to who attended the May meeting based upon the g iving of oral notice. The elec toral board also held that the desig nation proce ss was improper beca use the district subc o mm it te es

wer e appointed by the centr al committee as a whole, rathe r t h an by the individual district committees. The elec toral board order ed the county cler k to reje ct the nomination paper s of the ca ndidates. ¶ 10 One member of the e lectora l board dissented a nd stated that she disag ree d with c erta in
aspec ts of the majority ’s interpre tation of the Election Code, that s h e would have found notice to be suff

icient, and that she would have de nied the cha lleng es to the nominations. ¶ 11 On J uly 25, t h e ca n d i d at es filed a petition for judicial revie w i n the trial court. After a hear ing, the trial court confirmed the d ec i s i o n o f t he electora l board. In its ruling
, the t rial

cour t ad d resse d only the issue of whether notice was sufficie nt under section 7-61 of the Election Code. Af

ter the tria l’s court’s r

uling, the c andidates a

ppeale d.

¶ 12 ANALYSI S ¶ 13 On appea l, the candida tes argue that the elec toral board err ed in finding that notice of the desig nation meeting was defic ient and in sustaining the challeng es on that basis. The candidates asser

t that in making its de cision, the elec toral board incorre ctly applied a strict mandatory notice requirement that was not contained in section 7-61 of t he Elec tion Code and require d that the prec inct committeemen be g iven an independe nt written notice that the desig nation proce ss wou ld take place at or immediately afte r the May meeting

. The candidates asser

t further that notice was provided in this case by e-ma il, by mail, and by oral

announce ment, and that it was suffici en t , as a matter of law, to comply with the Election Code’s require ments. The candidates ask, there fore
, that we reve rs e t h e elec toral board’ s decision and that we order that they be place d on the ballot for the November 2012 elec tion. ¶ 14 The objectors argue that the designation process i n the present case was fa t ally flawe d in sever al respe cts

. First, acc ording to the objectors, the district subcommittees wer e i m proper ly selec ted by the centr al committee as a whole, rathe r than by eac h d i s t ri ct committee. Second, notice o f t h e designation meeting was defic ient, which resulted in

sever al of the prec inct committeemen being wrong ly excluded from the desig nation proce ss. Third, chair

person Pyles was a prec inct committeeman of only one of the districts and could
not proper ly

serve as a member of the di strict subcommittees for the other dist ricts. Based

on any one of those imp ro prieties, the objectors ask that we confirm the elec toral board’ s ruling

. ¶ 15 J udicial revie w of an elec toral board’ s de c is ion is considere d to be administrative re view. Jack son v. Board of Election Commissioners
, 2012 I L 111928, ¶ 46. On appea l in such a

case , we revie w the decision of the elec toral board, not the deter mination of the trial court. Id. The standard of revie w that appl i es o n appea l is deter mined by whether the question
prese nted is one of fac t, a mix ed question of fac t and law, or a pure question of law. Id. ¶ 47. As to que stions of f

act, the e lectora l board’s f indings a re c onsidered to be prima facietrue and corr ect and will not be reve rsed on appea l unless they are ag ainst the manifest weight of the evidenc e. Cinkus v

. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board
, 228 I ll. 2d

-5-200, 210 (2008); Marconi v. Chicago Heights Pol ice Pension Board
, 225 I ll. 2d 497, 532

(2006) ( per curiam ); Cunningham v. Schaeflein
, 2012 I L App (1st) 120529, ¶ 19. Howeve r, mix ed questions of fac t and law are revie wed under the clea rly err oneous standard, and pure questions of l aw, s u ch as statutory interpre tation, are subject t o de novo revie w on appea l. Marconi
, 225 I ll. 2d at 532; Cunningham
, 20 1 2 I L App (1st) 120529, ¶ 19. In addition, as in the prese nt case , “[ w] h er e t h e h istorical fac ts are admitted or established, but there is a dispute as to whether the g overning leg al provisions wer e interpre t ed co rrectly by the administrative bod y , t h e ca s e prese nts a purely leg al question for which our revie w is de

novo .” Jack

son , 2012 I L 111928, ¶ 47. Reg ardle ss of which standard of revie w applies, the plaintiff in an administrative proce eding bear s the burden of proof and will be denied relief if he or she fails to sustain that burden. Marconi
, 225 I ll. 2d at 532-33; Hagen v. Stone
, 277 I ll. App. 3d 388, 390 (1995) (in a proce eding t o co n t es t n omination paper s, the burden of proof is on the objector)

. The appellate court may aff irm an elec toral board’ s decision on any basis that appea

rs in the rec ord, even if the elec toral board relied on another basis in making its decision. Cunningham , 2012 I LApp (1st) 120529, ¶ 34. ¶ 16 Be fo re we addre ss the merits of the issue raised on appea l, we must first addr es s t h e objector’ s contention that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proce ed. We alre ady ruled upon this issue in a motion to dismiss and will only briefly comment upon it here (minute order dated September 6, 2012, denying appellee s’ m otion to dismiss the appeal). The objectors asser

t that jurisdiction is lacking beca use proof of s ervic e of the petit ion for judicial revie w was not f

iled within f

ive day s, as the objectors alleg e is r equire d by section 10-10.1(a ) of the Election Code (10 I L CS 5/10-10.1(a) (West 2010)) and beca use a separ ate service of the petition for judicial revie w was not made upon the county cler k in her capa city as the re prese ntative for the elec toral boar d. We do not ag ree

. ¶ 17 Section 10-10.1(a ) of the Electora l Code states that a copy of the petition for j u d i cial

rev i ew must be serve d on the require d parties within five day s afte r the elec toral board’ s decision has be en ser

ved. See 10 I L CS 5/10-10.1(a ) (West 2010)

. In our opinion, althoug h the statute require s that proof of service be filed, it does not require that the filing take place within five day s. I n addition, we do not believe that it was nece ssary to make duplicate service of the pe tition for judicial reviewupon the county cler k to c omply with the statute. See Langenstein v. Kassimali
, 2012 I L App (5th) 120343, ¶ 7 (ca ndidates wer e not require d
to serve county cler

k twice with petition for judicial revie w to comply with section 10-10.1 of the Elec toral Code). Thus, w e re ject the objec tors’ cla im of lack of jur isdiction. ¶ 18 Turning to the merits of this issue, we are called upon to interpre t various provisions of the Election Code to deter mine what is require d in the desig nation proce ss under section 7- 61. In making that deter

mination, we are mindful of the principles of statutory construction. The fundame ntal rule of statutory construction is to asce rtain and g ive eff ect to the intent of the leg islature. Jack

son , 2012 I L111928, ¶ 48. The most re liable indicator of that intent is the languag e of the statute itself. Id. The words and phrase s of a statute sh o u l d n o t be construed in isolation and must be interpre ted in light of the other rele vant provisions of the
statute. Town & Country U tilit ies, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board
, 225 I ll. 2d 103, 117 (2007). That approa ch exemplifies attention to the text

. See Town & Country Utiliti es, Inc.
, 225 I ll. 2d at 117. I f the statutory languag e is clea r and unambiguous, it must be applied

-6-as written, without resor ting to further aids of statutory construction. Jack son , 2 0 1 2 I L 111928, ¶ 48. A court may not depar t from the plain languag e of the statute and rea d into it exceptions, l i m i t at i ons, or conditions that are not consistent with the express leg islative intent. Town & Country Utiliti es, Inc.
, 225 I ll. 2d at 117. I f t here i s a co n fl i ct betwee n the spirt of a statute and the literal languag e, the spirt of the s tatute controls. Gill v. Mill er , 94 I ll. 2d 52, 56 (1983); Inskip v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
, 26 I ll. 2d 501, 510 (1962); Sullivan v. Peop l e , 156 I ll. 94, 98 (1895); see also Church of the Holy Trini ty

v. United Sta t es , 143 U.S. 457, 460 (1892). In addition, a statute should be liberally construed so a s to effe ctuate its purpose . 5 I L CS 70/ 1.01 (West 2010). ¶ 19 The primary purpose of all elec tion laws i s to ensure a fair and honest elec tion. Pullen

v. Mulli g an , 138 I ll. 2d 21, 66 (1990). The policy of this state is to provide candidates for public office with acc ess to the ballots and, thus, to allow the citizens a vote. See WisnaskyBettorfv. Pierce
, 2012 I L 111253, ¶ 22; Hossfeld v. Illinois State Board of Elections
, 398 I ll. App. 3d 737, 743 (2010). The main statute at issue in the prese nt case is section 7-61 of the Election Code, which pr ovides, in pertinent par t: “I f the name of no established political party candidate was printed o n t he consolidated primary ballot for a pa rticular of fice and if no pe rson was nominated as a write-in candida

te 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 o f no established political party candidate wa s p ri n t ed on the g ener al primary ballot for a particula r office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidate for such office
, a vacanc y in nomination shall be fill ed only by a person d es i gn at ed by the appropriate committee of the political party and only if that desig nated person files nominating petitions with the number of signa tures require d for an established p ar ty 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 day the appropr iate committee desig nates that person. The
person shall fi l e h i s or her nominating petitions, statements of candida cy , notice of appointment by

the appr opriate c ommitt ee, a nd rec eipt of filinghis or her statement of economic interests toge ther. These d o cuments shall be filed at the same location as provided in Section 7-12. The elec toral boards having jurisdiction under Section 10-9 to hear and pass upon o b

j ec t i o ns to nominating petitions also shall hear and pass upon objections to nomination petiti ons filed by candidates under this par agraph.
* * *
In the proce eding s to nominate a candidate to fill a vaca ncy or to fill a vaca

ncy in the nomination, eac h prec inct, township, war d, county or congressional district, as the case may be, shall throug h its repr esentative on such centr al or managin g co mmitt ee, be entitled to one vote for eac h ballot voted in such prec inct, townsh i p , wa rd
, co unty or congressional district, as t h e ca s e may be, by the primary elec tors of its party at the prim a r y elec tion immediately prec eding the meeting at which such vaca ncy is to be filled.
For purposes of this Section, the words ‘ce rtify ’ and ‘ce rtification’ shall ref er to the
act of officia lly decla

ring the names of candidates entitled to be printed upon the officia l ballot at an elec tion and direc ting elec tion authorities to place the names of such

-7-candidates upon the officia l ballot. ‘Certify ing office rs or board’ shall ref er to the local elec tion officia l, elec tion authority or t he State B oard of Elections, as the c ase ma y be, with whom nomination paper s, including cer tificate s o f nomination and resolutions to fill vaca ncies in nomination, are filed and whose du t y it is to ‘ce rtify ’ candidates.” 10 I L CS 5/ 7-61 (West 2010). ¶ 20 In interpre ting t h e s t at u t e, t h e first question we must deter mine is whether the district subcommittees wer e proper ly selec ted. The elec toral board found that the selec tion of the subcommittee members was improper becau s e i t was made by the centr al committee as a whole rathe r than by only the members of ea ch district committee. The re is no dispute that the “appr opriate committee” to make the desig nation in this case , as ref ere nced in section 7- 61, was a district committee comprised of prec inct committeemen only from that particula r district, and that ea ch dis trict committee could properly deleg ate the ta sk of designation to

a district s ubcommittee. See 10 I L CS 5/7-7 (West 2010) (“[f]or the purpose of making nominations in cer

tain instances as provided in this Article and this Act
, the following committees are authorized and shall constitute the centr al or manag ing committees of eac h political party , viz: *** a county board district committe e for eac h county board district

cre ated under Divi sion 2-3 o f the C ounties Code”); 10 I L CS 5/7-8.01 (West 2010) (“[t ]he county board district committee of eac h political party in eac h county board district *** shall consist of the prec inct committeemen of the prec incts included in the county board district”); 10 I L CS 5/7-8(i) (West 2010); Allen v. Electoral Board
, 147 I ll. App. 3d 782, 785 (1986) (sec tion 7-8(i) of the Election Code allowed centr al committee of political party to deleg ate the task of f

illing a va canc y

in nomination to i ts ex ecutive c ommitt ee)

. ¶ 21 T h e el ec t o ra l b o ar d found that the district subcommittees must be n o m i n at ed o r appointed by the district committees and not the centr al co m m i t tee itself. None of the statutory sections ref

ere nced above set forth a specific proce dure for making a section 7-61 desig nation. We cannot rea d such a limit ation into the statute. See Town & Country Utiliti es, Inc.
, 225 I ll. 2d at 117. The E l ec t o ra l Code mere ly specifie s that the desig nation must be made by a committee composed of prec inct committeemen for that particula r district only

. See 10 I L CS 5/7-7, 7-8.01 (West 2010). In this case , it is undisputed that t he district subcommittees wer e comprised of volunteers from the appropr iate districts. We find nothing improper about the proce dure that was followed in the prese nt case or the manner in which the district subcommittees wer e selec ted. We express n o v i ew rega rding whether another
proce ss would also comply with the statute. ¶ 22 The next question we must dete rm i n e i s wh et h er the notice that was provided in the
prese nt case of the desig nation meeting was defic ient. Ag ain, the statute is devoid of expli cit direc tion reg arding proper notice. The elec toral board found th a t n o ti c e w a s d e ficient beca use the evidenc e prese nted at the hear ing did not establish that notice had been g iven to all of the
prec inct committeemen of the various county board districts and beca use the notice that was g iven di d not specify that a meeting of the di strict committees would be held at t he end of the May meeting for the purpose of desig nating candidates to fill the vaca ncies. Section 7-61, howeve r, m akes no mention of not ice for t he design at i o n p ro cess and does not establish a specific notice proce dure or a penalty for failing to provide notice. See 10 I L CS 5/7-61 (West 2010).

-8-¶ 23 In addre ssing a simil ar issue in Graham v. State Officers Electoral Board
, 269 I ll. App.

3d 609 (1995), the F ourth District Appellate Court f ound that notice wa s fundamenta l to a fair e lection proc ess, that it was a ma ndatory require ment, and that it had to be g iven to all of the persons entitled to vote on the m at t er , even if a particula r person’ s vote would not chang e the result. See Graham
, 269 I ll. App. 3d at 612-13. The elec toral board and the trial court in the pre sent ca se re lied on Graham in finding that the instant notice was de ficient. ¶ 24 P ro v i d i n g s o m e t y p e o f n o t i ce is fundame ntal to a fair elec tion proce ss and is a mandatory require ment in making a section 7-61 desig nation. See Graham
, 269 I ll. App. 3d
at 612-13. Howeve r, we cannot dictate specific notice require ments that apply under section 7-61, since the leg islature did not write any specific notice require ments into the statute. See Town & Country U

tilit ies, Inc.
, 225 I ll. 2d at 117. Wit hout a n expli cit proce ss f

or the form of n o t i ce , pursuant to our i nterpre tation of t he st atute and contra ry to the electoral board’s

co nclusion, we believe that the written notice that was g iven in this case was sufficie nt t o comply with the i mplied notice re quirement of se ction 7-61. Since the Ma y meetingwas a

cen t ra l co m m ittee convention at which the party had the power to selec t a committee to desig nate candidates, a separ ate notice indicating that designations would be made was not require d. See 10 I L CS 5/7-9(d) (West 2010) (“[e]ach convention may perf orm all other functions inhere nt to such political org anization and not inconsistent with t h i s Article” ); Peopl e ex rel. Kell v. Kramer
, 328 I ll. 512, 517 (1928) (political org anizations have the inhere nt power to conduct ge nera l elec tions, to manag e campaigns, and to discharg e other functions). In the absenc e of statutory clar ity or prior decisions construing the form of notice require d, the resolution of this question must be made by considering the evidenc e prese nted in light of the statutory purpos e. At the hearing befor e the elec toral board, the parties stipulated to the written notice that was g iven. The testimony was that the written notice had been sent by e-ma il and by United States mail to all the prec inct committeemen and had been posted on the Interne t. T he ele ctora l board found that the written notice in que stion ha d, in fac t, been sent. Any deter

mination beyond that point by the elec toral board as to whether the written notice was actua lly rec eived by the committeemen was err oneous and unnece ssary

. ¶ 25 Howeve r, even if we wer e to find that the written notice, by itself, was lacking
, we would still conclude that under the totality of the circ umstances prese nt in the instant case , sufficie nt notice was provided of the designation meeting . Along with the writt en noti ce, oral not ice of the upcoming desig nations was g iven at both the April and May meeting s. The burden to show that cer

tain prec inct committeemen we re not pre sent when or al notice was g iven fell
upon the obj ector s, not the candidates. See Marconi , 225 I ll. 2d at 532-33; Hagen , 277 I ll. App. 3d at 390. Thus, we believe that all of the notice provided in the instant case was sufficie nt to comply

with section 7-61 of the Election Code. ¶ 26 Having deter

mined that the selec tion of the district subcommitt ees was proper and that the notice that was g iven was sufficie nt under the Election Code, the final question we must addre ss i s wh ether chair

man Pyles’s participation on eac h district subcommittee as the de facto chair

man was improper and rende red the desig nation invalid. As a g ener al rule, political parties are fre e to conduct business at their meeting s in a manner that is consistent with that party ’s own internal rules and proce dures. See People ex rel. Kell
, 328 I ll. at 518- 19. The De mocra

tic party ’s policy in this par ticular c ircumstance was that the c hairman of

-9-the centr al committee would serve as the de facto chair man of the reg ional subcommittees. Thus, it wa s not imprope r for Pyles to se rve in that capa city in the instant c ase. See People ex rel. Kell
, 328 I ll. at 518-19. Fur thermore
, the electoral board m ade a specific findingof fac t that Pyles did not actively participate in the desig nation proce ss, a finding which is not challeng ed by either party in this appea l. Thus, we conclude that Pyles’s participation was not improper. ¶ 27 For the fore g oing rea sons, we reve rse the decisions of elec toral board and the trial court. We order that the candidates be immediately place d on the ballot f or the 2012 Wil l County board elec tion. We rema

nd this case for further proce eding s consistent with this order

. The mandate in this ca se is to issue immediately . I ll. S. C t. R. 368(a) (e ff. July 1, 2006).

¶ 28 Reverse d and re manded; mandate issued immediately

.

-10-