No. 104105 IN THE SUPREME COURT O F ILLINO IS

______________________________________________________________________________ READONIA B RYANT

, ) Di rect A ppea l f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Co o k C o un t y, I llino is Ap pel l an t, ) ) vs. ) No. 07 COEL 00005 ) THE BOARD OF

ELECTION ) COMMI SSI ONE RS OF T HE C IT Y OF ) CHICAG O, et al., ) Hon. Alfred Paul ) Jud ge P re siding Ap pel l ees . )

_____________________________________________________________________ ____ O R D E R A pp el l an t, Re ad o nia Bry

an t, has appe aled di

rectl y to our court pursua

nt to Suprem

e Court Ru le 302 (a) (1) (13 4 Il

l .2d R. 3 02( a)( 1)) f

rom a judg ment o f the Ci

rcuit Court o f Cook County wh ic h aff irm ed, on admi

ni strative revi

ew, an orderof

th e B oard of

Elec ti on Com m i ss i on er s of

th e C i ty of Chi cago (the Election B oard) rejectin g hi s chal le ngeto nom

i na tion pape rs f i l ed by Vi rgi l Jon esf or el ec ti on to the of f i ceof al dm erm an f orthe 15 th Ward of t he Cit y of Chicag o in t he February 27, 2007,
mun ic ipa l el ec ti on. Th e A

ttorn ey Gene ral of the State of Il l i n oi s h as b een gr an ted l ea v e to inter vene as an ad dit ional ap pellant . B eca use t he elec t ion t o w hich this c hallenge p er t ains is imm inent , we allowed a mot ion by app ellant fo r e xped ited briefing an d de term i ne d, on ou r o wn mot ion, t hat t he
matter woul

d be sub m i tted and dec i ded wi

thout oral argum en t. The cou rt has n ow h ad th e op por tun i ty to read the

parties’ bri

ef s an d rev i ew the rec ordof t he proceedin gs below . B ase d o n t he rec ord, the appl i ca bl e s tatute s a

nd rul esof cou rt a n d th e a rgum en ts-2-

of the part ies, the c ourt ha s determ i ne d tha t thi s l i tig ati on i s prope

rl y di spose d of

through supe rvisory order rather than

a direct appeal to our cour t. For t he reasons that foll ow, we shal

l therefore dism

iss t he appeal . In the exercise of our supervi sory authority, the judgm ent of the ci

rcu it co ur t shall be vacated and the caus e shal

l b e rema nded t o t he ci

rcui t co ur t wit h instr uct ions t o e nt er judg ment vaca t ingt he E lect ion Bo ar d’s d ecisio n and dir ec t ing it t o : ( 1) de cla r e t ha t Mr . Jo ne s is ine ligible to run for the off

ic e of al derman pursuant t o sect ion 3.1-10-5( b) of the Ill in ois Muni cipal Code (6 5 ILCS 5/3.1-10

- 5(b)(West 20 04 ) ) , ( 2) r eje ct his n o minat io n p ap er s, an d ( 3) r emo ve his n ame fro m the ba l l ot for t he up co ming elect ion. The court’s judgm ent shal l f urther provide that if

removal of Mr. Jones’
na me f rom the ba l l ot ca nn ot be ac com pl i sh ed pri ort o ele ct io n d ay, t he E lec t io n B o ar d s ha ll di sreg ard
an y votes c ast f

or hi m i n de term i ni ng th e wi nn er of the e l ection. Backgr ound and Anal

ysis Vir gil E . Jo ne s is a form

er Chi cago alderm

an. In Jan uary of 1999, he wasconvi

cted in federal courtof vari

ous fel onie s ari si ng out o f m

is co nduc t in of

f i cean d s en ten ce d to 41 m

onth s i n pri son followed by 2 yea r s o f su pe rvise d r ele as e. Section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Municipal Code expressly provides th at a pers on wh o "h as b een con v i cte d i n an y cou rt l oca te d in t he Unit ed S t at es o f any in fam ous crim e, bri bery, perjury

or o ther fel

ony" is "not eli gible for an el ective m

unici pal off ic e." 65 ILCS 5/3.1- 10-5 (West 2004). This b ar is not necessari

ly perman ent. Under the El ection Code (10 ILCS 5/1-1, et seq. (Wes t 200 4) ), co nvicte d felo ns may r ec o ve rt he ir righ t t o run for off

ic e through "t he term s of a p ard on f orthe offense

or otherwise a

ccordi ng to law.” 1 0 ILC S 5/29 -15 (W est 200 4). Al though Jones has com

pl eted h i s se nten ce, therei s n

o di sputetha

t he has rec ei ve d n o pa rdon nor ot herwise had his r ight t o ho ld o ffi

ce r est or ed. Jo nes is t her efo re ineligibl e t o ho ld elect ive mun

ic ipa l off ic e i n thi s State.-3-

De sp i te hi s l ack of el

igi bi li ty, Jones f

il ed nominat ion p ape rs t o r un fo r t he off ic e of al derman f or the 15 th War d o f the City o f Chicago , a n "elec t ive municipal office" w ithin t he meaning o f the pr ohibit ion co nt ained in se ct ion 3 .1 -1 0- 5( b) o f the Muni ci pal Code (65 ILCS 5/3. 1-10-5 (b) (West 20 04)). As no t ed at t he o ut se t o f t his o r de r , Jo ne s’ no mina t io n p ap er s w er e d ul y challe nged b y Re ad o nia Bryant . B ryant ’s cha llenge, which wa s t imely and p ro ced ur ally pro per , w as a ssigned by the Elec ti on Boa rd to a he ari ng ex am i ne r wh o i ss ue d f i nd i ng s of f ac t an d c onc l us i ons of l aw . Ba se d on t he evi dence prese

nted, ar gument s o f co unse l and t he ap plicable law, t he heari ng exam in er concl uded that because

Jones was a conv

icted fel on whose right to hold m

unici pal off ic e had n ot been restor ed, he was i nel ig i bl e to h ol d e l ec ti ve m un i ci pal of f i ce , i nc l udi ng the of f i ceof al de rm an i n th e C i ty of Ch i cago. The h ea

ri n g e x am i n er th eref orere com men de d to th e E l ec ti on Boa rd th at th e ob j ec ti on s to Jones’ nomi

nation papers be sustained and that Jones’ na me n ot ap pe ar on th e b al l ot f or e l ec ti on

to the off ic e of al derman at the upcomi

ng m unici pal el ection to be hel

d February

27, 2007. T he E lec t io n B o ar d r eje ct ed t he he ar ing ex amine r ’s r ec o mmend at io n. Ba se d o n it s a na lysis of var iou s co ur t cas es, t he E lect ion Bo ar d co nclude d t hat sec t ion 3 .1 -1 0- 5( b) of the Muni ci pal Code (65 ILCS 5/3.1-1 0-5(b )(We st 2004 )) is "unconsti

tut iona l a nd une nf orceabl e as a vi

olation of equal prote cti on. " It th ere f ore ov err uled Bry an t’s obj ec ti on to Jones’ n

omi nation pa pers, concl

uded that those papers were val

id, an d ordered t hat Jones’ n

am e be p ri nte d on the ba l l ot asa c an

di da te f or al derman for Chi cago’s 15 th Wa

rd. As a creature of statute, t he Election Board possesses onl y those powers conf

erredup o n it by l aw . A n y pow er or a uth ori ty i t ex ercise s m us t f i n d i ts source withi

n the l aw pursuant to which

it
was created. Under section 10-10 of the El ection Code (10 ILCS 5/1 0-1 0 (W es t 200 4)) , an

el ec ti on-4-

boar d’s scope o f i

nquiry with respect t o o bj ections t o no minatio n pap er s is lim ited t o a sce rt aining whether th

ose pa pe rs com pl y wi th th e p rovi si ons of the Elec ti on Code governi

ng such papers. See Nader v. Illinois S

tate Board of Elections , 3 54 I ll.App. 3d 3 35, 340 (2 004 ). Administr at iveagenci es such asthe Elec ti on Board h av e no authori

ty to dec l area s tatute

un consti tutiona l or ev en to que sti on it s va l i di ty. Texaco-Cities Service P ipeline Co. v. McGaw , 182 Ill .2d 263, 278 (1998); see Wiseman
v. Elward , 5 Ill .App.3d 249, 257 (1972). In ruli ng as i t did, the Elec t io n B o ar d t he r efo r e c lea r ly
ex cee ded i

ts authority
. Any action or deci si on taken by an adm in is trat iv e agency in exces s of

or c on tra ry to i ts
au t ho r it y is voi

d. Alvarado v. Industrial Commission , 216 Ill .2d 547, 553-54 (2005); see Citizens to Elect Collins v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 36 6 I ll. Ap p.3 993 , 998 (2 006 ). Bec aus e t he
con sti tuti on al i ty of se ct ion 3 .1 -1 0- 5( b) of the Munici pal Code (65 ILCS 5 /3.1- 10-5(b)( West 2004) ) was the sol e basi

s f or t he Election Board’s determ in ation that Jones was el

igi ble to hold off

ic e as a Chi cago alderm

an n ot withs tandin g that he ha d n ev er be en pa r do ne d fo rhis felony co nvictio ns, a nd because t he Bo ar d’s r uling o n t he co nst itu t ionalit y of t he law is vo id and t her efo re a nullity, t he Elec ti on Bo ar d’s r eject ion o f Bryant ’s cha llenge t o J one s’ no mina t ion papers has no lawful basi s. Bryant pr om

ptl y f i l ed a c om pl ai n t i n th e C i rc ui t C o ur t o f Co ok Co unt y pur sua nt t o t he Administr at iveRevi

ew Law (735 IL CS 5/3 -101, et seq . ( We st 20 04 ) ) t o o bt ain judicial re view o f the Elec ti o n Boa rd ’s de cisi on . Th at c om pl ai n t di re ctl y ch al l en ge d th e E l ec ti on

Boa rd ’s au th ori ty to as se ss th e c on sti

tuti on al i ty of Sta te sta tutes . Be ca

us e the El ec ti on B oard ’s

de ci si on was prem

is ed
ex clu sive ly

on a l egal de term i na ti on it had no a ut hor ity t o mak e and dire ct ly cont ra vened pr ovisio ns of the M uni ci pal and Electi

on Code s wh

i ch the El ection Boar

d was requi re d to fo llo w, t he cir cu it courtshould have vacated the B o ar d’s d ecisio n and r emande d wit h instr uct ions fo r it t o r eso lve-5-

Bryant’s ch

al l en ge to J on es ’ c an

di dacy i n ac corda n ce wi th th e g ov er

n i n g s tatu to ry requirem

ents. Indeed, un

der e sta b l i sh ed pri n ci pl es of Il l i n oi s l aw , the c our

t ha d a duty to t ake such a ction. See People v. Thompson , 209 Il

l . 2d 19, 2 7 (200 4) (c ou rt s have an ind ep en de nt du t y t o va ca t e v o id ordersand may sua sp onte decl are an order void). Had the court done that here, it would h ave h ad
no need to address the m

erits of the El

ection Board’s constitutional anal ys is . Wi thout a ru l i ng on t he constitutional

ity of the statute, there would, i n turn, have been

no ba sis for seeki

ng di rect review by our court un

der R ul e 302 (a). Th e c i rcu i t cou rt’ s res ol ution o f t his c as e is fat ally

i n f i rm f or tw o ad di ti on al re as on s. Fi

rs t, where, as h

ere, a circui

t cour t can decide a ca se w itho ut re aching the constitutional ity of a statute, it is req uire d t o d o s o. Co nst itu t ional qu est ions s hou ld o nly be reache d asa last res ort. In re E.H., No. 100202, sl

i p op. at 4 (Dec. 21, 2006). So impo r t an t is t his p r inc iple t ha t be fo r e a cir cu it court takes t he ext ra or dinar y ste p o f declar ingle gis la tion uncons

titutional , our ru les no w r equ ire t hat t he cir cu it co ur t st at e in wr i ti n g th at t he f i nd i ng of un consti tutiona l i ty i s n ec es sa ry to the de ci si on or judg ment rendered a

n d that such deci si on or judgm ent cann ot rest upon an al

ternate gro und. 210 Ill .2dR. 18(c)(4). A circui t cour t judgm

ent whi ch f ai ls to adhere to this r equ irement may be
su mmar ily

vacated a nd r em anded. In re E.H., No. 100202, sli p op. at 4 (Dec. 21, 2006). T hi s i s such
a ca se. In a ffi

rming t he E lect or al Bo ar d’s d ecisio n, t he cir cu it co ur t pu r po r t ed t o co mply

wit h t he f or ma li tiesof Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 1 8, b ut did not prope

rl y i m pl em en t the su bstanti ve pri nc iple s unde rlying

t hat ru le. T he no n-c ons t itu t ional flaw in t he E lect ion Bo ar d’s d ecisio n, w hich wo uld have been dis positi ve of the l

itigation, went unm

entione d
. Se co nd , ev en if t he cir cu it cou rt had som e j usti f i ca ti on f or re ach i n g th e c on sti tuti on al i ty of
se cti on 3. 1- 10
- 5( b) o f t he Mu nic ipa l Co de , it ha d n o pr o pe rba sis for hol din g that the statut e vi

olates-6-

t he equ al pr ot ect ion g uar ant ees of t he Unit ed S t at es a nd I lli nois C ons t itu t ions. To t he co nt ra ry, t he cir cu it co ur t was able t o find t he law u nco nst itu t ional o nly by re ject ing t he appe l l atecou

rt' s dec i si on i n P eople v. Hofer , 363 Il l .Ap p.3d 71 9 (200 6). Thi s i

t was n ot perm i tted to do. Hofer

sp ec ifica lly considered

and speci fi cally rejec ted the iden

tical eq ual pr otecti on

ch al l en ge to se cti on 3 .1- 10- 5(b) of t he Mun i ci pal Code a t is sue i n th i s ca se. No other decision by the a ppel l ate court or this court conf l i cts wi th tha t prece den

t. Colesv. Ryan . 91 Il

l .Ap p. 3d 38 2 (198 0), an

ol de r de ci si

on f rom the Second Di stict, has b een ci ted as jus t ificat io n fo r t he c irc uit co ur t ’s r eje ct io n o f Hofer . T hat opi ni on, however, di

d n ot involve sec t ion 3 .1 -1 0- 5( b) o f the Ill in ois Mun ic ipa l Code (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10

- 5( b)( West 200 4) ), t he sta tute at issue in this ca se a nd up held by Ho fe r. M orev

er, i n m ark ed con trast to Hofer , t he Sta

te in Colessugge ste d n

o r at io na l b asi s on whi

ch the l aw chal le nged i n that case coul d be def

ended agains t an equal prot ection ch

alle nge . Coles wasthere f

ore cle ar ly dis t ing uis ha ble as t he co ur t in Hofer un an imo us ly re co gn ize d. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t ’s rulin g in Hofer th at Coleswa s n

ot dispo sitive of the consti

tut iona li ty of se ction 3.1-10-5(b) was co nt ro lli ng o n t he circ uit co ur t , jus t as a ny ot her aspect of an appe ll

ate court ’s rul

in g would be
. Al though Hofer

was dec ided bya pa nel of t he ap pellat e co ur t fro m the F ifth Dist rict , no t t he Fi rst Di stri ct, wherethe C i

rcui t Court o f Co o k C o un t y is lo ca t ed , t ha t is o f no co nse qu en ce . Ne ar ly t wo dec ade s ag o, we r eco gnized t hat it is "fund ament al in Illi nois t hat t he de cisions of an appe l l ate courtare bi

ndi ng on al l c ircui t cour ts regardless of

local e.” People v
. Harri s, 123 Ill .2d 113, 128 (1988 ). The not ion t hat circu it co ur t s ar e bo und only by the appella

te court deci si ons f

rom thei r own dis trictis a re lic of t he pre-1964 Ill in ois Constitution of 1870 an d has b een ex

pressl y di savowed by
our court . See People

v. Layhew , 139 IIl. 2d 476, 489 (1990). Until this court says otherwise, an-7-

appe l l ate cour t's decisi

on must th eref oreb e f oll owe d r eg ardl

es s of th e a pp el l ate court 's district. See People v. Harr is , 123 Il l . 2d at 12 9. In People ex rel . Birkett v. Bak

alis , 19 6 I l l .2d

51 0, 5 13 (2 00 1) , ou

r c our t ob se rved th at: “ [b ]e yon d ou

r lea v e to a pp ea l docket, supe

rvisory orders are disf

avored. As a gen

eral rul e, we wil l n ot is sue a sup erv i sory

order un l ess the n orma l appe l l ate proce ss w

i l l not af f ord adequat e r elie f an

d the dis pute inv olve s a m atter im port ant to t he adm

in is trat ion of jus tice [c itat ion] or interven

tion i s neces sary

to keep a

n i nf eri or t ribuna l from ac t ing beyond t he scope of i ts authority

[ci tation ].” In t his case , howe

ver, we b el

i ev e tha t such cons i derati

ons a re pre sen t. Al though the c i rcui t court actedwi thi n i ts j uri sdi cti on, the man ner i n w hic h t his case was h

andl ed presents i

mportant iss

ues re gar ding the

ad m i ni stra ti on of j ustice, a

nd d i rect an d i m medi ate action i s nece ssa

ry to in sure that t he Elec ti on

Boa rd ad h eres to th e l aw an d th at a n y ch al l en ge to i ts d ec i si on i n th e circuit cour t comports with controll

in g prin ci ple s of j udic ia

l rev ie w. Conclusion For t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t his app eal is dismissed . I n t he ex er cis e of our sup ervi sory authority , IT I S HE REB Y O RD ERE D that th i s c au se i s rem an de d to the c i

rcu i t cou rt w i th instr uct ions t o e nt er judg ment va cat ingthe Elec ti on B oard ’s

de ci si on and di recti ng i t to: (1) decl

are that Mr. Jones i s i

nel igi ble to r un f ort he o ffi ce o f alder man pur sua nt t o s ect ion 3 .1 -1 0- 5( b) o f the I llino is Muni

ci pal Code (65 ILCS 5/ 3. 1- 10- 5( b)( West 200 4) ), (2 ) r eject his nominat ion p ape rs, and ( 3) r emo ve his n ame from the bal lot for the upcomi

ng el ection. The court’s j udgme nt shal l f urther provide t ha t if re mo va l o f Mr
. Jo ne s’ na me f rom the ba l l ot ca nn ot be ac com pl i sh ed pri orto el ec ti on-8-

da y, the Election Board shal l b e required

to disreg ard a

n y v otes ca st f o r him in det er mini

ng t he wi nn er of the e l ection. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the circui t cour t shall e

nter its j udgme

nt as herei n di rected wit hin 24 ho ur s o f t his s up er viso ry o r de r , wh ich is to be f i l ed b y the C l erk of

the Su prem e Court imme di at ely. The ci

rcuit court’s judgm

ent shal l n ot be sub je c t t o st ay b y t he circ uit co ur t or t he appe l l ate court. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that after t he Election Bo ard co mpl ies with the circuit co urt ’s j udgm en t, ad m i n i strati v e rev i ew of i ts d ec i si on may b e ta ken to t he ci rcuit court as pro vi

ded by la w. IT IS FURT HE R OR DE RE D t hat t he manda t e o f this co ur t shall issue fo rt hwit h.

Order en tered b y the c ourt. Chi ef Justice Thom

as an d Justi ces F reem an a nd B urke, N.P.