Opinion ID: 2087167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Williams' Mootness Argument

Text: Williams next argues that the issue of who won the primary is moot. We disagree, as did the trial and appellate courts. An issue is moot if no actual controversy exists or where events occur which make it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief. [Citations.] ( Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 (1984), 99 Ill.2d 481, 484-85, 77 Ill.Dec. 115, 459 N.E.2d 1364.) Due to the unique facts of this case, we find the issue is not moot for the following reasons: (1) the trial court, under time constraints, and after finding prior to the general election a reasonable likelihood that McDunn would prevail on her claim, ordered the election results suppressed; (2) the only candidate to run for Kiley's position in the general election, a seat that Williams was then occupying, was the Democratic nominee; and (3) the delay in resolving the election contest was apparently not due to any bad faith by any of the parties. We thus find that the trial court's order preserved the status quo, and effectual relief can be granted in this case. Williams argues that the case is moot because at the time of the 1990 general election, he was the declared winner of the 1990 primary, his name was on the 1990 general election ballot, the election proceeded, votes were cast in his favor, nobody else ran in the 1990 general election for Kiley's vacancy, and he took the oath of office. Williams relies on two appellate decisions to support his claim. Williams' first case, Harris v. Education Officers Electoral Board of Community Consolidated School District 110 (1990), 203 Ill. App.3d 917, 148 Ill.Dec. 898, 561 N.E.2d 204, involved a plaintiff who sought review of an administrative decision allowing a candidate's name to be placed on the ballot for election to the school board. The trial court confirmed the administrative board's finding allowing the candidate on the ballot, and the plaintiff sought review in the appellate court. At the time the appeal was heard, however, nearly eight months had passed since the election and the candidate had been elected and taken office. The appellate court found that under those facts, any decision on the merits would render wholly ineffective relief to the prevailing party. Thus, the appellate court found the issue moot. Harris, 203 Ill. App.3d at 920, 148 Ill.Dec. 898, 561 N.E.2d 204. Williams also relies on Bartos v. Chicago Board of Elections (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 937, 139 Ill.Dec. 46, 548 N.E.2d 431, where the plaintiff sought review of the board of election commissioners' decision denying his request to be a write-in candidate for the office of mayor of Chicago. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's attempt at review, and the appellate court found the issue moot, as both the mayoral primary and general election had taken place, and [t]he winner of the election was proclaimed, installed as mayor, and has served is mayor since his installation. Bartos, 191 Ill.App.3d at 938, 139 Ill.Dec. 46, 548 N.E.2d 431. The instant case, however, is factually distinguishable from both Harris and Bartos. Here, unlike in Harris and Bartos, the trial court found prior to the general election that McDunn had established the reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of her contest. After finding this, the trial court granted, over McDunn's objection, Williams' motion for a continuance until after the election. Then, again over McDunn's objection, the trial court ordered that the election proceed, but ordered the results of the election suppressed until further order of court. The trial court later explained its actions in its March 23, 1992, order: [F]irst, the court found that striking Williams' name from each ballot in the city at that late date would be impossible and would lead to confusion which might jeopardize other candidates. Second, if Williams ultimately prevailed in court, the results could be released instead of holding a separate election.    Allowing the election to proceed while suppressing the results was not intended to settle the issue by rendering it moot, but intended instead to facilitate the continuance of the lawsuit without jeopardy to candidates for other offices and to possibly avoid the expense of another election if Williams prevailed in the suit. In accordance with the trial court's order, the November 13, 1990, Chicago Board of Elections Statement of the Results of the Canvass of the Election Returns listed no vote count and no winner for Judge Kiley's circuit court vacancy. Instead, the election return specifically stated: PROCLAMATION WITHHELD DUE TO COURT ORDER. The presiding judge of the county division of the circuit court of Cook County, in his order accompanying the Chicago board of elections returns, specifically excluded the vote totals for Kiley's vacancy. Moreover, while the State proclamation issued by the Governor regarding the November 1990 general election included Williams' name, it explicitly stated that Williams' election was subject to litigation. It was thus clear that the election process to fill Kiley's vacancy was suspended while the election contest proceeded. The instant case is further distinguishable in that no other party ran a candidate against the Democratic nominee for Kiley's position. Additionally, Williams was already occupying Kiley's vacancy during the election contest. Thus, no innocent third party's rights were affected by continuing the election contest, as there likely was in Harris and Bartos. Williams, however, argues that the only relevant fact concerning mootness is that the People voted. Thus, the court's order suppressing the election results had no effect, Williams suggests, because the trial court's order itself provided that the election proceed. Williams believes the citizens' right of suffrage outweighs any right McDunn may have had in bringing her election contest. Williams cites no direct authority for this argument, but believes its validity can be seen in the context of the citizens' right of suffrage and the structure of the Election Code, which compel the conclusion that primary election contests must be decided prior to the general election. Williams first argues that the Election Code was created in furtherance of the citizens' constitutional right of suffrage, a right of paramount importance and fundamental to our form of government. This importance was recognized by this court in People ex rel. Burris v. Ryan (1992), 147 Ill.2d 270, 167 Ill.Dec. 903, 588 N.E.2d 1033, Williams argues, where this court stated: The most important consideration, and the underlying thrust of this opinion, is the interest of the voters of this State. The interest of the voters mandates holding elections on time. Burris, 147 Ill.2d at 294, 167 Ill.Dec. 903, 588 N.E.2d 1033. Williams further notes that this court in Burris imposed special conditions on the election, thus suspending certain sections of the Election Code so that the election would be held on time to guarantee the citizens' right of suffrage. Williams then notes that this court held in Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education (1990), 142 Ill.2d 54, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283, that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right and the cornerstone of our democracy. Williams argues that these two cases reveal that the right to vote supersedes any State law which seeks to inhibit its exercise. Williams further argues that the Election Code, being nothing more that the legislature's attempt at protecting suffrage rights, must be viewed as subservient to the electors' constitutional right of suffrage. The two decisions Williams relies on did not involve election contests. Burris involved legislative redistricting, and Fumarolo involved an instance where a statute gave voters with children in school greater voting power in local school elections than voters without children in school. Nothing in these two cases prohibits an election from being declared void post facto and rescheduled for having the wrong candidate on the ballot. Moreover, while the Election Code is the legislature's attempt at protecting the public's suffrage rights, that right is protected by election contests that seek to determine the correct vote of the People and place the person chosen by the voters at the primary election on the general election ballot. Williams next examines the Election Code and argues the key event in the Code is the general election and that the primary election is insignificant when compared to the general election. Williams concludes that primary election contests must be accelerated and limited in nature. See Young v. Washington (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 1094, 83 Ill.Dec. 259, 470 N.E.2d 14. The facts here permit a different result than Williams urges. The Election Code limits the time in which a primary contest must be filed, but does not limit the time in which the contest must be completed. (Ill. Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 46, par. 763.) The question thus becomes, Has the general election made it impossible for a court to grant effectual relief? As we have just noted, effectual relief may be granted under these facts. We further note that this court has held a court may hear an election contest even after a candidate been declared the winner, takes an oath and assumes office. ( People ex rel. Cummings v. Head (1861), 25 Ill. 325.) Williams acknowledges the holding in Cummings, but argues that Cummings involved a general election contest, and not a primary election contest as here. However, while the instant case involves a primary contest, it also involves a general election where no third party's rights would be affected by the primary election contest, and where the delay in determining the contest was not due to any bad faith by any of the parties. This case must be decided on its own facts. We conclude that the trial court's order effectively preserved the status quo in this case, and the issue is not moot. Effective relief can be granted in this case under section 2A1(e) of the Election Code (Ill. Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 46, par. 2A1(e)).