Opinion ID: 2130726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legislation Implicates Fundamental Right to Vote

Text: Tully claims that the Act implicates the fundamental right to vote. Specifically, he argues that the Act is an unconstitutional impairment of the rights of suffrage exercised by Tully and others in the 1990, 1992, and 1994 general elections, where the current members of the Board of Trustees were elected for staggered six-year terms to expire in 1997, 1999 and 2001, respectively. He argues that the Act implicates the right of suffrage because it nullifies the result of a valid election and effectively removes the trustees whom the citizens elected to serve. He argues that the people of the State, by their vote, determined who would serve as trustee for the succeeding six years and that the Act operates as a post-hoc negation of the right to vote. He claims that legislation that eliminates the right of the elected official to serve, while retaining the office to which the representatives have been elected, implicates the right to vote guaranteed in the Illinois Constitution. Tully claims that the Act injures his voting right by removing, without cause, the trustees as to whom his voting right was exercised. Tully further claims that, because the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right, the Act may be upheld only if it withstands a strict scrutiny analysis. We agree. Suffragethe expression by the people of their willis fundamental to a viable democratic form of government. Article III, section 1, of the 1970 Illinois Constitution reaffirms the principle that all qualified citizens have a constitutionally protected right to vote and to have their votes counted. Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill.2d 191, 195, 233 N.E.2d 345 (1968); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1377-78, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 523 (1964); Ill.Ann.Stat., 1970 Const. art. III, § 1, Constitutional Commentary, at 53 (Smith-Hurd 1993). This court has recognized that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right, essential to our system of government. Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill.2d 54, 74, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283 (1990). Our court has also recognized that `[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.' Anderson v. Schneider, 67 Ill.2d 165, 172, 8 Ill.Dec. 514, 365 N.E.2d 900 (1977), quoting Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct. 526, 535, 11 L.Ed.2d 481, 492 (1964). The appellants argue that the Act does not implicate the right to vote protected in our constitution. They argue, in essence, that the constitutional right to vote is implicated only when the General Assembly enacts legislation that directly interferes with a citizen's right to cast a vote or to have that vote counted. Although this court has never before considered the precise issue presented here, we find the appellants' narrow construction of the right to vote illogical and unpersuasive. It strains logic to suggest that the right to vote is implicated by legislation that prohibits a citizen from casting a vote or from having that vote counted, but is not implicated by legislation that, in effect, deprives that same vote of its natural and intended effect. The legislation challenged here basically eviscerates the election process by providing that, even though the trustees received the majority of votes cast and counted on election day, they are prohibited from holding office for the terms to which they were elected. Our cases support the view that legislation that affects any stage of the election process implicates the right to vote. Thus, this court has determined that the right to vote is implicated by legislation that restricts a candidate's effort to gain access to the ballot. Anderson v. Schneider, 67 Ill.2d 165, 172-73, 8 Ill.Dec. 514, 365 N.E.2d 900 (1977). It has also held that the right to vote is implicated by legislation that limits the people's right to nominate candidates ( People v. Fox, 294 Ill. 263, 128 N.E. 505 (1920)) and that prohibits the counting of legally cast ballots ( Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill.2d 191, 233 N.E.2d 345 (1968)). More recently, in Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill.2d 54, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283 (1990), this court held that the constitutional right to vote is implicated by legislation that gives some votes cast greater or lesser weight than others. The legislation challenged here does not simply give the votes cast by some citizens less effect than others. Rather, it establishes a mechanism for total disregard of all votes cast by citizens in a particular election. The vote cast by a citizen is not simply diluted, but is totally nullified by the legislative scheme. The Act does not simply impair the vote but, rather, obliterates its effect. The Act, in essence, voids the votes cast by citizens in a valid election and authorizes the Governor to select the candidates of his choice. The integrity of the vote is undermined and destroyed by the legislative scheme. It distorts reality to argue, as the appellants here do, that the right to vote is satisfied whenever a citizen is permitted to cast his vote and have that vote counted. The democratic form of government guaranteed by our constitution requires something more than an adherence to form. It is not merely the casting of the vote or its mechanical counting that is protected by our constitution. It is the effect given to the vote namely, the officethat is protected. We must vigilantly ensure that our constitution protects not just the right to cast a vote, but the right to have a vote fully serve its purpose. If the vote cast by all those who favor a particular candidate exceeds the number cast in favor of a rival, the result is constitutionally protected from nullification except by the voters themselves. When the people have chosen their representatives in a valid election, legislation that nullifies the people's choice by eliminating the right of the elected official to serve implicates the fundamental right to vote. The appellants nevertheless urge that the right to vote is not implicated by the Act. The appellants first argue that this court has repeatedly held that the legislature has authority to modify, change or even take away entirely the powers conferred on legislatively created offices. See, e.g., People ex rel. Malley v. Barrett, 203 Ill. 99, 67 N.E. 742 (1903). Our cases, however, specifically state that the legislature's authority to enact any statute, including statutes governing legislatively created offices, is subject to limitations imposed in the constitution. Barrett, 203 Ill. at 109, 67 N.E. 742; see People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. State Board of Elections, 136 Ill.2d 513, 525, 146 Ill.Dec. 126, 558 N.E.2d 89 (1990). One of the limits imposed in the constitution is, of course, the fundamental right to vote. The appellants also argue that the right to vote is not implicated by the Act because a vote cast for a trustee is not a vote cast for a State officer or a candidate in a representative government. Although we note that the appellants waived this argument by failing to raise it in the trial court, we will nevertheless consider it, and it is easily rejected. This court's decision in Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 142 Ill.2d 54, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283 (1990), disposes of the appellants' contention that the right to vote is not implicated in the election of officials below the grade of State officer. Fumarolo addressed the constitutionality of the Chicago School Reform Act. That statute created the office of local school board council and defined the manner in which council members were selected. Although the statute at issue in Fumarolo governed only the election of members to a legislatively created local office, the court nevertheless concluded that the statute implicated the fundamental right to vote and must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The court, quoting a United States Supreme Court opinion, noted that a citizen's `right to equal voting participation is impaired just as much when he votes for a school board member as when he votes for a state legislator. While there are differences in the powers of different officials, the crucial consideration is the right of each qualified voter to participate on an equal footing in the election process.' Fumarolo, 142 Ill.2d at 76, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283, quoting Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 55, 90 S.Ct. 791, 794, 25 L.Ed.2d 45, 50 (1970). The Fumarolo court determined that members of local school councils perform important governmental functions and that legislation that dilutes the votes cast in the election of such school councils implicates the right to vote. In reaching this conclusion, the Court stated that local school councils perform functions which are at the heart of a traditional and vital governmental function: the operation of public education. Fumarolo, 142 Ill.2d at 84, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283. Given this court's holding in Fumarolo, we must certainly reject the appellants' implication that the trustees, who manage and administer the University of Illinois, do not perform important governmental functions or serve in an important representative capacity. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois is empowered to make important budgetary, educational and administrative decisions regarding the largest university in this state. Their powers include, inter alia, the authority to fix the tuition rates, to appoint professors and instructors, to hire employees, to purchase, lease and acquire property by eminent domain, to construct buildings, to establish and provide for the management of educational departments within the University, and to appoint members of the University police department. 110 ILCS 305/7 (West 1994). The citizens of this state elected the trustees to represent their interests in connection with the governance of a university which educates a significant number of this state's youth. Like the local school council at issue in Fumarolo, the trustees perform functions which are at the heart of a traditional and vital governmental function: the operation of public education. Fumarolo, 142 Ill.2d at 84, 153 Ill.Dec. 177, 566 N.E.2d 1283. The trustees, whose election the State has opened to all qualified voters, are government officials in every relevant sense of that term. See Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50, 56, 90 S.Ct. 791, 795, 25 L.Ed.2d 45, 51 (1970). Accordingly, we reject the appellants' claim that the votes cast for trustees are not entitled to constitutional protection because the trustees do not serve an important representative capacity. We also reject their claim that the portion of the Act which removes them from office does not implicate the right to vote. The appellants finally assert that the protection afforded in our constitution to the right to vote does not guarantee voters that elected officials will serve their entire term. Tully concedes that the right to vote does not entitle the electorate, under all circumstances, to have elected officials remain in office. He notes that the elected trustees may resign, retire or die. He also concedes that the General Assembly may enact legislation that removes such officials under some circumstances, such as incompetence or illegality in office. He notes that such legislation, although impinging upon the fundamental right to vote, could withstand strict scrutiny if it served a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored to further that interest. He argues, however, that the Act challenged here impinges upon the fundamental right to vote by removing a validly elected official from office midterm. He further argues that absent allegations of incompetence or impropriety, the Act cannot withstand strict scrutiny. We agree.