Opinion ID: 2143146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Language of the Pardons

Text: The majority finds significance in the wording that the former Governors used in the orders pardoning Howard and Holland. These orders both used the phrase, Grant Pardon Based Upon Innocence With Order Permitting Expungement Under The Provisions Of 20 ILCS 2630/5. The majority follows its quote of this language with the non sequitur that the use of the word `permitting' implicitly acknowledges that a court has power under section 5(c) of the Act to grant or deny a petition. 233 Ill.2d at 222, 330 Ill.Dec. at 707-08, 909 N.E.2d at 729-30. It does no such thing. Yes, the orders use the word permitting, but the orders are permissive as to the petitioners, not the circuit court. Again, the former Governors did not require that either Holland or Howard go to court to have their records expunged; they gave them permission to do so, if they so choose. The only significance in the language of the pardon orders is that it shows that petitioners fulfilled one of the statutory requirements for expungement. One of the requirements is that the pardon must specifically authorize expungement. These pardons did so. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 146 (1993) (defining authorize as to endorse, empower, justify, or permit). The next statutory requirement was fulfilled when petitioners Howard and Holland established this fact in verified petitions in the circuit court. Consequently, they were permitted to have orders entered expunging their records, and the court erred in not doing so. There is no significance in the language of the Governors' orders beyond the fact that it shows the fulfillment of one of the statutory requirements for expungement.