Opinion ID: 2231863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Eligibility for Office: Arrearage of Debt Owed to Municipality

Text: We are left with the sole question that was presented to the appellate court: the correct interpretation of section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5 (b) (West 2004)). As he argued before the Board, Cinkus contends that section 3.1-10-5(b) applies to ineligibility to hold elective office, not ineligibility to run for elected office. Therefore, according to Cinkus, the arrearage did not render him ineligible to be a candidate for office and section 3.1-10-5(b) was not a basis to strike his nomination papers and exclude his name from the ballot. Cinkus argues that he was eligible to be a candidate on the ballot as long as he paid the arrearage prior to taking office. In support of the Board's decision, Esposito argues that section 3.1-10-5(b) applies to ineligibility to run for office. According to Esposito, the Board correctly decided that Cinkus was not eligible to be a candidate for the office of Stickney village trustee due to his being in arrears of a debt owed to the village at the time Cinkus filed his nomination papers. Section 3.1-10-5 of the Municipal Code, captioned Qualifications; elective office, provides as follows: (a) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election. (b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony. (c) A person is not eligible for the office of alderman of a ward unless that person has resided in the ward that the person seeks to represent, and a person is not eligible for the office of trustee of a district unless that person has resided in the municipality, at least one year next preceding the election or appointment, except as provided in subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-1. 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5 (West 2006). Article 3.1 was added to the Illinois Municipal Code by Public Act 87-1119, which collected and recodified several predecessor provisions. Pub. Act 87-1119, eff. May 13, 1993 (adding 65 ILCS 5/3.1-5-5 et seq. (West 2006)). Compare 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5 (West 2006) with 65 ILCS 5/3-4-15, 3-14-1, 5-2-10 (West 1992). The controlling principles are familiar. The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. The best evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The statute should be evaluated as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with every other section. Paris v. Feder, 179 Ill.2d 173, 177, 227 Ill.Dec. 800, 688 N.E.2d 137 (1997); Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill.2d 76, 91, 180 Ill.Dec. 34, 606 N.E.2d 1111 (1992). When the statutory language is clear, no resort is necessary to other tools of construction. Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill.2d 386, 392, 217 Ill.Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996); Envirite Corp. v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 158 Ill.2d 210, 216-17, 198 Ill.Dec. 424, 632 N.E.2d 1035 (1994). Where the meaning of a statute is ambiguous, courts may look beyond the statutory language and consider the purpose of the law, the evils it was intended to remedy, and the legislative history of the statute. Stroger v. Regional Transportation Authority, 201 Ill.2d 508, 524, 268 Ill.Dec. 417, 778 N.E.2d 683 (2002); see Advincula v. United Blood Services, 176 Ill.2d 1, 16-19, 223 Ill.Dec. 1, 678 N.E.2d 1009 (1996). The parties disagree on what the legislature meant when it used the word eligible in section 3.1-10-5(b). Cinkus and Esposito each cite the section's plain language in support of their respective positions. Cinkus argues that the section says nothing about eligibility to run for office, or that an individual may not file nominating papers to appear on the ballot. Thus, the plain language which the legislature has used concerns only the holding of office, not the running for office. (Emphasis in original.) In support of the Board's decision, Esposito cites to a dictionary definition of eligible as fit to be chosen. He posits that a candidate may be chosen for an elective office through the filing of nomination papers, running for office, and being chosen by the voters. Esposito reasons: Accordingly, when the express provisions of § 3.1-10-5 speak of a person's eligibility for an elective office, the language clearly compels a connotation to disqualify those who are unqualified to run for office; a candidate unfit to be chosen by the electors. As Cinkus failed to satisfy the arrearage by the time he filed his nomination papers, Esposito concludes that the Board correctly ruled that Cinkus was ineligible to run for office pursuant to section 3.1-10-5(b). If we were to construe the word eligible in isolation, we obviously would be forced to conclude that the word is ambiguous in that it relates to being elected to office as well as being capable of holding office. A standard dictionary defines the word eligible as both fitted or qualified to be chosen, as in candidacy, and as entitled to something, as in holding office. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 736 (1993). Another dictionary sets forth both meanings more simply: Fit and proper to be selected   ; legally qualified for an office. Black's Law Dictionary 559 (8th ed.2004); accord Black's Law Dictionary 612 (4th rev. ed.1968) (defining eligible as being fit to be chosen, or capable of being chosen; and as being legally qualified to serve, or capable of serving and holding office). In the event of this conclusion, Cinkus and Esposito suggest that we construe section 3.1-10-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code in pari materia with section 10-5 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2006)). The suggestion is well taken. Section 3.1-10-10 of the Illinois Municipal Code expressly provides: The general election law applies to the scheduling, manner of conducting, voting at, and contesting of municipal elections. (Emphasis added.) 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-10 (West 2006). A court presumes that the legislature intended that two or more statutes which relate to the same subject are to be operative and harmonious. A court must compare statutes relating to the same subject and construe them with reference to each other, so as to give effect to all of the provisions of each if possible. Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms, 202 Ill.2d 450, 458-59, 269 Ill.Dec. 464, 781 N.E.2d 261 (2002); Land v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 202 Ill.2d 414, 422, 269 Ill.Dec. 452, 781 N.E.2d 249 (2002); Ashton v. County of Cook, 384 Ill. 287, 298, 51 N.E.2d 161 (1943). This court has held that provisions of the Election Code and of the Illinois Municipal Code may be considered in pari materia for purposes of statutory construction. United Citizens of Chicago & Illinois v. Coalition to Let the People Decide in 1989, 125 Ill.2d 332, 338-39, 126 Ill.Dec. 175, 531 N.E.2d 802 (1988). Section 10-5 of the Election Code prescribes the content of a candidate's nomination papers. Among the various requirements, nomination papers must include a statement of candidacy   . Each such statement shall set out the address of such candidate, the office for which he is a candidate, shall state that the candidate is qualified for the office specified and has filed (or will file before the close of the petition filing period) a statement of economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, shall request that the candidate's name be placed upon the official ballot and shall be subscribed and sworn to by such candidate    and may be in substantially the following form:    I,. . . ., being first duly sworn, say that I reside at. . . . street, in the city (or village) of. . . ., in the county of. . . ., State of Illinois; and that I am a qualified voter therein; that I am a candidate for election to the office of. . . . to be voted upon at the election to be held on the. . . . day of. . . . ,....; and that I am legally qualified to hold such office   . (Emphases added.) 10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2006). This statement of candidacy and accompanying oath are mandatory requirements. See Serwinski v. Board of Election Commissioners, 156 Ill.App.3d 257, 259-61, 108 Ill.Dec. 813, 509 N.E.2d 509. The plain language of section 10-5 of the Election Code supports Esposito's position that section 3.1-10-5(b) refers to ineligibility to run for office. The statement of candidacy and accompanying oath are phrased in the present tense. Thus, when a candidate submits his or her nomination papers to run for office, the candidate swears that he or she is  not will be  qualified for the office sought. In other words, the candidate is eligible to run for office and not merely to hold office. Accordingly, reading these two statutes together, the disqualifications provided by section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Illinois Municipal Code render a candidate ineligible to run for office if not remedied by the time the candidate files his or her nomination papers. See Schumann v. Fleming, 261 Ill. App.3d 1062, 1066, 199 Ill.Dec. 497, 634 N.E.2d 336 (1994). We note Cinkus' argument that section 10-5 of the Election Code actually supports his position that section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Illinois Municipal Code refers only to ineligibility to hold office. Cinkus points to that portion of the candidacy oath that identifies the sought-after office to be voted upon at a specified future date. 10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2006). According to Cinkus, the candidacy oath refers to being qualified to hold the identified office on that future date and not when the candidate submits nomination papers. The plain language of section 10-5 of the Election Code refutes Cinkus' argument. The statutory language, which we earlier quoted and emphasized, is phrased in the present tense. If the legislature intended to speak of future events or contingencies it would have expressly done so, as it expressly prescribed the requirement of filing a statement of economic interests. 10 ILCS 5/10-5 (West 2006) (providing that statement of candidacy shall state that the candidate    has filed (or will file before the close of the petition filing period) a statement of economic interests). We also note that the appellate court relied on Bryant v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill.2d 473, 309 Ill.Dec. 826, 865 N.E.2d 189 (2007), and Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill.2d 481, 309 Ill.Dec. 820, 865 N.E.2d 183 (2007), in support of its conclusion that being in arrears of a debt owed to a municipality precludes eligibility to run for municipal office. 373 Ill.App.3d at 869-70, 311 Ill.Dec. 848, 869 N.E.2d 861. However, Bryant and Delgado were supervisory orders issued by this court. As a general rule, this court will issue a supervisory order only when the normal appellate process will not afford adequate relief and the dispute involves a matter important to the administration of justice, or intervention is necessary to keep an inferior tribunal from acting beyond the scope of its authority. People ex rel. Birkett v. Bakalis, 196 Ill.2d 510, 513, 256 Ill.Dec. 865, 752 N.E.2d 1107 (2001). We have repeatedly noted that supreme court supervisory orders are nonprecedential. People v. Phillips, 217 Ill.2d 270, 280, 298 Ill.Dec. 759, 840 N.E.2d 1194 (2005); People v. Durr, 215 Ill.2d 283, 295, 294 Ill.Dec. 115, 830 N.E.2d 527 (2005); see Scheidler v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 276 Ill. App.3d 297, 302, 212 Ill.Dec. 744, 657 N.E.2d 1089 (1995) (recognizing that supreme court supervisory order could not be cited as precedential as to the merits). Also, Cinkus relies on People v. Hamilton, 24 Ill.App. 609 (1887). According to Cinkus, Hamilton held that the arrearage provision of a statutory predecessor to section 3.1-10-5(b) prescribed disqualification as to the office and not the election. Cinkus argues that the appellate court in Hamilton allowed the candidate to pay his arrearage subsequent to the election and prior to his assumption of office. We agree with the appellate court that Hamilton is not persuasive because: (1) it was decided prior to 1935 and, consequently, has no precedential value (see Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill.2d 77, 95, 220 Ill.Dec. 195, 672 N.E.2d 1207 (1996); Basham v. Hunt, 332 Ill. App.3d 980, 992 n. 3, 266 Ill.Dec. 143, 773 N.E.2d 1213 (2002)); (2) Hamilton was not an election case, and could not consider the current election scheme, which is very different from that in 1887; and (3) the predecessor statute in 1887 was different from section 3.1-10-5(b). 373 Ill.App.3d at 870, 311 Ill.Dec. 848, 869 N.E.2d 861. In contrast to Hamilton, we consider Cahnmann v. Eckerty, 40 Ill.App.3d 180, 351 N.E.2d 580 (1976), to be exemplary. In that case, the electoral board declared the candidate ineligible to run for office because he did not meet the one-year residency requirement of a statutory predecessor to section 3.1-10-5. The circuit court confirmed the board's decision, and the appellate court affirmed. In addressing the candidate's equal protection challenge, the court repeatedly described the affected right not as the right to hold office, but as the right to candidacy. Cahnmann, 40 Ill.App.3d at 181, 351 N.E.2d 580. We confirm the Board's decision. We hold that, pursuant to section 3.1-10-5(b) of the Illinois Municipal Code, read in conjunction with section 10-5 of the Election Code, Cinkus was not eligible to run for trustee in the Village of Stickney because he was in arrears of a debt owed to the village at the time he filed his nomination papers.