Opinion ID: 2087167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Craig v. Peterson

Text: In Craig, this court found an exception to the mandatory construction of the ballot-initialling requirement. The court recognized that a qualified voter has a constitutional right not only to vote, but also to have that vote counted. ( Craig, 39 Ill.2d at 195, 233 N.E.2d 345 (and cases cited therein).) Referring to the distinction between a directory and a mandatory construction of statutes, the court stated: And even in those instances wherein the legislature has declared its intention in seemingly mandatory terms, courts have not hesitated to inquire into the reasonableness of such provisions, and, if such regulatory provisions operated unequally upon equally qualified voters [citation] or made no substantial contribution towards insuring the honesty and secrecy of the election, but, rather, were of an arbitrary nature and disenfranchised qualified voters without their fault [citations], have held such provisions unconstitutional. Craig, 39 Ill.2d at 196, 233 N.E.2d 345. The court in Craig held that the mandatory construction of the ballot-initialling requirement does not apply where: (1) a qualified voter will lose his or her right of suffrage without any fault of the voter, and (2) the ballot-initialling requirement does not contribute substantially to the integrity of the election. Craig, 39 Ill.2d at 198-99, 233 N.E.2d 345; see 156 Ill.2d at 311-13, 189 Ill.Dec. at 429-430, 620 N.E.2d at 397-398. As the majority notes, this court has limited the Craig exception to the mandatory construction of the ballot-initialling requirement to absentee ballots. In-precinct ballots, and even absentee ballots inseparably mixed with in-precinct ballots, are still subject to the mandatory construction. This court has identified two principal reasons for this distinction. First, a ballot box cannot be stuffed with absentee ballots because they are not cast in the polling place and are not opened until after the polls have closed. However, a ballot box can be stuffed with in-precinct ballots. Thus, the initialling requirement remains the only means to identify and separate in-precinct ballots that were legally cast from those that were not. Pullen, 138 Ill.2d at 53,149 Ill.Dec. 215, 561 N.E.2d 585; Craig, 39 Ill.2d at 200-01, 233 N.E.2d 345. Second, the risk of disfranchising an in-precinct voter is less than that for an absentee voter. The in-precinct voter can see whether the election judge initialled the ballot, but an absentee voter cannot. ( Craig, 39 Ill.2d at 201, 233 N.E.2d 345.) In the present case, the majority accepts this reasoning and construes the ballot-initialling requirement as mandatory, thereby excluding the ballots at issue. 156 Ill.2d at 311-14, 189 Ill.Dec. at 429-431, 620 N.E.2d at 397-399.