Court Opinion

ID: 9535753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:52:33.997235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:19.353812
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE MURRAY, specially concurring: I concur completely with the majority’s opinion. For what it is worth, I would like to point out a defect the case discloses in our election laws that needs legislative correction. As the majority opinion indicates, the provisions of the Municipal Code relating to elections limit the right (if any) of a candidate to file a contest to a Chicago aldermanic election for a period of five days after the election. In this case in the February 28, 1989, election, Ronald Robinson, the incumbent, received 11,641 votes to 7,824 votes for John 0. Steele, the eventual successful candidate. The proclamation of the results was made on March 7, 1989, seven days after the election. Yet, the election law, as indicated by the court’s opinion, permitted a judicial review of the Election Board’s proclamation only if Robinson had filed his petition within five days of the election, a point not even raised by the eventual successful candidate in the first judicial proceedings of this case. The effect of the application of the law as written is to place into an election board the power to foreclose the contest of an election by merely delaying the proclamation of the result until the time has passed to contest the same. The legislation as it now stands should be amended to permit a candidate or voter to test the efficacy of a Chicago aldermanic election upon the filing of a petition to contest the same five days after the proclamation by the Board of the results rather than the election itself. JUSTICE COCCIA, specially concurring: I also concur completely with the majority opinion. I also wish to join with Justice Murray and therefore concur with his specially concurring opinion regarding the need for legislative correction. Accordingly, I file this as my specially concurring opinion.