Court Opinion

ID: 9715740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:13:22.217823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:37.780532
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT dissenting: The majority opinion ignores the main thrust of the opinions of the cases cited by both petitioner and respondent; that the purpose of the election contest is to determine the will of the people. (Wagler v. Stoecker, 393 Ill. 560, 66 N.E.2d 408.) When an election results in a tie vote decided by lot and the record shows obvious differences in the tabulation of the vote in the election results and later counting of the votes for the purpose of discovery, it is unrealistic to state that the petition for recount was filed on “suspicion”. The discovery procedure is intended to give each candidate the opportunity to examine the votes cast and it is not intended to be the basis upon which a reviewing court may prognosticate as to the eventual result of the proposed recount. The rule relevant to the facts before the court is that the petition for recount must allege that irregularities complained of would change the election or allege such facts which, if proven, would change the results of the election. (Zahray v. Emricson, 25 Ill.2d 121, 182 N.E.2d 765.) It was not, in my opinion, a rule meant to penalize counsel who knows full well he cannot foresee the results of a recount but who does have adequate facts to cause him to believe a recount will change the results and sets forth such facts in his petition. I believe the trial court had ample facts from the petition on file to order the recount in question.