Court Opinion

ID: 9530328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:06.179332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:04.801842
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority’s position that the closing of two schools is a legitimate area of public concern and that the board was under a duty to hold an election pursuant to the petition. I cannot join in their decision to affirm the trial court and disagree with their reasons for doing so. Mandamus was and still is appropriate and should be granted. Having first decided that the school board was under a duty to hold the election, a conclusion with which I agree, the majority proceeds to hold the action of the trial court was proper because it was at that time not possible to hold the election on the date specified in the petition. This procedural deficiency is the only apparent reason advanced by the majority to support their conclusion that the trial court acted properly. I believe that People ex rel. Yarrow v. Lueders, 287 Ill. 107, 122 N.E. 374, is controlling and persuasive authority in support of my position that the writ of mandamus should have been awarded. Contrary to the majority, I believe Lueders is not distinguishable and dictates the issuance of a writ of mandamus. In Lueders, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Board of Election Commissioners requesting submission of a question at the next general election and later filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the superior court of Cook County when the commission refused to submit the question. When it appeared that time might not permit the submission of the question at the next general election as requested, the petition for writ of mandamus was amended to ask that if the writ could not be issued in time for the upcoming election, it should be granted for an election thereafter. On motion of respondent the amendment was stricken and there remained no possibility of any relief being obtained in the superior court. No further action was taken with respect to the superior court proceeding and the supreme court proceeding was not a review of the trial court’s action. The plaintiff then filed an original action in the Illinois Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Board to submit the question at a subsequent general election. After first holding the original action in the supreme court was proper, the court determined that the duty of defendants was a continuing one. So long as the duty was continuing and performance of it would not be unlawful, the court held that the writ would issue. In finding the writ proper, the court stated: “It would be a reproach to the law if there is a right and no means to vindicate and maintain it, and that would be the case if the respondents, by refusing to perform their duty, have absolved themselves from all obligations of the law. There are many cases of continuing duties although a specific time is provided for their performance. An example of such duty is the provision of the constitution in section 6 of article 4 that the General Assembly shall apportion the State every ten years, beginning with the year 1871, but, although the constitution fixes the time when an apportionment shall be made, the duty and power are continuing in their nature and the apportionment can be made at any time afterward within the ten-year period.” 287 Ill. 107, 115-16, 122 N.E. 374, 377. The majority states that Lueders is distinguishable because the petition in Lueders did not set down a date certain for the election and was amended to request that if the writ could not issue in time for the election, it should be granted for one thereafter. I believe such reasons form an insufficient basis to distinguish Lueders. First, specifying an election by its calendar date is no more specific than describing an election by referring to a particular general election. In both instances, a particular date is designated and different methods of identifying or specifying the date are an inappropriate rational basis upon which to form legal distinctions. In addition, under section 34 of the Civil Practice Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110, par. 34), the court has the authority to grant relief different from that requested, so long as it is supported by the substantive allegations in the pleading of the evidence. That statutory provision provides in pertinent part: “Except in case of default, the prayer for relief does not limit the relief obtainable, but where other relief is sought the court shall, by proper orders, and upon terms that may be just, protect the adverse party against prejudice by reason of surprise.” If the question could not be submitted as requested in the petition due to the passage of time, the court had the authority and the responsibility to order the election to be held on a later date when the statutory prerequisites for holding an election could be complied with. The trial court did not consider whether it had authority to schedule the election at some other time or whether it should do so. As is clear from the record, the court had previously determined the school board was under no duty to call the election, a holding with which the majority and I both disagree. In People ex rel. Arnd v. Heckard, 341 Ill. 144, 173 N.E. 124, the court found that the decree as awarded made no provision for compliance with the statute in question for the years 1915 to 1927 inclusive. In ordering the decree to be modified to afford complete relief for the entire time period, the court stated: “An officer cannot set up an excuse that the time fixed by the statute to collect an assessment or enter omitted proof has passed, when it was his own failure to perform the duty within the statutory time which made it necessary to institute the mandamus proceeding. [Citation.] The defendants cannot evade their duty by answering that the time for its performance has passed when it still may be lawfully performed.” 341 Ill. 144, 151, 173 N.E. 124, 127. Here, there is no question but that the board had the duty to hold the election and refused to do so. The board is a continuing body which still has the authority to hold the election and is under a continuing duty to do so. Neither the holding of the election nor the results of the election would cause confusion or disorder which could not be adequately dealt with by the trial court, as seems to be implied by my colleagues. (People ex rel. Killeen v. Kankakee School District No. 11, 48 Ill. 2d 419, 270 N.E.2d 36; People ex rel. Stoffel v. Town of Cicero, 404 Ill. 432, 89 N.E.2d 350.) While the defendant’s inaction in refusing to hold the election may have defeated the timing of the precise relief plaintiff requested, it should not and does not defeat plaintiff’s right to an election, nor the board’s continuing duty to hold that election. As amply stated in People ex rel. Yarrow v. Lueders, 287 Ill. 107, 122 N.E. 374: “It would be contrary to reason and every instinct of justice and right that a refusal of the respondents to perform their duty at the first of those elections should enable them to defeat the law and the right of the petitioners.” (287 Ill. 107, 116, 122 N.E. 374, 378.) Whenever the statute authorizes submission of a question at an election, it is plaintiff s right that such an election be held. I believe the writ should be awarded commanding the board to submit the questions as requested by plaintiff at the earliest convenient time.