Reed v. Kusper

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons. First, because it assumes without analysis or explanation that the statute under examination is not ambiguous. In that connection, I believe that the statute is ambiguous. Second, because the majority assigns a meaning to that statute which I believe to be erroneous. Third, because the meaning which the majority assigns to the statute renders it unconstitutional and, thus, defective. Finally, I fault the majority for declining to deal with the constitutional infirmity which its erroneous interpretation of the statute creates.

Before indulging in more discrete analysis, it is necessary to examine the statute itself. The statute in question provides that the “petition for the formation of a new political party *** in any *** political subdivision *** shall at the time of filing contain a complete list of candidates of such party for all offices to be filled in *** such *** political subdivision.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 46, par. 10 — 2.) The phrase “all offices to be filled” is subject to two possible interpretations. While this phrase could be interpreted to mean that a new political party must run candidates for all offices up for election, it could also be interpreted to simply mean that the new political party must list all of the candidates it intends to run for office. Thus, it is ambiguous.

Ambiguities in statutes need to be resolved by thought, study and analysis and the resolution needs to be supported with a reasonable explanation for the choice of meaning. The majority opinion does not do that. It simply chooses the meaning it likes and offers no supporting justification.

My choice for an interpretation of the ambiguous statutory language is that the new party must list all candidates that it intends to slate for office. Contrary to the majority, I would not read into the statute that new parties are required to offer full and complete slates which include all positions that are on the ballot. In that connection, it is reasonable to require that new parties list all of the candidates they intend to run at the time they file their qualifying petition. This is so since there is no possibility of filling additional candidacies at a subsequent primary election. New parties get on the ballot initially only via the petition route and do not have a political primary election.

I am also concerned with fundamental fairness. As to fairness, it would seem that new political parties deserve to be treated on a basis of some equivalence or equality. That being the case, since established political parties are not required to offer full slates of candidates, it does not seem fair to require new political parties to do so. It is quite commonplace and legally acceptable for established political parties to offer slates of candidates with many, or in some cases most, of the positions to be filled left blank. It is difficult, if not impossible, for political parties to offer full slates in all locales. Even established political parties could not meet this requirement if called upon to do so in every case. To impose this requirement on new political parties, while excusing established political parties, amounts to a denial of equal protection of the laws. Moreover, such an interpretation diminishes the right of citizens to vote for candidates of their choice. All of this, in my opinion, violates both article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution and the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §2; U.S. Const., amend. XIV.) The relevant point here is that when we have a choice between interpreting a statute in alternative ways, one of which will render the statute constitutional and the other unconstitutional, we should choose the constitutional interpretation. People v. Robinson (1939), 372 Ill. 503, 505 .

Since the majority opinion fails on all of the above accounts, I respectfully dissent.