# Illinois Republican Party v. State Board of Elections > Appellate Court of Illinois · February 19, 1998 · 294 Ill. App. 3d 915 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862329 ## Case - **Full name:** ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Et Al., Respondents; ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Et Al., Respondents - **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois - **Decided:** February 19, 1998 - **Citations:** 294 Ill. App. 3d 915; 229 Ill. Dec. 233; 691 N.E.2d 169 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Green - **Judges:** McCullough, Green - **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862329 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - concluding that better policy dictates that the case be remanded to the Board for a statement of reasons by members rejecting the recommendation of the hearing examiner and general counsel ## Opinion text JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the decision of the majority to remand. However, I would reverse and remand to the Board with directions to grant the Republican Party a public adjudicatory hearing on its complaints. Technically, the review before us is from an order of the Board entered on March 19,1997, by which the Board voted unanimously to dismiss the complaints because of the deadlock in its previous voting. The issue before the Board had been whether the complaints were filed on “justifiable grounds” and had some basis in law and fact. I agree with the majority that these issues were timely and properly before the Board. Regardless of the split on the vote, the ultimate decision of the Board was a final denial of the Republican Party’s complaints. When a complaint such as that here is timely brought before the Board and it has jurisdiction, I conclude the complaint cannot properly be dismissed in bar of action if the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. People ex rel. Stephens v. Collins, 35 Ill. 2d 499, 500 , 221 N.E.2d 254, 255 (1966); Dorfman v. Gerber, 29 Ill. 2d 191, 196 , 193 N.E.2d 770, 773 (1963). That is the usual rule in regard to decisions of administrative agencies, and such was the case here. In directing a result on administrative review in such circumstances, we are not putting ourselves in the position of the Board to any greater extent than is always done by a court sitting in judicial review of an administrative decision. At the hearing before the Board, the exhibits of the Republican Party included the following: (1) an advertisement for a $100-per-ticket fundraiser featuring Hillary Clinton and stating that the event was a joint fundraiser for “Friends of Dick Durbin” and the United Democrats; (2) a newspaper article indicating that, according to chairman Tom Hynes, the United Democrats possessed a $1.4 million campaign fund and was an umbrella group primarily receiving its money from the Democratic National Committee; (3) a press release dated November 3, 1996, on letterhead of the United Democrats indicating that it is a committee of the Democratic Party created by resolution in April 1996 and disclosing that the press release was paid for by the United Democrats, a committee of the Democratic Party; (4) a page from a campaign disclosure report of the “Friends of Michael J. Madigan” political committee reporting a contribution of $35,000 to it by the United Democrats, listing a Chicago address different from that of the Democratic Party; (5) a Cook County Democratic Party campaign disclosure reporting a $4,000 contribution to it by the United Democrats; (6) a Sangamon County Democrats campaign disclosure reporting a contribution of over $2,300 received from the United Democrats; (7) a Citizens for a Democratic Senate campaign disclosure reporting a $49,000 contribution from the United Democrats; and (8) a Citizens for a Democratic Senate campaign disclosure reporting a $126,700 transfer donation made by it to the United Democrats. Evidence was presented that a diligent search of the Board’s records had been made, but no D-l statement of organization required by section 9 — 3 of the Election Code had ever been filed by the United Democrats nor had it filed any reports of campaign contributions received or made by it as required by section 9 — 10. As to the complaint filed against the Democratic Party and in response to its claim that the United Democrats was its subcommittee, the Republican Party claimed the Democratic Party’s campaign reports were misleading as including campaign contributions made to it or expenditures made by it that, in fact, were made by the United Democrats. Section 9 — 3 of the Election Code provides: “Every state political committee and every local political committee shall file with the [Board], and every local political committee shall file with the county clerk, a statement of organization within 30 days of the creation of such committee.” 10 ILCS 5/9 — 3 (West 1996). Section 9 — 10 of the Election Code provides: “The treasurer of every state political committee and the treasurer of every local political committee shall file with the Board, and the treasurer of every local political committee shall file with the county clerk, *** reports of campaign contributions and expenditures on forms to be prescribed or approved by the Board.” 10 ILCS 5/9 — 10 (West 1996). Section 9 — 11 of the Election Code provides inter alia that the campaign contributions reports required under section 9 — 10 shall disclose: “(4) the full name and mailing address of each person who has made one or more contributions to or for such committee within the reporting period in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $150, together with the amount and date of such contributions; (5) the total sum of individual contributions made to or for such committee during the reporting period and not reported under item (4); (6) the name and address of each political committee from which the reporting committee received, or to which that committee made, any transfer of funds, in any aggregate amount or value in excess of $150, together with the amounts and dates of all transfers.” 10 ILCS 5/9 — 11(4), (5), (6) (West 1996). A local political committee is defined as the candidate himself, or any individual, group, or committee that accepts contributions or makes expenditures during a 12-month period in an aggregate amount exceeding $1,000 on behalf of or in opposition to candidates or in support of or opposition to a public policy question to be submitted to the electors of only one county. 10 ILCS 5/9 — 1.7 (West 1996). The definition of a state political committee is essentially the same as that for a local political committee, except that the threshold reporting amount for public policy questions submitted to the electors of more than one county is $3,000. 10 ILCS 5/9 — 1.8 (West 1996). “Every political committee shall designate a chairman and a treasurer” and the treasurer “shall be responsible for keeping the records and filing the statements and reports required by this Article.” 10 ILCS 5/9 — 2 (West 1996). The Democratic Party and the United Democrats responded to the foregoing evidence of violations of the Election Code by maintaining the United Democrats was a subcommittee of the Democratic Party and, as such, was not required to file a section 9 — 3 statement of organization or a section 9 — 10 report of campaign contributions and expenditures. Those respondents asserted that the Democratic Party had, by resolution, created that committee and included in its section 9 — 10 campaign reports all contributions received and expenditures made by it, including those of the United Democrats. However, a copy of the resolution submitted as allegedly creating the United Democrats as a subcommittee makes no mention of the creation of such subcommittee and section 9 — 10 campaign reports submitted by the Democratic Party failed to show any receipts from or expenditures to the United Democrats. The proceeding before the Board was a preliminary one and the burden on the Republican Party was quite slight, as it only had to show “justifiable grounds” and that its complaints had some basis in fact and law. Under the foregoing evidence, any administrative decision, for whatever reason, dismissing the complaints was clearly contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and cannot stand. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862329. Public record. Not legal advice.