Omnibus Election Bill Addresses Candidate Debt Case (Cinkus) and More

Omnibus Election Bill Addresses Candidate Debt Case (Cinkus) and More

  Thursday, May 30, 2013    Julie Tappendorf

---

UPDATE 7/29/13 - Governor Quinn signed this bill into law.  For more information, read this post.

The Illinois legislature is expected to consider (and probably pass) HB 2418, an omnibus election bill that amends numerous sections of the Election Code. The press has focused on the online voter registration provisions, which are probably leading the charge to getting this legislation passed.  It is somewhat surprising that another part of this bill that addresses eligibility for municipal office has not gotten much press, particularly given the number of "Cinkus challenges" in the most recent municipal election.

 

For those not involved in election work, the Cinkus case held that candidates for municipal office are not eligible to run for office if they are in arrears on a debt to the municipality. The ruling was based on the following language currently in Section 3.1-10-5(b): 

 

(b) A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office if that person is in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipal or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony. 

 

The Cinkus interpretation of the above statute resulted in numerous election challenges involving objections filed against candidates alleging the candidates were not eligible to be placed on the ballot because of a delinquent municipal debt. Many candidates were eliminated from the ballot based on the Cinkus case. 

 

So, what does this new bill do to address Cinkus?  

 

First, HB 2418 would modify subsection (b) to state as follows: 

 

(b) A person is not eligible to take the oath of office for a municipal office if that person is, at the time required for taking the oath of office, in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipal or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony. 

 

The change would mean that candidates with a delinquent municipal debt could run for office but if they win, they would have to pay their delinquent debt prior to being sworn in. This is certainly a clearer rule than that created by the Cinkus court, but some may argue that candidates for office should not be eligible to be on the ballot if they aren't current on their municipal obligations.  

 

The more troubling language is contained in a new subsection (b-5): 

 

(b-5) A person is not eligible to hold a municipal office, if that person is, at any time during the term of office, in arrears in the payment of a tax or other indebtedness due to the municipality or has been convicted in any court located in the United States of any infamous crime, bribery, perjury, or other felony.

 

The ineligibility language in (b-5) would apply to current municipal officers and provide that they are no longer eligible to hold office if they are in arrears to the municipality at any time during the term of their office. 

 

I have a few concerns with this new subsection.

 

First, it does not address who would make a determination of ineligibility. If a municipal officer is ineligible because of a felony conviction, it is a court that makes the determination.  But in the case of ineligibility based on delinquent debt, are the corporate authorities authorized to determine the current officer's eligibility to continue to hold office?  The municipal clerk, treasurer, collector?  Must a quo warranto action be brought? 

 

Second, the bill does not amend the vacancy statute to add this particular disqualification to the list of events upon which a vacancy is created. 

 

Third, the language “at any time” could encourage political games playing.  Let’s say that a village trustee was a few days late paying for her vehicle sticker – under the local ordinance, this could be an arrearage to the municipality.  Because of the language “at any time,” is she now ineligible to continue as trustee even if she cured the delinquency?  For split boards and councils, this provision is certain to be used as a hammer against officials on opposing sides. 

 

I have been told that this bill is going to pass.  So, all you Illinois municipal officials out there?  Pay your bills.

 

Post Authored by Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink.