Citizens to Elect Collins v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Citations: 853 N.E.2d 53; 366 Ill. App. 3d 993Docket: 1-05-0572

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 13, 2006; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Citizens to Elect Jacqueline Y. Collins, a political committee, appeals a decision by the Illinois State Board of Elections denying its motion to reconsider a civil penalty for failure to timely disclose campaign contributions. The committee argues it faced extraordinary circumstances for its late filing and claims that the Board's campaign disclosure calendar was misleading, which led to its failure to disclose contributions properly. Specifically, the committee asserts that it should have been penalized only 10% of the undisclosed contributions, rather than the total amount, and contends that the Board did not reach a majority vote when imposing the penalty and denying the late reconsideration request, thereby acting without authority.

The case centers on contributions made on March 15, 2002, which were not reported timely as required by section 9-10(b-5) of the Election Code. The Board had fined the committee $1,500 for this delinquency, with a warning that failure to appeal within 30 days would forfeit the right to contest the assessments. Although the committee paid the fine, it later filed an appeal, asserting that it had no choice but to pay due to delays in the Board's processing of appeals. The treasurer highlighted reliance on the Board's disclosure calendar as a reason for the late reporting.

On February 23, 2004, the treasurer communicated with Borgsmiller, confirming that the Schedule A-1 filing deadline on the Board's calendar did not align with the requirements of the Code. Subsequently, on May 5, 2004, the Board notified the petitioner that its appeal was untimely, as it was filed after the 30-day period following the mailing of the assessment notice dated January 20, 2004. The deadline for the appeal was February 19, 2004, but the petitioner submitted its appeal on March 3, 2004. The Board's letter invited the petitioner to submit an affidavit if extraordinary circumstances justified an extension.

On June 12, 2004, the treasurer submitted an affidavit asserting that reliance on the Board's inaccurate campaign disclosure calendar led to the failure to file the Schedule A-1 form. Initially, the treasurer hesitated to appeal, doubting the merits of her argument regarding the Board's misrepresentation of the Code requirements. However, after Borgsmiller acknowledged a discrepancy in the calendar during their February 23 conversation, the treasurer felt validated in her appeal.

On February 22, 2005, the Board held a hearing regarding the treasurer’s affidavit, where she reiterated that the misleading calendar contributed to the failure to disclose contributions. Borgsmiller, while denying a direct discrepancy, admitted that the calendar could lead to misunderstanding. The Board then voted on a motion to grant an extension for filing the appeal, which ended in a tie and was ultimately denied. The same day, the Board issued an order denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the civil penalty imposed under Article 9 of the Code. The petitioner subsequently filed a timely petition for review, arguing that it demonstrated extraordinary circumstances for the late motion and the merits of its challenge to the civil penalty.

Petitioner claimed that the Board's campaign disclosure calendar was misleading, leading to the failure to disclose certain campaign contributions. The Board maintained it did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the treasurer's reliance on the calendar did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a late appeal beyond the standard 30-day period. Petitioner also argued that any civil penalty should be capped at 10% of the undisclosed contributions instead of the full amount, which the Board did not address. Additionally, petitioner contested that the Board lacked authority to impose the civil penalty or deny a late reconsideration motion due to insufficient majority voting; the Board countered that this argument was not previously raised and thus waived. Alternatively, the Board asserted that it acted within its authority as a designated employee had the power to issue the assessment notice. 

The analysis on "Extraordinary Circumstances" detailed that political committees must respond to delinquency notices within 30 days, and extensions are only considered with valid extraordinary circumstances. Petitioner noted reliance on the misleading calendar, claiming it only recognized grounds for appeal after a Board employee confirmed the calendar's inaccuracies. However, the record indicated that the flaw in the calendar was not concealed and could have been identified earlier. The treasurer’s delayed recognition and action further undermined the claim of detrimental reliance. Consequently, the Board's denial of the late appeal request was deemed appropriate.

The Board's denial of the petitioner's administrative appeal is upheld, rendering the question of whether the fine should have been lower than $1,500 moot. However, the legitimacy of the fine, based on the requirement for majority Board approval, is a valid issue for consideration. Administrative actions taken beyond statutory authority are void, and a timely appeal allows for challenges to such actions. According to the Election Code, a quorum of five Board members is required for decisions, and fines must be imposed through a final Board disposition. The relevant statute allows fines not exceeding 100% of untimely reported contributions, with a minimum of 10%. The Board's authority to delegate functions is limited; only the Board itself can issue final judgments. In this case, the Board did not violate the Code, as the petitioner paid the fine promptly, negating the need for a final judgment. Therefore, the lack of a majority vote did not invalidate the fine. The decision of the Illinois State Board of Elections is affirmed.