initialling requirement in Illinois

1990(Tuthill v. Rendelman (1944), 387 Ill. 321, 330 (rejecting uninitialled in-precinct ballots); Morandi v. Heiman (1961), 23 Ill. 2d 365 (rejecting uninitialled absentee ballots).) In Craig v. Peterson (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 191 , however, the court held the initialling requirement directory and allowed the counting of uninitialled absentee ballots.

1968(Morandi v. Heiman, 23 Ill.2d 365 , and cases there cited; Griffin v. Rausa, 2 Ill.2d 421 ; Tuthill v. Rendelman, 387 Ill. 321 , (overruling three earlier cases).) We have not, however, considered the question in the context here presented, and we agree with the intervening appellants that their disenfranchisement, without their fault, by application of the initialling requirement to their paper ballots in an otherwise machine election poses substantial constitutional problems under section 18 of article II of our constitution which provides: “All elections shall be free and equal”, and sectio

1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec

1999The only exception to this rule is for uninitialed absentee ballots that can be separated from the in-precinct ballots and readily identified, but the initialing requirement for in-precinct ballots is still mandatory, because the initialing requirement “ ‘substantially contributes to the integrity of the election process and is a valid, mandatory provision which the courts must enforce.’ ” McDunn, 156 Ill. 2d at 312 , quoting Craig v. Peterson, 39 Ill. 2d 191, 198 (1968). “ ‘Applying the initialling requirement to in-precinct ballots is certainly necessary to preserve the integrity of the elec

1995See Pullen, 138 Ill. 2d at 53 ; Goble v. Board of Education of Iuka Community Consolidated School District No. 7 (1980), 83 Ill.

1993Williams relies on two cases from different jurisdictions (Ollman v. Kowalewski (1941), 238 Wis. 574 , 300 N.W. 183 ; Moyer v. Van De Vanter (1895), 12 Wash. 377 , 41 P. 60 ) and two assertions: (1) the initialled ballots were legally cast and are only uninitialled due to “innocent mistake”; and (2) the parties stipulated there was no fraud.

1993Williams relies on two cases from different jurisdictions (Ollman v. Kowalewski (1941), 238 Wis. 574 , 300 N.W. 183 ; Moyer v. Van De Vanter (1895), 12 Wash. 377 , 41 P. 60 ) and two assertions: (1) the initialled ballots were legally cast and are only uninitialled due to “innocent mistake”; and (2) the parties stipulated there was no fraud.

1993Williams relies on two cases from different jurisdictions (Ollman v. Kowalewski (1941), 238 Wis. 574 , 300 N.W. 183 ; Moyer v. Van De Vanter (1895), 12 Wash. 377 , 41 P. 60 ) and two assertions: (1) the initialled ballots were legally cast and are only uninitialled due to “innocent mistake”; and (2) the parties stipulated there was no fraud.

1993Williams relies on two cases from different jurisdictions (Ollman v. Kowalewski (1941), 238 Wis. 574 , 300 N.W. 183 ; Moyer v. Van De Vanter (1895), 12 Wash. 377 , 41 P. 60 ) and two assertions: (1) the initialled ballots were legally cast and are only uninitialled due to “innocent mistake”; and (2) the parties stipulated there was no fraud.

1990In Snow v. Natzke (1986), 140 Ill.

1986App. 2d 246 , 215 N.E.2d 817 .) However, in Craig v. Peterson (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 191 , 233 N.E.2d 345 , the supreme court recognized that the statutory initialling requirement must be interpreted and applied in light of constitutional rights of voters and there held the initialling requirement directory.

1968(People v. Nastasio, 19 Ill.2d 524, 529 ; People v. Deatherage, 401 Ill. 25, 38 .) We therefore hold the statutory requirements relating to the initialling of ballots by election judges are directory, rather than mandatory, when considered in relation to an election where the only paper ballots used on the issue or office in question are those of absentee voters, and the only irregularity complained of is the absence of such endorsement.

1968(People v. Nastasio, 19 Ill.2d 524, 529 ; People v. Deatherage, 401 Ill. 25, 38 .) We therefore hold the statutory requirements relating to the initialling of ballots by election judges are directory, rather than mandatory, when considered in relation to an election where the only paper ballots used on the issue or office in question are those of absentee voters, and the only irregularity complained of is the absence of such endorsement.

1968(Morandi v. Heiman, 23 Ill.2d 365 , and cases there cited; Griffin v. Rausa, 2 Ill.2d 421 ; Tuthill v. Rendelman, 387 Ill. 321 , (overruling three earlier cases).) We have not, however, considered the question in the context here presented, and we agree with the intervening appellants that their disenfranchisement, without their fault, by application of the initialling requirement to their paper ballots in an otherwise machine election poses substantial constitutional problems under section 18 of article II of our constitution which provides: “All elections shall be free and equal”, and sectio