elected at large. Such mail shall be directed to the member's address appearing on the ISBA records. Each ballot shall be accompanied by a return envelope addressed to the tellers of election, an envelope marked "For Ballot Only'' and a signature card or slip. Appropriate biographical materials as designated and reviewed by the Bar Election Supervision Committee shall accompany contested ballots.
Para. 6.8. Voting. Members shall mark their ballot by placing a cross (X) or check (3) inside the square opposite the name of each candidate for whom they desire to vote and shall enclose it in the envelope marked "For Ballot Only," seal that envelope, sign the signature card or slip, enclose both the sealed envelope and the signature card or slip in the envelope addressed to the tellers. The ballot must be accompanied by a signature card or slip signed by the member. If more than one ballot for a particular race is enclosed in a single "For Ballot Only" envelope, none of the ballots for the same race shall be counted. A ballot not enclosed in an envelope marked "For Ballot Only" shall be counted provided that the other requirements of this paragraph are met.
Para. 6.9 Counting Votes. If the tellers are satisfied either from a report of the Executive Director or from their own inspection that the signature card or slip is signed by a member entitled to vote, the envelope marked "For Ballot Only" accompanying it shall be placed in a locked ballot box and kept there until the ballot boxes are opened by the tellers for the purpose of counting the votes. No ballot shall be counted unless it is received on or before May 10. If May 10 falls on a nonbusiness day of the Association, the ballots received prior to the close of the next business day of the Association shall be counted. On or before May 15 the tellers shall count the vote and file a report with the Executive Director setting forth the names of all candidates and a statement of the number of votes received by each. A plurality of the votes cast for any office elects. When two or more candidates receive an equally high number of votes, the winner shall be determined by lot under the supervision of the tellers. The Executive Director shall forthwith announce the results of the election. The tellers report shall also be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association.
Para. 6.10. Uncontested Election. If the number of candidates nominated for a particular position does not exceed the number to be elected to that position, the candidate or candidates are elected.
Para. 6.11. Withdrawal from Candidacy. A candidate may withdraw from candidacy from the position for which a nominating petition has been filed by notifying the Executive Director of such withdrawal in writing prior to the tally of the votes. In the event the withdrawal follows the tally, it shall be treated as a declination. All votes cast for a withdrawn candidate shall be null and void.
Para. 6.12. Vacancies or Death of a Candidate. If no candidate is nominated for a position to be filled, or if there is no candidate by reason of death, declination or other cause, a vacancy exists. If a candidate in a contested election for a position to be filled dies or is unable to serve after nominations are closed, and a plurality of the votes are cast for that candidate, a vacancy exists. Such vacancies shall be filled pursuant to the Bylaws.
Para. 6.13. Election Contest. The results of a contested election may be challenged by any candidate whose name was on the ballot for that office or by any ISBA member who voted in that election, provided that such member's challenge is supported by a verified petition signed by the challenger. The petition must be filed within 15 days of the date the tellers have filed the report with the Executive Director certifying the results of such election.
(a) The Executive Director shall, within 48 hours, mail by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the petition to each candidate whose name was on the ballot for that office. The verified petition shall substantially contain:
(1) The results of the contested election for the office which is the subject of the challenge, as certified in the tellers' report to the Executive Director;
(2) A statement that the petitioner cast a ballot in the election contested or was a candidate whose name was on the ballot for the office which is the subject of the election contest;
(3) A statement that the petitioner believes (i) mistake or fraud has been committed in the casting, counting or return or canvass of the votes for the office involved, or (ii) there was some other irregularity in the conduct of the contested election, or both;
(4) A statement declaring with particularity the grounds relied upon by petitioner;
(5) A statement declaring that, as a consequence of the mistake, fraud or irregularity alleged, the result of the election, as officially proclaimed, was incorrect;
(6) A request that the Bar Elections Supervision Committee hear all evidence and decide the contest.
Para. 6.14. Hearing on Election Contest. The petitioner shall submit all relevant evidence to the Bar Elections Supervision Committee chair not more than 10 days after the petition to contest an election has been filed with the Executive Director. Based upon evidence submitted, the committee shall either:
(a) Find that the petition fails to state a prima facie case for the election contest and dismiss the petition; or
(b) Find that a prima facie case for the election contest has been stated, in which case the committee may, in its discretion, take any or all of the following actions according to a schedule to be adopted by the committee: (i) conduct a recount of the ballots for the contested election in the presence of at least one of the election tellers responsible for the tally of ballots for said election; (ii) obtain and hear evidence from any other candidates for the contested election; or (iii) obtain and hear evidence from any or all of the election tellers responsible for the tally of votes in said election.
Para. 6.15. Judgment in Contested Election Cases. The judgment of the Bar Elections Supervision Committee shall declare as elected the person who shall appear to be duly elected.
(a) If it appears that two or more persons have, or would have had if the legal ballots cast or intended to be cast for them had been counted, the highest and an equal number of votes for the same office, the persons receiving such votes shall decide by lot, in such manner as the committee shall direct, which of them shall be declared duly elected, and the result shall be entered accordingly.
(b) When the person whose election is contested is found to have received the highest number of votes but the election is declared null by reason of disqualification on that person's part, or for other causes, the person receiving the next highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
In all cases the rulings of the Bar Election Supervision Committee shall be construed as a final determination and there shall be no appeal.
Bar-related groups meet at Midyear
In addition to business meetings of ISBA section councils and committees, the boards of four bar-related organizations will convene during the ISBA Midyear Meeting in the Sheraton Chicago Hotel.
Board meetings scheduled Thursday, Dec. 9, are the ISBA Mutual Insurance Co. at 8 a.m.; the Illinois Bar Foundation at 8:30 a.m., and the Illinois Pro Bono Board at 2 p.m.
Trustees of the Lawyers Political Action Committee (LAWPAC) will meet at 12 noon Saturday, Dec. 11.
Schedules will be posted each day at the hotel for locations of business meetings. The following meetings will take place at the ISBA Chicago Regional Office:
Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section Council, 12 noon Dec. 9; Corporate Law Departments Section Council, 9:30 a.m. Dec. 10; Health Care Section Council, 12 noon Dec. 10.
Husband-wife partners in Sonntag Reporting Service, Geneva, were honored in September during the centennial celebration of the National Court Reporters Association in Boston.
Gary L. Sonntag was inducted as a Fellow of the Academy of Professional Reporters. A court reporter for more than 30 years, his career has included two years of reporting courts martial in Vietnam.
Melanie Humphrey-Sonntag took third place honors in the NCRA speed contest. She received a combined 97.4 percent accuracy rating in three tests, with a high score of 98.9 percent.
A past president of the Colorado Court Reporters Association and Wyoming Shorthand Reporters Association, she was Colorado speed contest champion four times.
By James R. Covington III
Director of Legislative Affairs
The General Assembly has started its two-week fall veto session, which is scheduled to end December 2, 1999.
Child Support Percentage. There are two bills of interest to lawyers in veto session. The first is House Bill 421 (Winkel, R-Champaign; Hawkinson, R-Galesburg). House Bill 421 was amendatorily vetoed by Governor Ryan. As sent to him by the General Assembly, House Bill 421 allows a trial court to make an order of child support as a percentage amount of support either in addition to or in lieu of a dollar amount. The trial court is authorized to do this if it finds that the child support amount cannot be expressed exclusively as a dollar amount because all or a portion of the obligor's net income is uncertain as to source, time of payment, or amount.
Governor Ryan's veto message expressed concerns about the bill's language, "when it is applied in cases where a party is receiving services from the Illinois Department of Public Aid's child support enforcement program, the difficulties presented with monitoring and enforcing such orders and complying with federal requirements are virtually insurmountable."
The Governor's amendatory veto requires that final orders must continue to state the support level in dollar amounts. But is would allow the trial court to order a percentage amount in addition to a dollar amount.
The General Assembly may either accept the Governor's amendatory veto by a majority vote in both chambers, or override the amendatory veto by three-fifths vote in both chambers. The conventional wisdom is that the General Assembly will accept his amendatory veto. Regardless of what occurs, this bill will be helpful when the obligor's income is inconsistent.
Article 9 Revision. The second bill in veto session is Senate Bill 1231 (Dillard, R-Downers Grove), which is a complete rewrite of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Although Senate Bill 1231 will not be acted in veto session, it will be the subject of a hearing in veto session to begin the process of passing it in the spring of 2000. It is an initiative of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, with a targeted effective date of July 1, 2001. Six states have adopted the 1998 version of Article 9, which is intended to update the 1972 version across the country.
The proponents believe that the 1998 revisions will resolve the following problems. (1) It incorporates the electronic revolution for transactions. (2) The increased volume of filings requires revisions in the current filing systems. (3) Its meets the needs for collateral for the new kinds of property and transactions, such as deposit accounts and health insurance receivables. (4) It creates a new basic rule that makes the location of the debtor the place where the creditor must perfect the security interest to clarify the present uncertainties under current law. (5) It will include certain statutory, non-possessory liens for the purposes of providing public notice and setting priorities between creditors to meet the proliferation of these liens since Article 9 was originally approved. (6) The courts have interpreted certain provisions of Article 9 inconsistently or struggled with issues that were not expressly addressed in the original Article 9. The 1998 revisions are intended to cure these accrued ambiguity problems. (7) It will address consumer issues that were not originally addressed in the original Article 9. (8) It specifically addresses certain kinds of secured transactions in oil and gas and agriculture to re-establish uniformity for these kinds of transactions.
Stephen Anderson
Editor
Perfecting justice
In a perfect world, we might not need so many lawyers.
Were this old world perfect, though, we'd likely have experienced a quantum proliferation of learned evaluators and noble arbitrators to ensure the purity of perfection.
A teacher long ago informed me, without fear of contradiction, that "perfection has no superlative." Something can't be "somewhat perfect" or "almost perfect" any more than one can be "a little bit pregnant."
This lesson apparently escaped the framers of the Constitution, where the otherwise grandiloquent preamble talks of forming "a more perfect union" en route to establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquillity.
More perfect than what? Better than it already was, perhaps, or better than any alternative. But this emerging Republic was far from perfect on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution.
I meant to discuss the "more perfect union" issue with Bill Bauer, my constitutional scholar of choice, after hearing his invocation that: "The perfect truth may never be known, but we'll be damned if we settle for anything else."
Preliminary to such a discussion, a dictionary was consulted. Alas, we encountered some compromise of the syntactical sanctity of perfection. Not the adjective. To be perfect is to be utterly and absolutely flawless in all respects.
As a verb, however, Webster hedges "to make perfect" by allowing the conciliatory extension, "or more nearly perfect according to a given standard."
My teacher may have been contradicted, but we can live with that. If perfection is out there somewhere, and worth striving for, we can celebrate surmounting incremental, "nearly perfect" plateaus along the climb.
The perfect justice system may never be known either, but the judiciary and organized bar provide evidence year after year that they won't suffer the damnation of settling for less than can reasonably be accomplished.
In just the past two decades, we've seen pro bono legal service delivery programs become common practice, despite never-ending fund shortfalls. We've marveled at the widespread development of alternative dispute resolution, in spite of the naysayers and foot draggers.
We're watching special committees and task forces now reviewing and recommending changes in the criminal justice and juvenile justice milieu, and we see at last some resolution of capital punishment anomalies.
Here's another gem of a concept, and an opportunity for you to learn about it in the crystallization stage. It's called "restorative justice," and it will be described during a presentation at the ISBA Midyear Meeting.
It's a healing discipline, the adult version of sitting down with your squabbling kids and achieving momentary peace through an apology, freely