Machine | Absentee | Shut-In | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Clement | 165 | 0 | 2 | 167 |
Fayerweather | 86 | 1 | 3 | 90 |
Griffin | 377 | 34 | 77 | 488 |
McCormick | 467 | 1 | 5 | 473 |
Slater | 138 | 0 | 0 | 138 |
Regardless of whether the more restrictive position of the Board was statutorily or constitutionally valid, the application of the new anti-duplication rule to nullify previously acceptable signatures without prior notice was unfair and violated due process. In this instance, the former interpretation of Section 10-3 was not only reasonable, but it also represented the application of the statute least limiting to political association. An agency may be bound by its own established custom and practice as well as by its formal regulations. The Board may not deviate from such prior rules of decision on the applicability of a fundamental directive without announcing in advance its change in policy. This is especially true where, as here, fundamental, constitutionally protected liberties are adversely affected, and those interested require certain knowledge of what is expected of them by the state. Until such time as the Board makes public its new determination, it is constitutionally prohibited from imposing that rule on unsuspecting persons.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |