People Ex Rel. Fyfe v. Barnett
319 Ill. 403, 150 N.E. 290 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The meaning of a term within a statute, such as 'elector,' is determined by the legislature's intent and the term's legal definition at the time the statute was enacted. Subsequent changes to the term's definition, such as the expansion of suffrage, do not retroactively alter the statute's original meaning.
Facts:
- Mrs. Hannay Beye Fyfe was a 46-year-old female citizen and a legal voter residing in Cook County, Illinois.
- In 1924, the Cook County Jury Commissioners included Fyfe's name on the jury list.
- The commissioners sent Fyfe a questionnaire, to which she responded that she knew of no reason she could not serve as a juror unless the law did not permit females that privilege.
- Upon receiving her response, the commissioners removed her name from the jury list.
- Fyfe demanded that her name be restored to the list, but the commissioners refused, stating that she was not legally qualified for jury duty because she was a woman.
- Fyfe affirmed that she was willing, able, and anxious to perform the duties of a juror.
Procedural Posture:
- Hannay Beye Fyfe filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court of Cook County (trial court) against the county jury commissioners.
- The jury commissioners filed a demurrer to Fyfe's petition.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer.
- The commissioners elected to stand by their demurrer, declining to plead further.
- The trial court entered a final order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling the commissioners to restore Fyfe's name to the jury lists.
- The jury commissioners (now appellants) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Illinois Jury Commissioners Act, which requires jury lists to be composed of 'electors,' obligate jury commissioners to include women on such lists following the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment and state laws granting women the right to vote?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Heard
No. The Illinois Jury Commissioners Act does not obligate the inclusion of women on jury lists because the term 'electors' must be interpreted according to its meaning at the time the legislature enacted the statute, when only men were legal voters. The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature that passed the act. At the time the relevant jury statutes were enacted, the Illinois Constitution and election laws defined 'electors' exclusively as male citizens. Therefore, the legislature intended for jury lists to be composed only of men. While the Nineteenth Amendment and subsequent state suffrage laws expanded the electorate to include women, these changes did not retroactively alter the fixed meaning of 'electors' in the pre-existing jury statutes. The court's role is to interpret the law as it was written, not to annex new provisions or update it based on subsequent legal developments.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies a strict, originalist approach to statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's meaning is fixed at the time of its enactment. It establishes that changes in constitutional law or the expansion of rights do not automatically update the language of older, related statutes. This ruling placed the onus on the legislature to affirmatively amend existing laws to reflect evolving social and legal norms, such as women's suffrage. Consequently, it delayed the inclusion of women on juries in Illinois until the legislature took specific action, demonstrating that judicial interpretation will not 'update' a statute where the original legislative intent is clear.
