Attorney General Opinions

Religious freedom and immunization rules

The Department of Public Health has the authority to promulgate its rule which requires non-immunized school children whose parents or guardians object to measles immunization on religious grounds to be excluded from school attendance for a 21-day period following an outbreak of measles in the school. Such exclusion does not impose an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of religion.

The Public Health Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 111 1/2, sec. 22) grants the department "supreme authority in matters of quarantine." The Communicable Diseases Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 111 1/2, sec. 22.11 et seq.) and the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, sec. 1-1 et seq.) grant the department authority to control the spread of communicable diseases by authorizing it to require the immunization of all school children except those whose parents or legal guardians object on religious grounds or where it may be harmful due to the physical condition of a child.

In determining the constitutionality of such cases, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the individual's right to freedom of religion as protected by the 14th Amendment is "subject only to the qualification that the exercise thereof may properly be limited by governmental action where such exercise endangers, clearly and presently, the public health. ..." Since the department's exclusionary rule does not require immunization of all school children when it is contrary to the religious beliefs of the child's parent or guardian, it does not burden religious practices directly. Moreover, this burden is plainly out-weighed by the strong public interest in suppressing the spread of communicable disease. (File 83-017)

Tax abatements for corporations

A newly incorporated foreign corporation which locates its initial manufacturing facility within Illinois is a firm "locating within the taxing district . . . from another State" and therefore qualifies for tax abatement treatment by local taxing districts under Section 162 of the Revenue Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1982 Supp., ch. 120, sec. 643). A qualified subsidiary corporation which is wholly owned by a foreign corporation that presently operates other facilities within the state, either by itself or by other subsidy corporations, is also eligible for local tax abatement under Section 162 — provided there is no evidence the corporation was formed merely to circumvent restrictions in the act.

The attorney general's opinion was issued in response to a query by Michael T. Woelffer, director of the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs. The firm in question, which recently incorporated in another state, was considering an Illinois site for its manufacturing plant along with sites in two other states which had already committed to abate local taxes. "A substantial investment in Illinois hangs in the balance," Woelffer said. Under Public Act 82-316, now part of Section 162 of the Revenue Act, localities can offer property tax abatements for firms locating new facilities within the district. The act, which became effective in January 1982, is an effort to provide business incentives similar to those offered by the Sun Belt states. (File 83-021)

Payments to county clerks

A county clerk or chief clerk of a county board of election commissioners may not elect to receive the annual lump sum award provided in section 1 of the Fees and Salaries Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1982 Supp., ch. 53, sec. 37a) without necessary deductions first being made by the State Board of Elections. Both federal and state statutes require that the taxes and retirement contributions in question be deducted from the annual award prior to payment to the county clerk or chief clerk of a county board of election commissioners. In addition, the county is liable for the payment of employer's contributions based on the amount of the annual lump sum award. (File 83-014)