delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiff, Daryl Crudup, and defendant, James E. Sims, were both candidates for election to the office of alderman of the third ward of the City of Harvey, Illinois. Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to keep defendant’s name off the ballot, alleging that defendant filed a false statement of economic interests in violation of section 4A — 107 of the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act (Ethics Act) (5 ILCS 420/4A — 107 (West 1996)). The circuit court ruled that it was without authority to order defendant’s name off the ballot and plaintiff appealed. 155 Ill. 2d R. 301. This court considered the matter on an expedited basis and, in a separate order, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Our reasons therefor now follow.
As a preliminary matter, we consider defendant’s motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s reply brief. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s reply contains improper record and legal citations and false and misleading misstatements of fact contrary to Supreme Court Rules 341(e)(6) and (e)(7). 155 Ill. 2d Rs. 341 (e)(6), (e)(7). The motion is denied. That is not to say that this court adopts plaintiff’s construction of the record or the law but merely that, for purposes of this appeal, plaintiff’s reply brief will stand.
The sole issue on appeal is whether a court has the authority to order a candidate’s name off the ballot where the candidate has willfully filed a false statement of economic interests. We conclude that it does not.
Section 4A — 101 of the Ethics Act mandates that persons who are candidates for nomination or election to an office in a unit of local government must file verified written statements of economic interests. 5 ILCS 420/4A — 101(g) (West 1996). Such disclosures are intended to avoid any conflict of interest between the government and its officers and employees and to instill in the public trust and confidence in its elected officials. Stein v. Howlett, 52 Ill. 2d 570, 578, 289 N.E.2d 409 (1972). Failure to timely file a statement of economic interests renders the candidate’s nomination papers invalid (10 ILCS 5/10 — 5(3) (West 1994)) and may also result in ineligibility for, or forfeiture of, office (5 ILCS 420/4A — 107 (West 1996)). See also Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 2.
Here, we are not faced with a candidate’s total failure to file. Rather, plaintiff alleges that defendant filed a statement that is false and incomplete and that any misrepresentation was intentional.
The Ethics Act requires a candidate to file a statement that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, is true, correct and complete. 5 ILCS 420/4A — 104 (West 1994). A candidate who willfully files a false or incomplete statement of economic interests shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 5 ILCS 420/4A — 107 (West 1996). The candidate may also be subject to prosecution for perjury under the Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/29 — 10 (West 1994); Troutman v. Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d 247, 252, 509 N.E.2d 453 (1987). Significantly, there is nothing in the Election Code, the Ethics Act, or the Illinois Constitution that provides for a noncriminal sanction for the willful filing of a false statement of economic interests. Troutman v. Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d at 252.
Plaintiff argues that section 10 — 5 of the Election Code, when read in conjunction with section 4A — 107 of the Ethics Act, makes it clear that where a candidate willfully files a false or incomplete statement, the candidate’s nomination papers are invalid and removal of his name from the ballot is appropriate. We disagree with plaintiff’s construction of these two statutes.
As previously noted, section 4A — 107 of the Ethics Act sets forth the criminal sanction that attaches to the willful filing of a false or incomplete statement of economic interests. No provision is made for removal of a candidate’s name from the ballot or for any other noncriminal sanction.
Similarly, nothing in section 10 — 5 of the Election Code persuades us that the relief plaintiff seeks is available. Section 10 — 5 provides in relevant part:
"Nomination papers filed under this Section are not valid if the candidate named therein fails to file a statement of economic interests as required in the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act in relation to his candidacy with the appropriate officer by the end of the period for the filing of nomination papers ***.” 10 ILCS 5/10 — 5 (West 1994).
Our supreme court has interpreted the "as required” language above, not as a reference to the substantive requirements of the Ethics Act, but merely a reference to the fact that the Ethics Act, and not the Election Code, requires the filing of statements of economic interests. Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 53, 588 N.E.2d 1119 (1992). Moreover, section 10 — 5 refers to and is applicable only where there is a complete failure to file such a statement. It does not refer to the filing of a statement that is untrue, incorrect or incomplete. Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d at 53-54. Thus, section 10 — 5 of the Election Code provides no authority for the court to order the removal of a candidate’s name from the ballot under the circumstances alleged here.
A review of the case law on which plaintiff relies does not persuade us that the legislature contemplated a noncriminal sanction for the willful filing of a false statement of economic interests. In Havens v. Miller, 102 Ill. App. 3d 558, 429 N.E.2d 1292 (1981), this court held that candidates for election to a school board who filed their statements with the board’s secretary, rather than the county clerk as required by section 4A — 106 of the Ethics Act, were ineligible for office. In the case sub judice there is no allegation that the statement was filed with the wrong entity, and Havens v. Miller is thus not dispositive of the issue before this court.
In Troutman v. Keys, also cited by plaintiff, we held that the circuit court possessed original jurisdiction to consider the correctness and completeness of a candidate’s statement of economic interests. However, because we ultimately determined that the subject statement was not false, there was no need to consider what, if any, sanction might attach for the willful or inadvertent filing of a false statement. Indeed, we recognized:
"No provision in the Illinois Constitution, Election Code, or Ethics Act *** expressly provides or suggests the noncriminal procedure to be followed and sanctions to be imposed in an instance where *** it is claimed that the statement of economic interests, timely filed by a candidate, contains false representations.” Troutman v. Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d at 252.
Accordingly, Troutman v. Keys does not mandate the result plaintiff seeks.
Plaintiff’s further reliance on Welch v. Johnson is equally unavailing. In Welch, our supreme court determined, as a preliminarily matter, that the circuit courts, rather than the election boards, have original jurisdiction over challenges to the truthfulness, correctness and completeness of statements of economic interests. However, the court went on to hold that removal from the ballot is not a permissible sanction for the filing of a statement that is not true, correct and complete due to inadvertence on the candidate’s part. The court examined the relevant statutes and could find no clear statement by the legislature that it intended removal from the ballot as a remedy for an inadvertent omission or misstatement. The court limited its decision to the particular circumstances of that case and expressed no opinion "on the sanctions clearly provided by the legislature for the filing of willfully false or incomplete statements of economic interests.” (Emphasis added.) Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d at 57.
We agree with the Welch opinion that the Ethics Act and Election Code clearly set forth the sanctions available for the willful filing of false statements, and we will not engage in judicial legislation by creating a right or remedy where none exists. Fundamental rules of statutory construction require us to enforce the statutes as written. Dukes v. J.I. Case Co., 186 Ill. App. 3d 439, 446, 542 N.E.2d 439 (1989). Thus, this court may not read into the Ethics Act or Election Code words and provisions that are not expressly included therein or that may not be fairly implied. American Ambassador Casualty Co. v. City of Chicago, 205 Ill. App. 3d 879, 884, 563 N.E.2d 882 (1990). We must guard against creating new rights not supported or suggested by the statutory language. American Ambassador Casualty Co., 205 Ill. App. 3d at 884.
Nothing in the Election Code or Ethics Act can be fairly read as creating a private right of action for the willful filing of a false statement of economic interests. The sanctions provided are criminal in nature and thus within the province of the State’s Attorney’s office. Troutman v. Keys, 156 Ill. App. 3d at 247. Just as the absence of any language in the statutes suggesting a sanction for the inadvertent filing of a false statement caused the court in Welch to conclude that the legislature intended no such sanction, we similarly conclude that the absence of any language suggesting a noncriminal penalty for the willful filing of a false statement can only mean that the legislature intended no such penalty. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that it was unnecessary to consider whether defendant’s alleged conduct was willful or inadvertent. In either case, the court was without authority to grant the relief requested.
Where a court lacks the power to grant the relief sought, the court is said to lack subject matter jurisdiction. In re M.M., 156 Ill. 2d 53, 64, 619 N.E.2d 702 (1993). In the Welch case, our supreme court held that the circuit court has original jurisdiction to hear challenges to the truthfulness, correctness and completeness of statements of economic interests, yet also ruled that the circuit court lacked the authority to grant the relief requested. However, the narrow issue before the Welch court was whether removal from the ballot was a permissible sanction for the inadvertent filing of a false statement, and the court’s decision was limited to the particular circumstances of the case. Significantly, the court did not consider the issue we address today — whether a private right of action exists for the willful filing of a false statement. Thus, we view the supreme court’s holding that the circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear challenges to the truthfulness of statements of economic interests as an indication only that, to the extent a remedy or right of action exists under the Election Code or Ethics Act, the circuit courts are the proper forum in which to adjudicate such matters, rather than before the election authorities. Our decision today makes clear that no private right of action exists under the statutes for the willful filing of a false statement.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the circuit court in favor of defendant is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HARTMAN, P.J., concurs.