Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign updates
Next Post: Studies show immigration has surged the economy forward since the pandemic
Posted in:
* Max Bever, Director of Public Information, Chicago Board of Elections…
The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners will appeal the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County to deny its Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit concerning the citywide referendum question. The Board maintains that it is not a proper defendant in this case, and that the City of Chicago is a necessary party. The Board will request an expedited review by the Illinois Appellate Court.
I’m not sure that the appellate court will agree, but it is important to note that the board did not engage at all with the substance of the opposition. Instead, its argument, as stated above, was very narrowly about who was the proper defendant. From the city’s filing yesterday…
The Board defendants could not and did not adequately represent the City’s interests. The Board failed to raise any substantive arguments in response to the Plaintiffs’ arguments that the referendum violated the Illinois Municipal Code and the Illinois Constitution. This is because the Board Defendants were not authorized to raise such arguments. See Kozenczak v. Du Page Cnty. Officers Electoral Bd., 299 Ill. App. 3d 205, 207 (2nd Dist. 1998)(holding local election officials acted “in an adjudicatory or quasi-judicial capacity” and thus Illinois election law did not authorize their advocacy on behalf of prospective candidate in opposition to a voter challenge to his qualifications.) One of the Board Defendants even averred that it was improper for the Board to weigh in on the referendum’s constitutionality.
Because the City was not allowed to intervene, these arguments were not raised. If the City had been allowed to intervene, the Court would have considered these arguments, which were raised in the City’s proposed Motion to Dismiss. Instead, the Court granted the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with no opposition to the substantive arguments.
* Also, this is from A.D. Quig’s Tribune story…
[Mayor Brandon Johnson] did not answer when asked if his administration had erred in the drafting of the question or whether he would try to get the referendum question on November ballots if appeals failed. […]
Speed was key in this case, [plaintiffs] argued, so that voters would know what votes would be counted by primary day on March 19.
“While the amount of time that Petitioner waited to seek intervention — 35 days — may not be excessive in other types (of) cases, it is an eternity in an election case,” attorneys Mike Kasper and Michael Del Galdo wrote in opposition to the city intervening, inferring the city did so deliberately “to delay the proceedings so that a final resolution comes much closer to, or even after, the primary election.”
* And this is from Heather Cherone’s WTTW story…
State law does not give the City Council the power to change the transfer tax on its own authority. Without legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor, the measure needs the support of Chicago voters through a referendum before the City Council can levy the tax and collect the funds.
* More…
* Block Club | City Files Appeal In Bring Chicago Home Lawsuit: Cook County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Burke did not elaborate on her reasoning for invalidating the Bring Chicago Home referendum in a Friday ruling. In a court order received Monday by the Chicago Board of Elections, the defendant in the lawsuit against the referendum, Burke wrote that she ruled against the legality of the ballot question to raise the transfer tax on high-end property sales “for the reasons stated in open court and on the record.”
* Sun-Times | Chicago’s elections board votes to appeal ruling invalidating Bring Chicago Home referendum: In the meantime, the question remains on the ballot for people casting their ballots early or who are receiving them by mail. Both advocates and opponents to the ballot question encourage people to vote on the question, even though a Cook County judge ruled the question invalid on Friday.
* ABC Chicago | Battle over Chicago real estate transfer tax referendum heads to higher court: The Building Owners and Managers Association, or BOMA, had sued the Chicago Board of Elections to knock the referendum off the ballot. The three-question referendum asks voters to raise the transfer tax for properties that sell for over a million dollars, while lowering it for those that sell for less.
* CBS | Chicago election board to appeal ruling against Bring Chicago Home tax hike referendum to fight homelessness: The board voted Tuesday morning to appeal Burke’s ruling so that votes on the referendum can be counted. Early voting is already underway in Chicago, The ballot measure would ask voters to authorize the City Council to restructure the city’s real estate transfer tax to create a tiered system for taxing the sale of property in Chicago
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 11:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign updates
Next Post: Studies show immigration has surged the economy forward since the pandemic
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Seems pretty cut and dried here, the referendum was phrased in a manner that makes its appearance on the ballot impermissible. Not really sure what more can be accomplished by appealing…
Comment by Old IL Dude Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 12:47 pm
“35 days may not be excessive in other types (of) cases, it is an eternity in an election case” - Plaintiff
59 days passed between the date the referendum was approved by the City Council and the objection was filed in court.
“Eternity” is really a relative term.
Comment by Tempus Fugit Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 12:50 pm
I never thought I’d live to see the day that progressives in Illinois are bringing out the torches and pitchforks for Michael Kasper.
What a time to be alive.
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 1:47 pm
Serious question: Can you even challenge a ballot referendum before the Board of Elections certifies a ballot referendum question?
I mean I’d love to challenge some candidates before they even filed their paperwork but not sure you can challenge stuff before BOE does their statutory duties?
Comment by ChicagoBars Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 1:58 pm
“Not really sure what more can be accomplished by appealing…”
The City was prevented from participating. Even if they lose on the merits, that decision is insane.
Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 1:59 pm
So who’s running the bill down in Springfield? And who’s whipping the votes?
Suburbanites and downstaters, even Dems, may not be inclined to vote for a tax increase, even if only for Chicago, especially during an election year.
Comment by Frida's boss Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 2:10 pm
===So who’s running the bill down in Springfield?===
Nobody. What are you even talking about? The city can do it on its own.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 2:12 pm
I think the plaintiffs are correct on the merits — combining a tax decrease with a tax increase violates the spirit of the state law on the referendum process. However, I don’t see the legal rational of denying the city standing on the case.
The most interesting question now is (assuming the court decision stands) will the advocates try to run a newly-worded referendum this Fall, when the make up of the city electorate will likely be less favorable than it will be during the primary?
Comment by Telly Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 3:46 pm
Am I the only one confused re: keeping track of who is saying what and what the appeal on this vs that is? And if the superior court rules in favor of BCH can the opponents come in and try to kick it higher?
Comment by Uptown Lover Tuesday, Feb 27, 24 @ 5:00 pm