Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* The basic gist of the appeal…
In this case, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that a referendum question placed on the ballot by the Chicago City Council proposing to raise the real estate transfer tax on some properties, and in the same question, lower the tax on other properties, was constitutionally ineligible to appear on the ballot because the question violated both the free and equal elections clause and the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. … As a result of this combination, a voter wishing to support the decrease portion alone must also support the increase with the same vote, and a voter wishing to support only the increase, must also support the decrease.
The Circuit Court agreed and enjoined the Defendant, the Chicago Board of Elections, from counting or releasing any votes cast on the question. The Appellate Court reversed that decision, concluding that Plaintiffs’ “complaint is premature” because the referendum “is a step in the legislative process.” The Appellate Court’s decision is incorrect and should be reversed because it fails to recognize the critical fact that the “free and equal elections” clause protects voting rights, and once a voter is forced to vote on an unconstitutional question, the violation of that right has occurred and the injury to that right cannot be subsequently remedied. Indeed that is why, nearly fifty years ago, this Court recognized that “the framers of our constitution intended this court alone to determine whether constitutional requirements for a proposed amendment were satisfied.” […]
The Appellate Court’s decision, if permitted to stand, eliminates any pre-election challenge to the constitutionality of a referendum question placed on the ballot by municipal alderpersons, regardless of how blatantly unconstitutional the question may be. The possibilities for ballot abuse by municipal councils across the state are endless.
The Appellate Court’s decision also stands in direct conflict to the same court’s most recent decision regarding municipal referenda. In Henyard v. Municipal Officers of Dolton, 2022 IL App (1st) 220898, the First District Court explicitly considered its jurisdiction over a pre-election complaint that two referendum questions placed on the ballot by municipal alderpersons violated Article III, Section 3. The Court concluded it had jurisdiction and then invalidated the questions as being “fatally vague and ambiguous” in violation of Article III, Section 3.
The Appellate Court’s decision also sets two up different standards for judicial review of municipal referenda questions. Under the Appellate Court’s decision, courts would have no jurisdiction to consider a pre-election constitutional challenge to a referendum placed on the ballot by municipal alderpersons, but courts would have jurisdiction over a question (even the same question) placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Why questions initiated by citizens should get more judicial scrutiny than questions initiated by alderpersons, the Court does not say. The free and equal elections clause draws no such distinction. […]
In its decision, the Appellate Court attempts to distinguish Henyard by pointing out that in that case the Court issued its decision after the election, and not before. In both cases, however, the Article III, Section 3 challenge was filed before the election, not after. In fact, the Henyard Court enjoined the County Clerk (the election authority for suburban Cook County) from counting or publishing the results before the election, not after. The fact that the Henyard court waited until after the election to issue its final decision should not affect the court’s jurisdiction.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 5:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The plaintiffs must be very confident they’re going to win this. Otherwise they’re just motivating the BCH/CTU even more.
Related - did I see CPS is allowing students to go to a political rally this week at CTU offices? Can CPS students skip class whenever they want to attend political rallies? What if they wanted to attend a Trump event?
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 6:05 pm
- What if they wanted to attend a Trump event? -
If you have your parents’ permission you can skip school for anything. Were you raised in a different country?
Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 6:36 pm
=== If you have your parents’ permission you can skip school for anything. Were you raised in a different country? ===
The way I know you make a valid point is because you attempted to bully me. So naturally I concede that you must be absolutely correct and won’t bother asking any additional questions.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 8:13 pm
== As a result of this combination, a voter wishing to support the decrease portion alone must also support the increase with the same vote, and a voter wishing to support only the increase, must also support the decrease.==
If they don’t support changing the flat rate to a graduated rate, they can vote no. What are we doing here?
Comment by JC Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 9:35 pm
Sorry I dont understand how this leads to ballot “abuse” or fits that definition.
Comment by low level Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:20 pm
Rich people don’t want to pay taxes. Period.
Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 9:25 am
==If they don’t support changing the flat rate to a graduated rate, they can vote no.==
Then the ballot question should’ve been simply worded that way. It isn’t.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:19 am
=== Then the ballot question should’ve been simply worded that way. It isn’t. ===
If you read the statute first regarding the real estate transfer tax, you would know that the form of the ballot question is stipulated in the statute, up to and including the vaguely-worded purpose for which the fee will be used.
Also, if you read the Appellate ruling, you will see that they quickly and effectively recognized that this is a graduated tax increase. 1) the rates are graduated, and 2) everyone has recognized it is going to increase tax revenue.
The opponents argue that voters are too dumb to recognize a graduated tax increase when they see one, while simultanuously arguing the exact opposite: that this is logrolling because people see that there are multiple rates involved and where they fall within that rate structure and how it will personally affect them.
The problem here for the opponents is that their legal argument conflicts with their best political argument, the legal argument is getting massive media attention, and voters do not find it persuasive.
Quite the contrary.
“We think this should be illegal because it provides a tax cut for 94% of Chicagoans while raising taxes on the richest 6% for some plan to help the homeless” is actually repeating Bring Chicago Home’s message.
Comment by Burn Notice Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:41 am
I’ll be so sad when this is over in a few weeks because it’s been so enjoyable watching “Illinois Democrats” pretend to oppose Bring Chicago Home for reasons other than the actual one: they’re conservatives.
Comment by SWSider Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:02 pm
==you attempted to bully me.==
If asking one question is now bullying the word has no meaning.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:06 pm