A Cook County judge Thursday agreed with objections to an Evanston ballot measure fronted by former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, saying the measure was both confusing and potentially illegal and should not appear on the March ballot.
Judge Maureen Ward Kirby declined to reinstate the measure while chastising Quinn for trying to enter documents into evidence that were not first considered by the Evanston electoral board, which is not allowed on appeal. She also criticized Quinn for trying to enter a new argument — that the Evanston election board was biased in its decision and should be reconstituted — through improper channels.
The appeal came after Evanston’s three-member electoral board sustained two objections to the proposed referendum measure in 2-1 votes, thereby removing it from the March 17 ballot. Objectors argued that the measure was not allowed under state law and the way it was written was difficult for voters to understand.
The group Evanston Voter Initiative was asking voters to support a legislative method that would allow residents to create potentially binding city legislation at the ballot box.
Ward Kirby also disagreed with Quinn’s motion to dismiss the original objections to the ballot measure, saying there is no requirement that objectors specifically use the word “interest” in their argument to say why they are filing an objection. Quinn argued the word “interest” specifically must be used.
“You’re not suggesting that the word ‘interest’ was missing and that’s the problem,” Ward Kirby said.
Quinn confirmed that it was indeed what he was suggesting.
“This is a matter of interpretation,” Quinn said. “We cannot have an inconsistent ad hoc approach.”
Under state rules, the Evanston electoral board is made up of Devon Reid as city clerk, Steve Hagerty as mayor and Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, as the longest serving alderman. Reid voted to keep the measure on the ballot.
The Evanston board’s decision came after members pressed Quinn to identify another Illinois voter referendum that was binding without prior approval of a city council or village board. He cited one example in Arlington Heights decades ago that gave voters permission to create binding referendums, but said residents have never chosen to use it.
On Thursday, Ward Kirby agreed that wasn’t enough.
“There can be a lot of laws on the books that are illegal but never been challenged,” the judge said.
“You can’t cite a single case where what you’re trying to do has been done,” Ward Kirby said. “You can’t ask people to do something they’re not legally allowed to do.”
Ward Kirby agreed that the measure was confusing, as it would allow voters to pass a binding referendum that could still be unbound by the Evanston City Council.
“Is it binding or advisory?” Ward Kirby said. “It can be unbound, based on your language. That’s what I’m struggling with.”
Rainey, who attended the hearing, called Quinn’s singling out of her as biased before the judge an “outrageous” assertion.
“We all have an interest in this case,” said Rainey, noting that it was Reid himself who first invited Quinn to speak with voters about the ballot measure issue. “If you use the word interest instead of bias, it makes more sense.”
Members of Evanston Voter Initiative said they planned to further appeal the judge’s decision.
“I’m very disappointed,” said the group’s spokeswoman Allie Harned. “It’s a matter of interpretation and it does seem like some bias to keep this right away from the people.”
Evanston resident Beth Stare said she didn’t agree that the measure is hard to understand.
“The confusing nature didn’t seem like a good argument because it is clear,” Stare said. “I’m not pleased.”
Supporters of the effort submitted petitions with more than 3,800 signatures Dec. 16 in an effort to get the measure place on the March ballot. The lengthy question would have asked voters to determine if Evanston should enact a voter petition and referendum process.
The proposed process stipulated that if at least 25 Evanston voters submit a request for a proposal, the city clerk would draft that proposal into ordinance form. The official summary of that proposed ordinance could then be introduced to the city council if at least 8% of the total votes cast for governor in Evanston in the previous gubernatorial election sign the petition. Based on 2018 election data, that would translate to roughly 2,800 signatures.
Once that threshold is met, the clerk would submit the proposed ordinance for placement on the next Evanston City Council agenda for consideration. The City Council would then be required to take a roll call vote within 70 days of submission.
If the proposed ordinance was not passed within the 70 day period, the official summary would be submitted to voters in the form of a referendum in the next regularly scheduled election. If the ordinance was approved by a majority of Evanston voters, the proposed ordinance would then become law unless it is voted down by a resolution of the city council within 30 days of the election.
Evanston resident Carolyn Murray said “voters are being oppressed” and are “frustrated” that the measure isn’t going through.
In response, Murray said, she expects EVI to “reword that question and push forward another petition for the November ballot.”
