Clark v. Illinois State Board of Elections
17 N.E.3d 771
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (nonprofits and taxpayers) sued to enjoin use of public funds to place the "Term Limits Initiative" on the 2014 ballot; the Initiative would amend Article IV to (inter alia) reduce Senate districts from 59 to 41, increase Representatives to 123, abolish staggered Senate terms and make all Senate terms four years, impose an 8‑year term limit for all legislators, and raise the legislative veto‑override threshold from three‑fifths to two‑thirds.
- The Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits intervened to defend the Initiative and argued the amendment should be considered as a whole.
- The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for plaintiffs, finding the Initiative invalid under Art. XIV, § 3 (initiatives to amend Article IV must be limited to structural and procedural subjects) and Art. III, § 3 (the free and equal clause prohibiting combining separate and unrelated questions).
- On appeal the Committee urged that the changes are structural/procedural (and term limits are integrated into larger structural reform) and that all components share a common objective of increasing legislative responsiveness.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding term limits are a qualification/eligibility matter and thus not a structural or procedural subject under Art. XIV, § 3; it also held the Initiative combined separate/unrelated questions in violation of the free and equal clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Initiative complies with Art. XIV, § 3 (limited to structural and procedural subjects in Article IV) | Term limits are not structural or procedural (per CBA II); including them makes the Initiative impermissible. | The Initiative is a package of structural/procedural reforms; term limits are integrated into broader structural changes and must be read in context. | Held: Invalid — term limits are eligibility/qualification matters and not structural/procedural, so the Initiative violates Art. XIV, § 3. |
| Whether term limits can be part of an Article IV ballot initiative when tied to other institutional changes | Term limits cannot be included in any Article IV initiative under controlling precedent. | Term limits here are part of a comprehensive restructuring (e.g., abolishing staggered terms) and so are permissible. | Held: Court bound by CBA II; Committee failed to distinguish facts — term limits remain impermissible. |
| Whether the Initiative violates art. III, § 3 (free and equal clause) by combining separate and unrelated questions | Combining provisions prevents free and equal expression; components are unrelated. | Components share a common objective (increase responsiveness, reduce special‑interest influence) and are reasonably related. | Held: Invalid — components are separate/unrelated; the stated objective is too broad and components (notably the veto change) are not compatibly interrelated. |
| Whether the appellate court should grant a certificate of importance under Rule 316 now | N/A (plaintiffs sought relief) | Committee asked for certification if adverse ruling. | Held: Denied as premature; Rule 316 applications must be made after the opinion (e.g., in rehearing or within 35 days). |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Bar Ass'n v. State Bd. of Elections, 137 Ill. 2d 394 (1990) (interpreting Art. XIV, § 3 and limiting permissible initiative scope to basic legislative structure and procedures)
- Chicago Bar Ass'n v. State Bd. of Elections, 161 Ill. 2d 502 (1994) (CBA II) (held legislative term limits are eligibility/qualification matters and not structural or procedural)
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Bd. of Elections, 65 Ill. 2d 453 (1976) (Coalition I) (construed "structural and procedural" as requiring amendments that are both structural and procedural)
- Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Bd. of Elections, 83 Ill. 2d 236 (1980) (Coalition II) (free and equal clause allows combining only reasonably related questions forming a workable whole)
- Lousin v. State Bd. of Elections, 108 Ill. App. 3d 496 (1982) (invalidated a proposed amendment that would vest legislative-initiation power in electors as beyond Art. XIV, § 3)