Johnson v. Ames
2016 IL App (1st) 162770
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Proponent Maxine Johnson submitted a citizen petition to place a referendum limiting consecutive terms for Broadview Village President on the Nov. 8, 2016 ballot; petition met signature threshold (224 valid; 221 required).
- Referendum text limited eligibility to seek or hold office to persons not "previously elected" for two consecutive full four-year terms, and specifically referenced the April 4, 2017 election and elections thereafter.
- Objector Matthew Ames challenged the referendum before the Village Electoral Board on multiple grounds, including that the question was vague/ambiguous and that certain notarized affidavits should be struck, reducing valid signatures below the statutory minimum.
- The Electoral Board (2–1) sustained only the vagueness objection (objection III), finding uncertainty whether prior service before passage would be counted; it nevertheless upheld the signature count.
- The trial court reversed the board, holding the referendum is not vague, is self-executing and prospective, and that the Notary Public Act did not bar the proponent from notarizing affidavits; it ordered the question placed on the ballot.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court: it reviewed the board’s decision de novo on the vagueness issue, rejected the board’s ambiguity finding, and upheld the signature determination and statutory interpretation regarding the notary issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Ames) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the referendum is unconstitutionally vague/ambiguous | The text clearly limits eligibility prospectively to those elected in April 4, 2017 and thereafter; prior service that results in two prior consecutive terms renders a person ineligible when nominating petitions are filed | The language is unclear whether prior service before passage/2017 is counted; could be read to have retroactive effect, so it fails to "stand on its own terms" | Held not vague: court reads eligibility as measured at time of seeking office (nomination filing); question is self-executing and prospective — affirmed trial court reversal of board |
| Whether certain notarized affidavits signed by the proponent must be struck under the Notary Public Act | Section 6-104(b) prohibits acknowledgments where the notary’s name appears as a party to the instrument; Johnson’s name did not appear on the petition, so the statute does not bar notarization | Ames contends the Notary Public Act bars Johnson from notarizing affidavits related to a referendum she sponsored, invalidating rehabilitative affidavits and reducing valid signatures below the statutory minimum | Held for Johnson: plain statutory text does not bar the notarizations at issue; board and trial court correctly refused to strike the affidavits |
| Whether the petition met the statutory minimum signatures | Johnson: after records examination there were 224 valid signatures (statutory requirement 221) | Ames: if the questionable affidavits are struck, the petition falls below the 221 threshold | Held for Johnson: board’s factual finding of 224 valid signatures stands and was not contested on appeal by the board; appellate court affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipinski v. Chicago Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 114 Ill. 2d 95 (discusses requirement that referenda "stand on their own terms" and be self-executing)
- Leck v. Michaelson, 111 Ill. 2d 523 (same principle: referenda must provide a coherent scheme and be free of uncertainty)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Bd., 228 Ill. 2d 200 (we review electoral board decisions; discusses timing of eligibility and review posture)
- Jackson v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 2012 IL 111928 (eligibility to seek office is assessed when nomination papers are filed)