Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush
842 F.3d 1053
7th Cir.2016Background
- Petition Plaintiffs (Grant and Calumet City Concerned Citizens) circulated a timely petition to place a binding mayoral term‑limits referendum on the November 2016 ballot; approval would have barred the incumbent from running in April 2017.
- Calumet City Council on June 23, 2016 passed three November propositions (two advisory, one binding term‑limits variant) and later added three questions to the February 2017 primary ballot.
- Illinois Election Code’s “Rule of Three” (10 ILCS 5/28‑1) limits a political subdivision to three public questions per election; the County Clerk declined to certify the Petition Plaintiffs’ initiative under that rule.
- Thaddeus Jones (state rep and five‑term alderman; declared mayoral challenger) sued as well because two City propositions would uniquely affect him (pension question and alderman‑service disqualification for mayoral candidates).
- Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction; the district court denied relief, emphasizing plaintiffs’ delay (knowledge by June 23 but suit filed Sept. 15) and potential disruption to the electoral process; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of Illinois’s Rule of Three (first‑come‑first‑served) to preempt citizen initiative violates the First Amendment | Grant: City used the Rule of Three to "take sides," disadvantaging private speakers and chilling speech; Georges suggests such government‑initiated advisory questions can raise serious First Amendment concerns | City/Cook County: Rule is statutory, limits referendum clutter; placement by council is lawful and preempts later citizen petitions | Court: Petitioners have a colorable First Amendment claim, but injunction denied due to plaintiffs’ undue delay and potential election disruption |
| Whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm warranting preliminary injunction | Grant: Exclusion would prevent voter consideration of term limits before the April mayoral election (irreparable political harm) | Defendants: Ballots/early voting were already imminent; granting relief would disrupt electoral processes and absentee/mail voting | Court: Balance favors denying injunction—delay and disruption outweighed plaintiffs’ claimed harm |
| Whether Jones has an equal protection (class‑of‑one) or associational claim from being targeted | Jones: City designed referenda to single him out and impair his candidacy | Defendants: Questions are validly placed; any alleged targeting should be challenged only after enactment | Court: Claims are plausible but unripe—federal courts cannot decide constitutionality of proposed legislation until enacted |
| Whether municipal qualifications for office can be challenged pre‑enactment | Plaintiffs: City cannot change mayoral qualifications via referendum to affect pending races | Defendants: Placement of referendum is procedural/state law governed; challenges premature | Court: Nonjusticiable/blocked by plaintiffs’ delay and ripeness concerns; challenge must await enactment |
Key Cases Cited
- Georges v. Carney, 691 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1982) (government‑initiated advisory ballot questions can raise First Amendment concerns when they effectively let the state take sides)
- Protect Marriage Illinois v. Orr, 463 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2006) (the ballot is not a traditional public forum, but regulations cannot be manipulated to discriminate by viewpoint)
- Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1983) (time, place, and manner test for restrictions in public forums)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1975) (government‑owned forum impermissibly restricting expression may violate the First Amendment)
- Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1990) (laches in election contexts where delay prejudices electoral process)
- Jones v. Griffith, 870 F.2d 1363 (7th Cir. 1989) (federal courts should not render advisory opinions on proposed legislation)
- Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir. 2008) (preliminary injunction standards and sliding‑scale balancing)