2021 IL 126974
Ill.2021Background
- Nov. 3, 2020: Calumet City referendum asking to bar persons who "hold an elected, paid State office" from seeking/holding mayor became approved by voters.
- Nov. 16, 2020: State Representative Thaddeus Jones (incumbent for the 29th District) filed nomination papers for Calumet City mayor.
- Nov. 24, 2020: Election results (including the referendum) were certified; referendum showed majority approval.
- Nov. 25, 2020: Objectors challenged Jones’s nomination before the Municipal Officers Electoral Board, arguing the referendum was legally effective on Nov. 3 and Jones was ineligible when he filed. The Board sustained the objection and removed Jones from the ballot.
- On judicial review, the circuit court affirmed but entered an agreed order placing Jones on the ballot while impounding his votes; the appellate court summarily reversed and ordered Jones on the ballot; the Illinois Supreme Court granted expedited review, stayed the appellate order, and reinstated the agreed order pending disposition.
- The Supreme Court held the referendum became legally effective on the certification date (Nov. 24, 2020), so Jones was qualified when he filed on Nov. 16; the Board’s decision was reversed and the circuit court’s impoundment order vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the referendum legally effective on election day (Nov. 3) or on certification (Nov. 24), determining Jones’s qualification when he filed? | Jones: referendum not legally effective until certification on Nov. 24, so he was qualified when he filed Nov. 16. | Objectors/Board: referendum was approved by voters on Nov. 3 and thus effective that day, rendering Jones ineligible at filing. | Held: Effective on certification (Nov. 24); Jones was eligible at filing. Board decision reversed. |
| Did the City exceed its authority in adopting the referendum under article VII, §6(f) of the Illinois Constitution? | Jones: referendum exceeded municipal authority and was not an authorized candidate qualification. | City/Objectors: provision concerns manner of selection and is within home-rule powers. | Not decided on merits by Supreme Court (case resolved on nonconstitutional ground). |
| Did the referendum violate Jones’s First Amendment rights? | Jones: candidacy restriction violated First Amendment. | Objectors/Board: court below applied rational-basis review and found no violation. | Not reached by Supreme Court (resolved on nonconstitutional ground). |
| If a candidate is qualified at filing but becomes disqualified thereafter, may the candidate be removed or votes impounded? | (Jones) Implicit: name may remain if qualified at filing; later changes shouldn't retroactively nullify filing. | Objectors: a subsequently effective referendum should bar candidacy even post-filing. | Forfeited before the Board and not decided on the merits by the Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Municipal Officers Electoral Bd. of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714 (administrative-review posture: agency decision is before the court)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Mun. Officers Electoral Bd., 228 Ill. 2d 200 (agency legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Palmer v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 77 Ill. App. 3d 725 (where statutory method for declaring election results exists, election is not complete until results are declared)
- In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172 (courts should decide on nonconstitutional grounds when possible)