McHenry Township v. County of McHenry
201 N.E.3d 550
Ill.2022Background:
- In March 2020 McHenry Township voters rejected a referendum to dissolve the township.
- The township board later adopted a nearly identical resolution to place a dissolution question on the November 2020 general-election ballot (effective date differed).
- County Clerk Joseph Tirio refused to place the question on the ballot, citing a statutory bar on holding a referendum on "the same proposition" more than once in any 23-month period (10 ILCS 5/28-7) and earlier form defects.
- The township sued for a writ of mandamus to compel placement; the circuit court dismissed under section 2-619(a)(9); the appellate court reversed, holding the clerk lacked authority to look beyond the face of the submission.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: it held section 28-5 authorizes a clerk to notify a governing board only when a question is prohibited by the "limitations of Section 28-1," not by section 28-7, and therefore the clerk could not refuse placement on the ground cited.
- The Court did not decide whether the two referenda were actually "the same" under section 28-7; the threshold statutory-interpretation ruling was dispositive.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county clerk may refuse to place a board-initiated public question on the ballot under §28-5 based on a violation that is only apparent by comparing to prior ballots (specifically §28-7's 23-month rule) | Township: Clerk is a ministerial officer who may only examine the face of the submission and cannot look beyond the filings to make legal determinations | Defendants/Tirio: §28-5 (cross-referencing "limitations of §28-1") authorizes the clerk to enforce article 28 broadly, including §28-7, and to notify or refuse placement | Held: §28-5 authorizes notice only when prohibition arises from the "limitations of §28-1." It does not permit the clerk to refuse placement for a §28-7 violation apparent only by external comparison; clerk lacked that authority |
| Whether the March and November 2020 dissolution propositions were "the same" under §28-7 so as to trigger the 23-month bar | Township: The propositions were not the same (different effective dates); clerk cannot judge "sameness" by looking beyond filings | Defendants/Tirio: The only difference (effective date) was statutorily dictated and does not make them different; they were the same proposition | Held: Not decided — the Court resolved the case on statutory-interpretation grounds (§28-5/§28-1) and did not reach whether the two propositions were substantively the same under §28-7 |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Giese v. Dillon, 266 Ill. 272 (1914) (clerk is a ministerial officer and may not look beyond the face of a petition that appears in apparent conformity)
- First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (1976) (review may proceed without appellee brief when record is simple and issues are easily decided)
- North v. Hinkle, 295 Ill. App. 3d 84 (1998) (clerk may reject filings that are deficient on their face)
- People ex rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill. 2d 457 (2004) (elements and limits of mandamus relief)