Municipal Officers Electoral Board of the Village of Elk Grove Village, 2020 IL 125714

Timothy Burns filed a petition to place a village-wide referendum on the March 17, 2020 primary to impose two-term (two consecutive four-year terms) limits for Elk Grove Village president and trustees.
Benjamin Lee objected, relying on newly enacted 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-17, which requires municipal term limits to be prospective (only terms served after enactment count) and bars home rule ordinances inconsistent with that rule.
The Municipal Officers Electoral Board sustained Lee’s objection, concluding Burns’s proposed referendum impermissibly counted prior service and the board could not declare the statute unconstitutional.
The Cook County circuit court reversed, holding section 3.1-10-17 unconstitutional both facially and as applied—principally because it retroactively affected term limits adopted by other municipalities since November 8, 2016—and ordered the referendum placed on the ballot.
The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed de novo, affirmed that the General Assembly validly limited home rule authority to require prospective-only term limits, held the statute constitutional facially and as applied to Elk Grove, and reversed the circuit court in part, vacating the portions addressing unrelated retroactive effects.
Result: electoral board decision (invalidating Burns’s referendum) affirmed; circuit court judgment reversed in part and vacated in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burns)	Defendant's Argument (Lee / Electoral Board / State)	Held
Whether 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-17 is facially unconstitutional	Statute unlawfully infringes voters’ constitutional right to adopt term limits by referendum	Legislature validly limited home-rule authority; statute is a permissible prospective rule	Statute is not facially invalid; facial challenge fails
Whether statute is unconstitutional as applied to Burns’s referendum	Statute cannot be applied to bar Burns’s referendum (which would count prior service)	Statute requires term limits be prospective; referendum here violates that rule	Statute is constitutional as applied; referendum properly excluded from ballot
Whether the General Assembly may limit home-rule power to set term limits prospectively	Home-rule municipalities have authority under art. VII §6(f) to set officers and terms by referendum	Legislature may expressly limit concurrent home-rule powers under art. VII §§6(h),(i)	Legislature validly imposed express limitation; prospectivity requirement constitutional
Whether court could invalidate statutory provisions affecting other municipalities (retroactivity to pre‑Nov. 8, 2016 referenda)	Statute retroactively nullifies prior valid voter-enacted term limits; unconstitutional	Those provisions do not affect parties here; court should not rule on non‑parties’ claims	Supreme Court declined to decide retroactivity for others; vacated circuit court’s ruling on provisions not affecting parties

Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398 (2011) (election boards lack authority to declare statutes unconstitutional)
Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (2008) (facial challenge standard: statute invalid only if no circumstances of valid application)
In re M.T., 221 Ill. 2d 517 (2006) (facial challenge requires showing statute cannot be validly applied)
Flynn v. Ryan, 199 Ill. 2d 430 (2002) (courts will not decide constitutionality of statutory provisions that do not affect the parties)
Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 189 Ill. 2d 200 (2000) (similar principle limiting adjudication to matters affecting the parties)
Oswald v. Hamer, 2018 IL 122203 (statutes enjoy strong presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears burden)
City of Chicago v. Alexander, 2017 IL 120350 (distinction between facial and as‑applied challenges)
Johnson v. Ames, 2016 IL 121563 (home-rule municipality power to alter eligibility/terms via referendum under art. VII §6(f))
Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2013 IL 110505 (General Assembly may expressly limit home-rule powers)
Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (2001) (legislative preemption and home-rule limits)