Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutV. COW Agenda Item Non-Partisan, No Primary Election Discussion KLEIN. THORPE & JENKINS, LTD. Attorneys at Law 20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste J.660 J.50J.0 S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste J.O Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 Orland Park, Illinois 60462-5353 T 3J.2 984 6400 F 3J.2 984 6444 T 708 349 3888 F 708 349 1506 DD 312 984 6420 emhill@ktjlaw.com www.ktjlaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Janonis, ViII~ge Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M. Hill, Jr. FROM: DATE: August 25,2009 (Revised 10n109) RE: Specially Tailored Election System The Village Board has asked for a memo describing how an election system tailored specifically for Mount Prospect would work. We have previously referred to such a tailored system as a "boutique election.,,1 Our fact sheet will refer to it as a "specially tailored system". It is my understanding that the Board is interested in considering an election system similar to the one that was used in Mount Prospect for many election cycles prior to 2009. The features of such a system would be: 1. The elections will be non-partisan, each person would run as an individual. (Same as the statute.) 2. primary.) There will be no primary election. (Pursuant to the statute there is a potential 3. The filing dates would track requirements for general elections. (Filing dates under the statute track to the primary election.) 4. The number of signatures required for ballot eligibility will be 1 % of the Mount Prospect registered voters. (Currently this would mean about 300 signatures). With respect to the number of signatures, the statute would require 1 % of those who voted in the last mayoral election or about 45 signatures. Another section of the Election Code calls for one-half of 1 % of the registered voters or about 150 signatures. Another statute requires 5% - 8% of those voting in the last mayoral election or between 230 and 360 signatures. After our last discussion with the Village Board, there was a consensus to use the 1 % of the registered voter requirement. I Any reference in this memo to the "statute" refers to the statute by which the current State Board of Elections claims we are governed. 239658_1 " Mr. Michael E. Janonis August 25, 2009 (Revised 10/7/09) Page 2 The use of this specially tailored system will require a referendum. A valid referendum question would look something like the following: Should the Village of Mount Prospect continue its non-partisan system of electing its mayor and trustees, but do so where the number of nominating signatures required for ballot eligibility would be equal to 1% of the number of registered voters in the Village of Mount Prospect and no primary election would be required? If this question is to appear on the February 2, 2010 primary ballot, an ordinance must be adopted calling for the referendum by November 30, 2009. If you have any questions, please contact me. 239658_1 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FEBRUARY 2, 2010 "NON-PARTISAN, NO PRIMARY" ELECTION SYSTEM REFERENDUM FACT SHEET On February 2,2010 the Village of Mount Prospect is asking voters to approve, by binding referendum, a "non-partisan, no primary" election system for the election of mayor and trustees. REFERENDUM QUESTION Should the Village of Mount Prospect continue its non-partisan system of electing its mayor and trustees, but do so where the number of nominating signatures required for ballot eligibility would be equal to 1 % of the number of registered voters in the Village of Mount Prospect and no primary election would be required? What is a referendum? A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal of governance. What is a binding referendum? A referendum where the governing authorities must abide by the results of the people's vote. Is this a binding referendum? Yes. What is the election system proposed in this referendum? The non-partisan, no primary election system is specially tailored for the Village of Mount Prospect to best conform to the Village's long-standing election process. Why must the "non-partisan, no primary" election system be adopted by binding referendum? For many election cycles, Mount Prospect had used a non-partisan system that did not contemplate a primary election. In 2009, a new directive was issued by the State Board of Elections indicating that Mount Prospect should contemplate a primary election. Article VII 96(f) of the Illinois Constitution grants Home Rule municipalities the authority to adopt election systems specially tailored for their communities. Such a specially tailored election system must be adopted by binding referendum. What are the features of the proposed election system for the Village of Mount Prospect? · The elections will remain non-partisan, each person would run as an individual (same as the state statute. ) · There will be no primary election. · The filing dates for candidates will track requirements for general elections. · The number of signatures required for ballot eligibility will be 1 % of the Mount Prospect registered voters. (Based on 2009 voter registration data this would be 300 signatures.) How does the specially tailored system differ from the State Board of Elections model for non- partisan elections? Partisan or Non-partisan Primary election Filing Periods Petition Signatures Specially Tailored System State Board Model Non-partisan No General election requirements 1 % of registered voters in Mount Prospect (approximately 300 signatures) Non-partisan Potential - depends on # of candidates Primary election requirements 1 % of those who voted in the 2009 mayoral election (approximately 45 signatures) KlEIN. TH'ORPE ,& JENKINS, LTD. Atto rneys at Law 20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 1660 15010 S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10 Chicago, illinois 60606-2903 Orland Park, Illinois 60462-5353 T 312 984 6400 F 3J.2 984 6444 T 708 349 3888 F 708349 1506 DO 312 984 6420 emhill@ktjlaw.com www.ktjlaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect FROM: Everette M. Hill, Jr. DATE: August 25, 2009 RE: Boutique Election The Village Board has asked for a memo describing how an election system tailored specifically for Mount Prospect would work. We have previously referred to such a tailored system as a "boutique election...1 It is my understanding that the Board is interested in considering an election system similar to the one that was used in Mount Prospect for many election cycles prior to 2009. The features of such a system would be: 1. The elections will be non-partisan, each person would run as an individual. (Same as the statute.) 2. There will be no primary election. (Pursuant to the statute there is a potential primary.) 3. The filing dates would track requirements for general elections. (Filing dates under the statute track to the primary election.) 4. The number of signatures required for ballot eligibility will be 1 % of the Mount Prospect registered voters. (Currently this would mean about 300 signatures). With respect to the number of signatures, the statute would require 1 % of those who voted in the 'last mayoral election or about 45 signatures. Another section of the Election Code calls for one-half of 1 % of the registered voters or about 150 signatures. Another statute requires 5% - 8% of those voting in the last mayoral eJection or between 230 and 360 signatures. 1 Any reference in this memo to the .statute" refers to the statute by which the current State Board of Elections claims we are governed. 239658_1 Mr. Michael E. Janonis August 25, 2009 Page 2 Upon consulting with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, it was our collective belief that 1 % of the registered voters or 300 signatures was just about right for Mount Prospect. (The 5% - 8% would yield a similar number, but would make for an awkwardly worded and perhaps confusing referendum question.) The use of this boutique system will require a referendum. A valid referendum question would look something like the following: Should the Village of Mount Prospect establish a non-partisan system of electing its trustees and mayor, where there would be no primary election and the number of nominating signatures required for ballot eligibility would be equal to 1 % of the number of registered voters in the Village of Mount Prospect? If this question is to appear on the February 2,2010 primary ballot, an ordi~ance must be adopted calling for the referendum by November 30, 2009. If it is to appear on the November 2,2010 ballot, the ordinance must be adopted by August 30,2010. If you have any questions, please contact me. 2396SV :ScE ?A~ 2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 26, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were Trustees Paul Hoefert, Arlene Juracek, John Korn, John Matuszak, Steven Potit, and Michael Zadel. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Village Clerk Lisa Angell, Deputy Village Clerk Kimberly Dewis, Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas, and Village Attorney Everette Hill. A motion to move the original agenda item V (Forest River Fire Protection District Property) ahead of item IV (Election Discussion/Referendum) was made by Trustee Hoefert and seconded by Trustee Zade!. The motion was approved. II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A motion to approve the minutes of April 14, 2009, was made by Trustee Juracek and seconded by Trustee Potit. Minutes were approved. Trustees Zadel and Korn abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. FOREST RIVER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROPERTY Fire Chief Michael Figolah introduced Prospect Heights Fire Protection District's (PHFPD) request to transfer an area within the boundaries of Prospect Heights and the Forest River Fire Protection District, that the Village of Mount Prospect currently provides fire protection services to, from the Village to the PHFPD. Chief Figolah recommended the Village Board approve the jurisdictional transfer primarily to (1) avoid any confusion regarding who services the area; and (2) address PHFPD's financial needs. As additional support, he reasoned that the transfer would not decrease the level of emergency response currently provided to the affected neighborhood. General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board included the following: · Whether the transfer would affect the level of emergency response to the area; · How the emergency response notification process would change; · What the impact would be to the Village as a result of losing the tax money currently collected by the Forest River Fire Protection District; · Whether the Village would have any legal fees associated with the transfer. Two board members from the Forest River Fire Protection District provided their initial impressions regarding the request. In response to inquiries by the Village Board, they stated that their attorney would have to review the proposal before releasing their official position. H:\VILM\Cow\2009\Minutes\COW Minutes 5-26-09 - Revised 7-15-D9.doc Committee 'of the Whole Page 1 of 3 5/26/09 V. ELECTION DISCUSSIONIREFERENDUM Village ~anager Michael Janonis briefly summarized the difference between the Village's past and most recent local election process and some of the related issues that should be considered, including (1) whether the Village should continue to follow a non- partisan election process; and (2) what role the Village Clerk's Office should playas the local election official in assisting candidates to file their petition and supporting documentation. He stated that a referendum may have to be presented to the community if the election process were to be changed. Prior to fielding questions from the Village Board of Trustees, Village Attorney Everette Hill added that the Village has been conducting their election for several decades in a non-partisan manner. He acknowledged that the Village's election process (including the petition filing dates) had recently changed to adhere to the State of Illinois's election guidelines (primary filing deadlines and signature requirements). Additionally, he noted that a referendum would be required if (1) the Village Board wanted to adopt a partisan election process; or (2) the Village Board decided to maintain its non-partisan status, but return to the old petition filing deadlines and signature requirements. In regards to the second alternative, he stated that the Board would essentially create its own "boutique" election process, an alternative supported by an Illinois Attorney General legal opinion. General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board regarding the election process included the following: . Does the State require a non-partisan community to use the primary filing deadline; . Does the new State signature requirements make it easier to g~t on the ballot; . Opinions differed regarding the impact of the new signature requirement; · Why did the State change the guidelines; . What have other communities done in response to the State's changes; · How many candidates would force a primary election; · Who pays for elections; · Want to stay a non-partisan election system; . When should a referendum be submitted to be on a ballot; . A referendum to create a "boutique" election process could be very difficult to create. In addition to the election process, the Village Board also discussed the Village Clerk's role in the process, specifically regarding the petition filing process. General comments, questions or concems from the Village Board included the following: . Clerk's Office should continue to provide candidate's guide, petition forms, and other handouts; . Clerk's Office should not offer advice regarding how to complete a candidate's petition and supporting materials nor should it provide an opinion regarding the completeness, accuracy, or validity of the candidate's petition and supporting materials; . Opinions differed regarding whether the Clerk's Office should notarize candidate 'materials. Committee of the Whole Page 2 of 3 5/26/09 Ultimately, the Village Board decided that they would like more information regarding a "boutique" election process and how it would be implemented. The discussion regarding notary services was tabled for a later date. VI. EECBG PROGRAM Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas presented a summary of the United States Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Block Grant Program and its requirements, the eligible activities that can be funded under the grant. and its limitations. He also described the application process to obtain the grant, the spending obligations and timelines. Finally, he presented two primary recommendations (1) apply for the grant; and (2) hire a consultant to develop an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS), assist the Village to implement any immediate plan initiatives, and develop mechanisms to report progress back to the DOE. He also asked the Board to consider the projecrs scope and whether it should be focused on municipal facilities and property only or the entire community. General comments, questions or concerns from the Village Board included the following: · Apply for the grant and hire a consultant to assist the Village; · The scope of the project, including the formation of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, should include the entire community; · Grant funds should be spent on practical applications that will benefit the community; · Whether the consultant will be held liable to meet the grant's deadlines; · What the "Buy American" requirement means and its impact on the project; · Consider what other communities are doing. VII. MANAGER'S REPORT None. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Irvana Wilks and Trustee John Kom noted the presence of the French delegation and their weekly activities. Trustee Steven Polit commented on the progress of the Levee 37 project. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that progress reports and pictures would be forthcoming. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Committee of the Whole Page 3 of 3 5/26/09 20 N. Wacker Drive, 8te 1660 Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 T 312984 6400 F 312 984 6444 1506 15010 S. Ravinia Avenue. Ste 10 Orland Park, Illinois 60462.5353 T 708 349 3888 F 708 349 DO 312 984 6420 emhillOktjlaw.com www.ktjlaw.com CONRDENnAL ATTORNEY/cUENT PRIVILEGE ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Michael Janonis. Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M. Hill, Jr. and Jason Guisinger FROM: DATE: RE: April 7. 2009 Mount Prospect Municipal Elections For many municipal election cycles, candidates for office in the Village of Mount Prospect have run as non-partisan candidates. In other words. they did not run as representatives or affiliates of a political party. Because of this, these were deemed to be "non-partisan" elections by the Village and the State Board of Elections. Despite this designation as "noo-partisan". the Village alJawed the use of either "non-partisan" or "independent" nominating petitions. The ViIJage also used submission dates that were appropriate to "partisanD elections. In ~001. the Village received a letter from the State Board of Elections stating that. despite these distinctions. the Village of Mount Prospect held non- partisan elections. However. prior to the 2009 election, the State Board of Elections issued new rules that undermined Mount Prospects long used election processes and appeared to require that Mount Prospect no longer use the ~me format. This caused significant confusion for the 2009 nominatil')g process. "Eventually. the Village made the determination to follow the revised procedures set forth by the State Board of E~ections for the 2009 and subsequent election cycles. All of this raises the issue of whether the Village might be required to submit these changes to referendum. The Illinois Constitution. Article VIt. gaef) provides that 'a] home rule municipality (such as Mount Prospect) shalf have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of selection and terms of office only as approved by referendum 2! otherwise authorized by law." In addition, there are "'inois court cases which slate that a referendum is required if a municipality changes its form of government. Therefore, a referendum would be required under two possible circumstances: (1) the holding of non-partisan elections in iManage:23 1299_1 Mr. Michael Janonis ApriI7,2009 Page 2 Mount Prospect is not authorized by law; or (2) the change in election procedure was tantamount to a change in the form of government. A review of the relevant provisions of the Election Code and the Illinois Municipal 'Code reveals that the Village,' as an Article V managerial form of government, is authorized to hold non-partisan elections. The Illinois Election Code, 87-13.1 requires that the method of certifrcation of a candidate be modified to accommodate rules contained in other statutes that makes specific provision fOr the erection of officers. 651LCS 5"- 13.1. The Illinois Municipal Code contains the specific provision that Article V municipalities, such as Mount Prospect. may hold non-partisan elections. Moreover, Article 3.1, 83.1-25-20 of the Municipal Code, requires that all municipalities conducting non-partisan elections prior to January 1, 1992. continue holding non-partisan elections unless a referendum is passed providing for partisan elections. 651LCS 5/3.1-25-20. This indicates that, since the Village did not hold partisan elections prior to 1992, the Village is required to continue holding non-partisan elections unless a referendum is passed to the contrary. ' Therefore, the "new" system is "authorized by law'. Some might wish to argue that that ~ elections were not actually non- partisan since the Village had not, prior to the 2009 election cycle, accepted petitions in time for a primary. However, the important distinction to be made between partisan and non-partisan elections is that in partisan elections, candidates may run as a representative of a politiCal party. In Mount Prospect, candidates have not run as a member of a political party for over 25 years. All of the foregoing is supported by a 2001 letter from the State Board of Elections recognizing Mount Prospect as a non-partisan election municipality. The second aspect of this inquiry is whether the change in the nominating procedure amounts to a change in the tonn of government. It is our opinion that it does not. The change in the nature of the nominating petitions and the timing of their submissions in no way affects the balance of power as distributed among the Village President, the Village Board and the" Village Manager. Based on the prior conclusions reached in this memorandum, it is clear that Mount Prospect previo~1y and continues to hold non-partisan elections. Therefore, there is no change in the form of government. iManage:231299_1 Mr. Michael Janonis April 7, 2009 Page 3 Having established that the Village is authorized to continue holding non- partisan elections without a referendum, it is necessary to briefly set forth the manner in which the Village will conduct future municipal elections. In a non-partisan election, instead of filing directly for the April general election, as would seem Iogica', candidates must fi'e for a putative February primary on the earlier filing cycle for that election. If more than four times as many candidates file for a particular office than there are positions to be filled, then all of the candidates run in a February primary. Those with the highest vote totals run in the April general election, so that the April baltot contains four times as many candidates as positions to be filled. For example, if there are two trustee positions to be filled and nine candidates run, then all nine candidates run in the February primary and the top eight candidates run in the April general election. On the other hand, if only four times as many file, or fewer, there is no February primary and all of the candidates run in the April general election. 65 IlCS 5/3.1-25-20 through 5/3.1- 25-60. Admittedly, it is counter-intuitive that a primary election would take place In a non-partisan election. Nonetheless, the "'inois Municipal Code requires that the above procedures be followed in non-partisan elections. Finally, in order to avoid confusion going forward, it is recommended that the Village no longer offer "independenf nominating petitions. The reason for this is that "independenr nominating petitions are technically a creature of partisan elections. The "independent" designation signifies that the candidate is not associated with a political party in a partisan election, as compared to those candidates with a party designation. However, this distinction becomes irrelevant in a non-partisan election because running as a political party is prohibited. Therefore, only "non-partisan" petitions should be offered to candidates. Please feel free to contact Scott Uhler, Jason Guisinger or myself with any questions or concerns. iManage:231299_1