McHenry Twp. v. Cnty. of McHenry
| Citation | 2022 IL 127258,201 N.E.3d 550,460 Ill.Dec. 543 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 127258 |
| Parties | MCHENRY TOWNSHIP, Appellee, v. The COUNTY OF MCHENRY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Patrick D. Kenneally, State's Attorney, of Woodstock (Norman D. Vinton and Carla N. Wyckoff, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellants.
No brief filed for appellee.
¶ 1 In the March 2020 primary election, the voters in McHenry Township (township) rejected a proposition to dissolve the township. A few months later, the township's board of trustees adopted a resolution to place a nearly identical proposition on the November 2020 general election ballot.
¶ 2 The township submitted the proposition to defendant Joseph Tirio, the clerk of defendant McHenry County, to place the proposition on the ballot. Tirio refused to do so, notifying the township that the proposition violated the statutory prohibition against "the same proposition" appearing on the ballot more than once within 23 months. 10 ILCS 5/28-7 (West 2020).
¶ 3 The township filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus or mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants to place the referendum proposition on the November 2020 ballot. The circuit court, citing the March 2020 ballot, dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018). The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that, regardless of whether the proposition was prohibited from appearing on the November 2020 ballot, Tirio lacked the statutory authority to make that determination and was obligated to perform the ministerial act of placing the proposition on the ballot. 2021 IL App (2d) 200478, ¶¶ 48, 52, 448 Ill.Dec. 444, 176 N.E.3d 1241.
¶ 4 Defendants argue on appeal that the Election Code and the Township Code authorized Tirio to determine whether the challenged proposition violated the general election law, including the 23-month ballot limitation, even though the violation was not apparent from the face of the township's submission. Defendants further contend that, although the two propositions contained different effective dates, the challenged proposition could not appear on the ballot because it was "the same proposition" that had appeared on the March 2020 ballot less than 23 months earlier.
¶ 5 The township no longer wishes to pursue dissolution, so the parties’ positions are aligned against the result reached by the appellate court. However, for the following reasons, we affirm the appellate court's judgment and reverse the circuit court's judgment.
¶ 7 The Illinois Constitution states that the legislature Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 5. Proposals for the dissolution of a township "may be initiated and submitted to the electors by resolution of the governing board of a unit of local government or by petition of electors in the manner provided by law."1 Id. § 11(a).
¶ 10 In August 2019, to further the public policy goal of reducing the overall number of local governmental units in the state, the General Assembly enacted article 24 of the Township Code, which provides for the dissolution of townships in McHenry County. Pub. Act 101-230 (eff. Aug. 9, 2019) (adding 60 ILCS 1/art. 24). Article 24 facilitates dissolution by means of referenda, which may be proposed by a township's board adopting an initiating resolution ( 60 ILCS 1/24-15 (West 2020) ) or by its electors circulating petitions (id. § 24-20).
¶ 11 Relevant to this case, section 24-15 authorizes the board of trustees of any McHenry County township to adopt a resolution to Id. § 24-15. Section 24-30(a) requires the ballot to "be in substantially the following form":
¶ 12 The effective date of dissolution is dictated by the election date. "The proposed date of dissolution shall be at least 90 days after the date of the election at which the referendum is to be voted upon." Id. § 24-20(b).
¶ 14 A referendum proposition to dissolve a township in McHenry County is a "public question" as defined by the Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/1-3(15) (West 2018) ().
¶ 15 The submission of public questions to referenda is governed by article 28 of the Election Code. Id. art. 28. Public questions may be placed on the ballot when initiated by either (1) petitions signed by electors or (2) resolutions or ordinances of local governing boards of political subdivisions. See id. § 28-2(a), (c). This case involves a resolution adopted by the governing board of a township.
¶ 16 County clerks, like Tirio, are charged with printing ballots. Id. § 16-5 (). Under certain circumstances as set forth in section 28-1 (id. § 28-1), section 28-5 (id. § 28-5) requires a county clerk to notify a township's board when a public question that was adopted by resolution may not be placed on the ballot:
¶ 17 The notification provision of section 28-5 is triggered when the public question may not be placed on the ballot or submitted because of "the limitations of Section 28-1." Id. Section 28-1 prescribes procedures for initiating, submitting, and printing public questions to referendum. Id. § 28-1. The section also limits the number of public questions that may be submitted to referendum and at which elections they may appear on the ballot. Id.
¶ 18 In addition to prescribing technical procedural limitations, section 28-1 broadly states "[t]he initiation and submission of all public questions to be voted upon by the electors of the State or of any political subdivision or district or precinct or combination of precincts shall be subject to the provisions of this Article. " (Emphasis added.) Id.
¶ 19 Section 28-7, which is within article 28 but separate from section 28-1, contains the limitation at issue in this case: "[r]eferenda provided for in this Section may not be held more than once in any 23-month period on the same proposition." Id. § 28-7.
¶ 21 As this appeal is from the involuntary dismissal of the complaint under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018)), we set forth and accept as true the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that arise from them. Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville , 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31, 364 Ill.Dec. 40, 976 N.E.2d 318.
¶ 23 The voters rejected the proposition.
¶ 24 On June 12, 2020, the township's board adopted a resolution to place another dissolution proposition on the November 2020 general election ballot. The proposition carried over the language from the March 2020 proposition but added conditions affecting the township's finances following dissolution. The limitations concerned the use of the township's funds, the use of proceeds from the sale of the township's property, and property tax levies. The proposed effective date of dissolution was February 8, 2021.
¶ 25 On June 29, 2020, the township submitted to Tirio's office the documents necessary for placing the proposition on the ballot, including (1) proof of filing a certification of the proposition to dissolve the township, (2) a certification of the board's resolution concerning the proposition, and (3) a certification of ballot. The next day, Tirio notified the township's board that the public question as submitted could not appear on the ballot. Tirio asserted that (1) the referendum was not in the proper form to appear on the ballot, as set forth in section 24-30 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial