Barring a successful appeal, the proposed referendum on term limits in River Forest is off the Nov. 5 ballot.
The River Forest Electoral Board voted Sept. 4 to rule that the proposed referendum petition is invalid primarily because the language is too vague and ambiguous. Retired Appellate Court Judge Mathias Delort replaced River Forest village President Cathy Adduci in the unanimous vote.
Representing a neighbor group, River Forest resident Deborah L. Borman, as principal proponent, filed petitions July 15 seeking placement of the question: “Shall the terms of office of the Village President of the Village of River Forest, Cook County, Illinois be limited so that, effective upon the passage of this question as certified by the election authority no person may serve as Village President for more than a total of eight (8) years?” be placed on the ballot at the Nov. 5, 2024, Presidential General Election.
The 90 petition sheets contained 753 signatures, well past the required 396 signatures. By state statute the number of signatures required is not less than 8 % of the number of total votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. In 2022, 4,941 votes were cast locally in that election.
River Forest resident Carolyn A. Kilbride filed an objection to the petitions Aug. 12, leading to an electoral board hearing Aug. 20. By state statute, the initial electoral board consisted of the village president, village clerk and longest tenured village trustee, Cathy Adduci, Jonathan Keller and Respicio Vazquez, respectively. However, toward the end of the hearing, Adduci recused herself, citing a possible conflict of interest. At the request of the remaining two members of the electoral board, Delort was appointed Aug. 23 by the Cook County Circuit Court as a public member to fill the vacancy in the seat of the chairperson.
Borman declined to discuss possible next steps.
“It’s just an opinion,” she said. “There’s an appeal process.”
In addition to finding the petition language to be vague and ambiguous, the electoral board ruled that the petition “legally fails to use language that does not create doubt, that it cannot stand on its own terms and is not self-executing.”
Discussion regarding whether the language was vague and ambiguous centered on the limitation of “eight years” and the effective date of when the results of the election would be certified by the county election authority.
Ross Secler, attorney for Borman, defended the use of “eight years,” contending that “Voters will find the question clear and understandable.” However, Thomas Jaconetty, attorney for Kilbride, asked why different language was not used, such as “two four-year terms.”
Jaconetty also pointed out that, as written, if the referendum is approved, the eight- year limit would be in effect in November, in the middle of Adduci’s third term as village president. If she chose to run for re-election in 2025 and 2029 and was successful each time, she would be removed from office in November 2028, approximately 115 days short of the completion of her fifth term.
“The problem is with ‘eight years,’” Delort said. “There is no precedent to cutting an office holder off in mid term.”
Jaconetty also raised the hypothetical scenario of an individual who served a full four-year term as village president, chose not to run for re-election but was appointed to serve the remainder of his successor’s term if the successor leaves before the end of his term due to such circumstances as death or relocation. He could run again but, if elected, would not be able to serve the full four-year term.
In supporting the motion to rule the petition to be invalid, Vazquez contended that “River Forest voters will be confused” by the language.
Keller said similarly, “The intent is being conflicted by the language.”
In addition to challenging the validity of the petition due to vague and ambiguous wording, Kilbride’s objection raised questions about markings of the “yes” and “no” boxes in the headings of the petition sheets and notarizations of a majority of the petition sheets. However, the board members voted unanimously to strike and dismiss those objections. A final objection that the petition contains less than the statutorily required number of signatures was unanimously overruled.