While River Forest voters made a clear declaration of their views on Election Day, April 1, the debate over term limits for the River Forest village board and village president may not be over.
The exact wording used in a citizen group’s petition that placed a referendum for the matter on Tuesday’s election ballot has since caused confusion about whether that referendum is binding or non-binding.
The language of the referendum question that asked residents to vote for or against term limits was specific:
“Shall the Village of River Forest, after the April 1, 2025, Consolidated Election, enact term limits for the elected offices of Village President, Village Clerk, and the six (6) Village Trustees for no more than two (2) four-year (4-year) terms total as follows: for each of three (3) Trustees beginning with the April 3, 2027, Consolidated election, and for the Village President, Village Clerk, and three (3) Trustees starting with the April 6, 2029, Consolidated election?”
The Yes votes totaled 53.15%, compared to 46.8% for the No votes. Out of 8,541 registered voters, 2,016 votes were cast, according to the Suburban Cook County Election Results website. All results are unofficial until certified by the county.
On Tuesday evening, following the results being posted, Wednesday Journal asked Village President Cathy Adduci, who won her fourth consecutive term, what next steps would be. She said the board will take up the referendum results at upcoming meetings.
“The question isn’t considered binding, and we will take it up at the village board meeting, and the question will be whether it will move forward,” she said.
The petition language, provided to Wednesday Journal by Village Administrator Matt Walsh, showed that while the title of the document stated, “Petition for River Forest Binding Referendum,” the language in the subsequent paragraph said that “the following advisory question of public policy be placed on the ballot and submitted to the voters of River Forest for their approval or disapproval, by referendum at the Consolidated Election to be held on April 1, 2025.”
The next morning, referendum proponents immediately questioned Adduci’s assertion that the referendum was non-binding.
Adduci wouldn’t comment Thursday afternoon, instead referring Wednesday Journal to village attorney Lance Malina of Chicago-based firm Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins.
Malina said there are two different ways for a referendum question to be placed on a ballot. One is through village board initiation, and the other a citizen petition.
Since Tuesday’s referendum was the result of a citizen petition, “the board can’t change the effect of it. It is whatever a court would say it is, whether it is binding or advisory.
“There is some ambiguity about what it was intended to be,” he added, “because of the wording in the petition.”
Could the matter go to court?
“I don’t know that,” Malina said. “It’s a matter if it is ever tested.”
Messages left Thursday and Friday for the Cook County clerk’s candidate service department for clarification on the matter weren’t returned.
On Thursday, though, referendum proponents insisted that the voting results were clear, and final.
“The referendum question on term limits for River Forest president, trustees and clerk is binding,” said referendum supporter Deborah Borman in a statement provided to Wednesday Journal.
“Once the election results are certified by the county, term limits in River Forest will have the force of law,” she said. “We look forward to the village board memorializing the referendum into an ordinance in the village code.”
Borman, an attorney, said she crafted the language in the petition and said, “There is no ambiguity.” As far as the county goes, its only role is to certify the results, she said.
“When I voted, I understood the referendum question to be binding,” said another supporter, Trustee Katie Brennan. “This was based on the way the question was written. Also there was no suggestion in the question or its presentation about it being merely advisory, and something that if passed, would then be required to be taken up by the village board. The suggestion now that the question was advisory doesn’t make sense to me.
“I have not heard anything from the village president or village staff about the referendum question not being binding, or that the question’s binding status had changed.”