In response to “Term limits won” [Our Views, Viewpoints, April 9]: Whether you voted for Term Limits in River Forest or not, below are some basic facts we need to understand. It is fair to respectfully push back on the hyperbole of “notable majority” and “made clear” offered up by our local newspaper.
Of the 2,369 ballots cast, 1,219 voted Yes and 1,102 voted No to term limits. A difference of 117 votes. The Yes vote won, and no one is disputing it. However, let’s put this into some perspective:
• 6,170 registered voters did not vote on this issue, and it won by just 117 votes.
• The vote was 52.5% vs 47.5% in favor of Yes.
• The Yes vote received 14% of registered voters.
• The No vote received 13% of registered voters.
• It unfortunately appears unclear whether this is legally binding or only advisory. We need election lawyers to please weigh in.
(Source: https://results425.cookcountyclerkil.gov)
WJ stated that a “notable majority” “made clear” and voted “Yes” for term limits. Well, if a 1% margin of 14% vs. 13% of the registered voters in RF is “notable” and “clear” then I question the WJ’s motives and understanding of the meaning of “notable” and “made clear” — 117 votes are not “notable” or “clear” in a town of roughly 12,000 residents with a voting population of approximately 8,400. Such hyperbole sounds terribly similar to Trump supporters who claim he currently has a “clear” and “notable” mandate; he does not.
Second, Wednesday Journal implies River Forest voters are not intelligent or engaged enough to properly vote an elected official in or out of office through the democratic process called elections. It appears only Oak Park voters have such capacity and wisdom. Therefore, in the eyes of the Wednesday Journal, River Forest must implement official term limits to be as wise as Oak Park voters, even though Oak Park doesn’t officially have term limits?
Very unfortunately, the citizen-based ballot question was ambiguous on whether it was binding or advisory. I have heard stories that some folks thought it was binding and some thought it was only advisory. This needs clarity ASAP. Hopefully, WJ can use its investigative journalism methods and find an election lawyer instead of telling us what we should think of the results. Elections have consequences. In fact, any candidate that chooses to run in River Forest now needs to be aware there are mixed feelings about this issue if the courts don’t weigh in.
The WJ stated, “We’ve seldom been fans of citizen referendums. Our view has been that elections are the time and the mechanism to make change in local government. That said, we’ve also been troubled when, in River Forest and Forest Park, mayoralties or village presidencies extend to near life terms. Oak Park, without the benefit of any ordinance, has it right with an informal tradition that it is two terms and then time for your picture in the hallway.” Why the double standard for River Forest?
Ross Lissuzzo is an Oak Park native and current River Forest resident.