The Aurora electoral board has yet to reach a final decision on whether two referendum questions aiming to allow for the recall of a sitting mayor and at-large aldermen can appear on the November ballot in Aurora.
The board on Tuesday did dismiss a few minor objections to the proposed referendum questions. But still at issue is whether Aurora has the constitutional authority to create the proposed recall system and whether the referendum questions are written so that the system could legally operate if voters do approve it.
The board’s final decision also awaits the results of an examination of voter registration records that could be completed next week, according to the board’s legal counsel, Jason Guisinger.
The electoral board includes Ald. Juany Garza, 2nd Ward; Ald. Mike Saville, 6th Ward; and Jennifer Stallings, city clerk.
If placed on the ballot, the referendum questions would ask Aurora voters if the city should adopt mechanisms that would allow a sitting mayor or an alderman at-large to be recalled.
Under the referendum’s proposed mechanism, residents looking to recall an elected official would need to circulate petitions and collect at least enough signatures to equal 20% of the total votes cast in the most recent mayoral election, according to the proposed referendum question.
If a recall petition received enough signatures, then the recall would go to a general vote in the next election.
The elected official would then be removed from office if the majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of the recall. The Aurora City Council would have 30 days to fill the vacancy, and if there’s more than 13 months remaining in the term, then a special election would be held to fill the seat within nine months.
The objections to the referendum questions, formally submitted by Helen Francis Ratzlow, argue that the nonpartisan special election process proposed under the referendum does not exist under current Illinois election law, said the objector’s attorney Ed Mullen during the Tuesday hearing.
“There are not enough provisions in the election code that you are going to be able to use to support this type of a procedure,” Mullen said.
Mullen said a home-rule municipality like Aurora does not have the authority to create such a special election through referendum.
Even if the city had the authority, he argued, sufficient detail is not provided in the proposed referendum to run the election. These details include when candidates are supposed to file, if there would be a primary election and more, he said.
Without answers to those questions, he said, the referendum is not “self-executing,” which he said is required for a referendum’s outcome to be valid. He said this issue is his biggest concern.
Adam Pauley, one of the organizers behind the Aurora for Change group, is the primary proponent of the referendum, said John Fogarty, the attorney representing Pauley, during the Tuesday hearing.
Fogarty said Aurora has the authority to establish its officers’ manner of selection and terms of office through a referendum under Illinois law.
He said some election details remain to be determined, but those details are not “material items.” He said the important details are already stated plainly in the referendum questions.
He also pointed to a process to recall elected officials in the village of Mount Prospect that provides similar procedures on filling a vacancy created by a recall.
“This is not without precedent,” he said.
Mullen, however, said that “essentially what Mr. Fogarty and the proponents are trying to do is get you to assume things about what the referendum means and basically rewrite the election code wherever there are questions about how the election rules fit in with this particular type of special election.”
More Top Picks Asus Rt Ax86u Pro Ax5700 Dual Band Wifi 6
Stallings, the city clerk, said Aurora has procedures for filling a mayoral vacancy, but she was unsure how they applied to the proposed referendum. She said city ordinances require a vacancy to be filled by a special election within six months after the vacancy occurs.
Also at issue is whether the referendum asks two questions.
Mullen argued that the proposed referendum poses two questions of the voters that could be answered differently. He said those questions ask whether the city should have a recall mechanism and whether the city should create a special election in the event that an elected official is recalled.
But Fogarty said that while the referendum questions are complex, he has no doubt that they can be answered with a “yes” or “no” by voters.
“If you … don’t like something so much that you don’t want it, then it’s a no,” he said. “If you like everything then it’s a yes.”
He also emphasized in his arguments that it’s important to listen to local voters.
“It cannot be ignored that thousands of people signed each of these petitions” to put the proposed referendum questions on the ballot, he said. “When the people are saying we want some of that authority back, we are suggesting that this is the time to say, ‘yes you may.'”
The group Aurora for Change, formed specifically around this issue, submitted nearly 1,000 pages of petition signatures in early August in an effort to get the referendum questions on the ballot. While some of the group’s leaders say the initiative is non-partisan and not aimed at any specific elected official, others promoting the effort have specifically called for Aurora Mayor John Laesch to be removed from office.
Former mayor Richard Irvin, who has continually criticized Laesch’s work as mayor, posted a video on social media supporting the referendum. He told The Beacon-News in early August that while the referendum push was not his effort, his $14,000 contribution to it was an “investment” in Aurora.
Laesch told The Beacon-News in late-August that he worked in his off-hours to object to the proposed referendum and knocked on doors to verify signatures ahead of the objection deadline.
“There’s more work to do,” he said. “This is like a fast-moving train that you can’t get off until it’s over.”
Ald. Keith Larson, at-large, and Ald. Will White, at-large, have also opposed the referendum effort and claim its aimed towards them, according to statements in a video they posted on social media.
The motions made by the board Tuesday came at the recommendation of Guisinger, the board’s legal counsel who is also a partner at Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins.
Guisinger dismissed an objection that argued the referendum needed to provide how the special election would be funded. He said he could not find a law that required that provision.
He also said that a signature missing the signee’s county of residence is not enough to invalidate a signature, contrary to the objector’s claims. But Guisinger said signature challenges will be determined pursuant to the records examination process.
Guisinger said the records examination informing the board’s decision has also made progress.
The review includes registration records spanning the four counties that touch Aurora – Kane, DuPage, Kendall and Will – due to the objector’s claims that referendum petitions contained invalid signatures from residents across all four counties, according to the objection filing.
The objector argues that petitions contained so many invalid signatures that the referendum failed to meet the minimum number of valid signatures required for a ballot referendum measure. Referendum proponents disagree and also contest what that minimum number is.
Attorneys for both sides are set to submit to the board updated arguments that expand upon the constitutional and statutory issues raised during Tuesday’s hearing by Sept. 8. The attorneys are due to respond to each others’ updated arguments by Sept. 9.
More Top Picks Best Jack Stands
The Aurora electoral board is set to meet again to discuss the referendum objections at 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Recall efforts in other Illinois communities have faced challenges, as the state only provides a recall mechanism for the governor seat, not for any other elected official.
For example, a push to recall Dolton’s mayor made it on the ballot and was approved by the majority of voters, but it was later struck down by an appellate court.