Turnout in this week’s municipal elections across Cook County was low. That’s nothing new.
A measly 286,301 out of 1.7 million suburban Cook County registered voters — 17% — cast a ballot in their local elections, which arguably have more impact on regular people’s lives than what comes out of Washington and Springfield. That this is to be expected in local elections is a sad fact. Turnout in midterms is better, when about half of registered voters head to the polls. Still, a significant number of Illinois voters sit out Election Day.
What if that could change?
In other states, such as California, Arizona and Colorado, voters concerned or passionate about a policy issue have a path to get that issue before voters on the ballot. Consider: In the November election, California voters got to decide on raising the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour (they narrowly rejected Proposition 32) and stiffening penalties for certain theft and drug crimes (they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36).
Illinois voters should have the opportunity to send a message to politicians on the most important issues affecting their quality of life and cost of living. Unfortunately, they rarely have that chance. That’s why we were pleased to see a number of suburban townships asking voters to weigh in on big issue advisory questions on April 1.
In eight suburban townships, voters got to tell elected officials what they think about three important issues: pension reform, redistricting and unfunded mandates. We were encouraged that voters supported pension reform and fair maps, and opposed unfunded mandates.
But these questions were non-binding, meaning they’re merely advisory. Imagine the possibilities to overcome political lethargy on these issues if voters had meaningful power to initiate change on their own.
While lawmakers can vote to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, regular citizens are extremely limited in their ability to do so. That’s the reason we’ve only seen one citizen-driven ballot initiative, a 1980 measure that reduced the number of state representatives, while voters in other states have had scores of opportunities to make their voices heard.
Even after more than 560,000 Illinois voters in 2016 signed a petition to amend the state Constitution to establish an independent commission for legislative redistricting, the Illinois Supreme Court tossed it off the ballot.
Instead, we’re stuck voting only on amendments politicians deign to give us, such as the graduated income tax, which was soundly rejected in 2020, and the workers’ rights amendment, which passed narrowly in the 2022 midterm.
In a state like Illinois, which is plagued by extreme gerrymandering that makes nearly half the state’s population feel like they have no say in how they are governed, initiatives could be a particularly valuable way to level the playing field.
Some flinch at this method of direct democracy, which allows citizens to bypass legislators. We would also be cautious in encouraging a citizen initiative process — anything too permissive risks badly undermining our representative democracy and inducing governing chaos. California, for example, has a very low signature requirement given its population, making it relatively easy to get an initiative on the ballot. Long ballots with numerous referendums that overwhelm voters can cause voter fatigue just as gerrymandered districts do. And we understand the risk that wealthy donors and special interests can use their organizational and financial resources to take inappropriate advantage of binding referendums.
But greater direct citizen say has worked elsewhere to reverse voter apathy, and we think a liberalized voter initiative system could be just the kind of jolt frustrated Illinoisans need to feel more invested in exercising their franchise. There are safeguards we can use that other states have demonstrated are effective in ensuring voter initiatives aren’t abused. For example, Arizona protects against voter confusion by imposing single-subject rules on initiatives, meaning a question can’t connect unrelated issues to one another. Many states require geographic distribution of signatures collected to get an issue on the ballot, which promotes broader consensus and prevents initiatives from qualifying based solely on support from densely populated areas.
As Illinois’ political ecosystem exists today — and has for decades — a well-structured initiative system could serve as a new check on government and a means to impel lawmakers to follow the public will.
On April 1, voters told us what they wanted on several key issues, including gerrymandering mentioned above. It’s likely their elected officials won’t do anything in response. We should be open-minded about ideas that could reverse this trend.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
