Dual Elected Duty: The Disenfranchisement of North Elmhurst Voters
Photos
On the controversy regarding dual elected duty, I respectfully ask the City Council to support an up or down referendum which is in line with the mayor’s promise to “Let the voters decide.”
But, we should let ALL Elmhurst voters decide, and the only way to do that is with an Elmhurst referendum on this November’s ballot. Let no one interfere with the unfolding of this democratic and constitutionally guaranteed process.
The MAJORITY of Elmhurst voters are represented in DuPage District 1 and live on the north side of town, basically anywhere north of the Prairie Path. This leaves five of the seven Elmhurst wards either completely or partially without voice on dual elected duty since they can't vote for a District 2 candidate.
This is illustrated in the attached files. Please take a look. It’s eye opening.
Areas highlighted in red are DuPage District 1, and Mayor DiCianni will NOT appear on their ballot this November, nor was he on their ballot in the March Primary, as he is not running to represent them on the DuPage County Board. I don't know about you, but that seems like a glaring conflict of interest and representation to me.
These North Elmhurst residents will have no vote, and no say, regarding this structural change to our local government.
The smaller portion of voters live in DuPage District 2, mainly south Elmhurst Wards 6, and 7. This is where Mayor DiCianni is running for DuPage County Board. They are the only Elmhurst wards that get a complete say because of the DuPage District maps which split the city. These areas are highlighted in white in the attached file.
White means you have a vote, red means you don’t.
That is unfair to North Elmhurst residents. Let all Elmhurst voters decide if dual elected duty is condoned or rejected. Not just the minority of Elmhurst residents that live in District 2. Let’s let all Elmhurst voters decide. I’d imagine we can all agree on that.
As mayor of Elmhurst, Mr. DiCianni represents all Elmhurst residents and voters. Not just the far south wards. North Elmhurst voters from the other five wards deserve to voice their opinion on this fundamental change in government structure because it will affect them as well.
Article VII of the Illinois Constitution guarantees the defining qualifications of local elected officials to be left in the hands of the local home rule community. That is why Elmhurst is home rule. It is then specifically assigned to the hands of the people, through referendum, to avoid power consolidation on the part of their government.
Alderman Mark Mulliner has made the courageous decision to lead us down this constitutional path, because it is simply his responsibility to do so. He took an oath to uphold the Illinois Constitution. I guess it must mean something to him.
In November, the mayor’s supporters in this effort can vote for him for DuPage County Board in District 2, and if he wins he will be elected and seated. No one’s vote will be disrespected or usurped, as this is about the protection of our voting franchise.
Voters should be allowed to vote on dual elected duty because it is a separate issue from the County Board campaign. Should Elmhurst public elected official be allowed to hold two elected offices at the same time? It is unprecedented. And, it is a fair question deserving a fair chance to be presented to the entire Elmhurst voting public. I think the mayor should agree.
The Finance Committee has requested an outside legal opinion regarding limiting local elected officials to one office. They will find ordinance through public referendum is the ethical, constitutional and fair path. The deadline for a referendum to get on the November ballot is Aug. 20, so any delay is merely a political tactic.
All of our elected officials take an oath to uphold the Illinois Constitution when they are sworn in to office. This is a sacred oath to the public.
For the sake of fairness to the opponents and proponents of dual elected duty, and to follow the process guaranteed to all citizens in Article VII of the Illinois Constitution, I say, “Let All Elmhurst Voters Decide!”
Darlene Heslop
10:37 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
while i completely agree with the above conclusion, this cannot happen until november, at which time, pete dicianni may or may not be elected to the county board. what we have is a legislative problem. we have a state senator that has already attempted, not once, but twice, to change the law that would allow for the simultaneous holding of both a municipal and county office, and if in the meantime he becomes successful, there may be problems with a referendum question being put to the voters, especially at the same time he's on the same ballot - could it end up being challenged in the courts? rather than isolating this issue to merely being a problem that is unique to elmhurst, how about interpreting the mayor's comments differently ("...let the voters decide...") - i believe that as a city, we as voters have already decided on 14 people to represent our best interests - 2 people from each ward. they have all taken an oath of office to uphold the constitution and the laws of the state of illinois. i believe, that with home rule, the city council has the jurisdiction to create an ordinance that would prohibit dual office holding by elected officials in elmhurst, effective essentially immediately, which is a lot sooner than november. (to be continued)
Darlene Heslop
10:56 pm on Tuesday, May 22, 2012
we, as voters have also elected some very good people in springfield - state sen. pankau, dillard, and sandack, as well as state reps. reboletti, bellock, and nybo. they also took an oath to uphold the laws of illinois and its constitution, and i would hope they are aware of this situation and its impact on not only elmhurst, but burr ridge, elmwood park, and mc cook as well as the potential for anything else in the future. i've already spoken as a voter. it doesn't matter weather i can or can't vote for pete in the county board election - the law is the law and it shouldn't be changed - period, and instead, should be respected and if necessary, enforced, or better yet, reinforced. practicing isolationism in this instance is merely a band-aid. dicianni is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem. we need to make sure we are targeting the problem and not merely treating a symptom.
Jim Court
7:33 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Tony,
i always admire your well thought out and unbiased opinions. You are a great writer who builds a very logical line of reasoning. You are a very positive voice in these pages and I look forward to your commentaries.
Darlene Heslop
11:52 pm on Wednesday, May 23, 2012
this issue goes beyond the borders of elmhurst and infringes on the rights of every resident in the state of illinois - changing law to benefit only a very select minority, in this case, 2 people currently with the potential of another 2 in the not to distant future shows a complete disregard for the legislative process and its basic principles. the objective of any governing body should be to do the greatest good for the greatest number. if the ultimate goal is to have the biggest effect possible, then the end goal isn't passage of a referendum question in november which effects those who only live within the city limits of elmhurst, but is instead, to utilize every pathway possible to stopping the acceptance of attempting to change laws to benefit less than the number of people i can count on one hand. our city council has ways to act on our behalf, and should be encouraged to do so, such as passage of resolution of non-support for change of legislation, passage of an ordinance under home rule which would prohibit dual office holding, and sure, the ability to hold a referendum in november. keeping contact with our state legislators, especially those that reside in elmhurst, state reps. nybo and reboletti and letting them know in no uncertain terms that legislative changes are in direct violation of provisions put forth in our constitution, will not be tolerated. (to be continued)
Darlene Heslop
12:16 am on Thursday, May 24, 2012
the path that dicianni wants is to "let the voters decide". i think he would much rather the city council and the public concentrates its efforts on putting forth the referendum question and then its passage in november, since this is time consuming process. instead, do exactly what he doesn't want - go after the source using all the artillery we can - keep pressure on legislators in springfield, city council resolutions of "non-support", use of home-rule to create new ordinance, campaign for other district 2 candidates, and referendum question. support any and all city council members willing to take on this task. our cheldren's constitutional rights are at stake here and it is up to us to protect them.