Resounding 'No' vote on county home rule in
Lake and Winnebago
VOTERS in Lake and Winnebago Counties
turned down county home rule resoundingly
on March 16. In the heaviest primary
turnout ever in Lake County (41 percent of
registered voters), home rule received only
13,612 "yes" votes against 51,071 "no." The
referendum question fared even worse in
Winnebago County, where the proposition
was defeated by a five-to-one margin. Lake
and Winnebago Counties were the first to
vote on county home rule since the issue was
defeated in nine counties in 1972. In both
counties the question was placed on the
ballot by voter petitions, rather than by
county board resolution, and in both
counties the margin of defeat was substantially larger than in 1972.
In neither county was there a substantial
advertising campaign either for or against
home rule. The opposition ads in Winnebago County listed the names of prominent
opponents matched against a list of less
prominent supporters. Opposition advertising in Lake County stressed that Cook
County had used home rule to impose a
number of new taxes. Home rule had the
support of the League of Women Voters in
Winnebago, and in Lake the Waukegan
Chamber of Commerce backed the issue
(though its president opposed home rule.
and he was also defeated in his bid for
nomination for a county board seat). The
Rockford Morning Star and the Rockford
Journal editorialized against home rule
Passage, as did Joe Kirby, columnist for the
Waukegan News-Sun. Other declared opposition in Winnebago County included the
Republican Party Central Committee,
township officials, the board of realtors, the
county clerk, and the count v recorder of
deeds. The Rockford Civic League and the
Rockford Chamber of Commerce refused to
back home rule in the absence of any county
board adoption of tax ceiling guidelines. A
special citizens' home rule committee had
recommended such guidelines, but the
Winnebago County Board failed to vote on their adoption.
Curiously, three Winnebago County
Board incumbents who were strong opponents of home rule were defeated in their bids
for renomination to the board, while the
more outspoken home rule supporters won
their primary contests. One analyst in
Winnebago County attributed this occurrence to a "voter distrust of the county board
itself, rather than a disaffection with the
concept of home rule. How the board would
implement home rule was the real concern."
Without question, one of the primary
causes for the voter rejection of home rule in
both counties was a concern about the tax
possibilities inherent in home rule. In a
separate March 16 referendum vote in Lake
County, a tax levy for the county historical
museum was turned down by more than
two-to-one. Uncertainty about the powers
and expected performance of the elected
county executive that home rule entails was
undoubtedly another deciding factor. More
broadly, the voters were apparently unwilling to vote affirmatively on a concept
like home rule that initially seems abstract
and without limits. Although several meeting and media programs on the home rule
issue were conducted in both counties, there
was little lime for full public discussion of
the home rule case law or the actions of other
Illinois home rule units. Perceiving an
unknown, the people voted "no."
Supporters of county home rule now go
"back to the drawing board" to plan future
strategies for county government reform.
Prospects for home rule referendum passage
now appear bleak for most counties, though
an extended educational campaign involving broad citizen participation might
enhance the chances of passage in certain
counties. Winnebago County home rule
supporters are now talking about such a
campaign, and Lake County is activating a
citizens' county government study commission, with home rule a significant issue on its
agenda (the commission was created in
January, prior to the vote on home rule).
At least two indirect consequences of the
referenda in Lake and Winnebago Counties
ought to be noted. In Lake County the
referendum debate clearly generated discussion of, and perhaps gave impetus to, non-home-rule county government reforms. Serious consideration is being given to a
referendum to reduce the county board size
and another referendum to provide for the
election of the county board chairman at-large (rather than by the board itself).
Another likely indirect effect of the county
referenda campaigns is that home rule
actions of municipalities in those counties
will now come under closer citizen scrutiny,
with the threat of a repeal referendum
perhaps more of a possibility than it was
before the county votes.
How the General Assembly will react to
these county home rule defeats remains to be
seen. Given the strong home rule stance of
the City of Chicago, the Illinois Municipal
League, and Cook County, it is unlikely that
there will be any substantial increase in the
number of home rule preemption bills
passed. Whether the General Assembly will
now find new cause to either create or deny
non-home-rule county form, function, and
finance options is an unanswered question. For more background on county home rule
in Illinois, see Jay Smith's article,
"County home rule, Doesn't anybody want
it?" April 1976, pp. .16-18.
May 1976 / Illinois Issues / 13