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.