Opponents of the attempt to change the Illinois state constitution to abolish Illinois’ flat tax and allow lawmakers to raise taxes on people at higher income levels, has joined with a group of retirees to sue Illinois state election officials, accusing them of putting language on the ballot that will mislead voters into approving the new tax structure.
On Oct. 5, the Illinois Policy Institute and three retired Illinois residents filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking the court to order Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and others to send to all voters a “corrective notice,” to allegedly better inform voters on what the so-called “Fair Tax” amendment actually is and what it would empower the state’s Democrat-dominated government to do.
This November, among other races and referendums, Illinois voters will be asked to vote yes or no on a new amendment to the state constitution. Supported by Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and the Democratic supermajorities in the General Assembly, the amendment would abolish constitutional protections now in place, preventing lawmakers from enacting different income tax rates on different taxpayers.
Presently, if lawmakers wish to raise income taxes, they must raise taxes on everyone, under the so-called “flat tax” requirement in the Illinois state constitution.
The amendment, however, would change the constitution to merely state Illinois lawmakers “shall provide by law for the rate or rates of any tax on or measured by income imposed by the State.”
Amendment supporters say the change is needed to allow the state to impose higher taxes on “millionaires and billionaires,” even though state officials, including Pritzker, have said passage of the amendment would immediately result in higher taxes on anyone earning at least $250,000.
The Illinois Policy Institute argues the amendment would allow the state’s Democratic government to go much further, potentially taxing retirement income and slapping on any number of surcharges or special taxes on a range of income levels for any number of purposes, limited only by the imagination and will of lawmakers.
To win passage, the amendment must secure at least 60% of the votes cast on the question, or approval of more than 50% of all ballots cast in the election.
The lawsuit does not seek to remove the ballot question, or to require new ballots to be printed.
Rather, the lawsuit takes aim at the allegedly “neutral” language included in the language placed on the ballot concerning the amendment and the informational pamphlet distributed to voters concerning the amendment.
The lawsuit asserts the language, written and approved by the state’s Democratic office holders, is deceptive and misleading, intended to persuade voters to vote yes, rather than merely to inform them on what they are voting on.
“Specifically, the Pamplet states: ‘Voting ‘yes’ on the amendment means that the State will enact a new tax structure where only those making above $250,000 a year will see their taxes go up,’” the complaint said.
“…Nothing in the … Amendment means that only those making above $250,000 a year will see tax increase (sic.)”
The lawsuit asserts the language also misleads voters by asserting the state will use new revenue raised by the tax to lower their tax burden and “fund critical programs such as Education and Human Services.”
No language in the amendment “requires that revenue raised through new or higher income taxes will be use to fund ‘critical programs such as education and human services.’ Rather, the General Assembly is free to choose to use the revenue for any lawful purpose it sees fit,” the complaint said.
Further, the Illinois Policy Institute asserts the language misleads voters and works to “conceal the threat of taxes on retirement income.”
While the pamphlet “states … ‘This amendment does not tax retirement income,’” the lawsuit notes that Democratic Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs has specifically said “one thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income, and, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
“… The evidence shows that adopting the PIT (Progressive Income Tax) Amendment will make a tax on retirement income more likely,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit asserts all of the statements about the amendment included on the ballot and in the informational pamphlet distributed to voters is prohibited “additional information” intended to persuade voters to support the amendment, which is supported by Illinois’ most powerful elected officials.
The lawsuit asks the court to enter an order finding the ballot language and the pamphlet to be improper, and to order state election officials to print and mail to every voter a “corrective notice,” which includes the actual language of the amendment – which was excluded from the ballot and the pamphlet.
The notice would also direct voters to “disregard” previous language explaining the alleged benefits of the amendment.
Plaintiffs in the action include retirees Donald Wojtowicz, a retired Chicago police officer; Barbara McGann, who worked as an administrative assistant at an auto body repair shop in suburban South Holland; and John Sutherland, a retired Chicago firefighter.