A Cook County judge has explained her order denying the attempt by a group of retired Illinoisans and the Illinois Policy Institute to force state election officials to “correct” language sent to voters concerning the so-called Fair Tax Amendment - language critics said was written by supporters of the amendment to mislead Illinois voters into voting for the plan to give lawmakers expansive new taxing powers.
On Oct. 13, four days after denying a temporary restraining order, Cook County Judge Celia Gamrath released a written order, fleshing out her ruling delivered from the bench at the close of a hearing on Oct. 9.
In the ruling, Gamrath said she disagreed with the notion that the ballot and pamphlet language was confusing. Further, she chided the plaintiffs for waiting until October to sue over the ballot language, which she said had been public information for at least weeks prior.
“The status quo in this case was established in May of 2020 when the General Assembly approved language for the ballot and pamphlet,” Gamrath said in her order. “The language Plaintiffs complain about was published, spread of record, and made widely known to the public months ago, long before early voting began.
“Plaintiffs waited until October to file suit, after hundreds of thousands of votes had been cast, and ran into court three weeks before election day to say there is an emergency that demands affirmative relief on a summary non-evidentiary basis. Not so.”
The Illinois Policy Institute and their retiree co-plaintiffs had sought a court order directing Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and others to send 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.
Illinois voters are casting ballots in early and mail-in voting, and will do so until Election Day, Nov. 3, on the question of whether to add the new amendment to the state constitution. Supported by Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker and the Democratic supermajorities in the General Assembly, the amendment would demolish constitutional protections that now block lawmakers from enacting different income tax rates on different taxpayers.
The amendment would give lawmakers much greater leeway to raise and institute new income taxes on a range of taxpayers.
In language inserted in the official ballot description of the amendment, and in a pamphlet provided to Illinois voters, state officials said the amendment would only “enact a new tax structure, where only those making above $250,000 a year will see their taxes go up.”
Further, the ballot language and pamphlet tell voters the new taxes would be used to lower their tax burden and fund education and human services.
In the lawsuit filed Oct. 5, the plaintiffs said those assertions in the ballot language simply are not true, and are not supported by anything in the actual amendment.
Nothing in the amendment, they said, would limit the state to only raising taxes on people earning more than $250,000. The retirees noted state officials, including Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs, have publicly stated the new amendment would give state officials the opportunity to discuss taxing retirement income, for instance. State law currently forbids taxing retirement income.
Nor would the amendment limit state lawmakers from spending the new money any way they see fit.
This means the language in the pamphlet and the ballot description are misleading to voters, and violate voters’ and amendment opponents’ rights to a free and equal election on the amendment, the plaintiffs said.
Judge Gamrath, however, said the language “is not so misleading that it abridges a constitutional right in need of protection.”
“Like it or not, the proposed amendment does give the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower income tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels, just as the ballot describes,” Gamrath wrote.
Instead, she said the corrective notice sought by the plaintiffs would actually confuse voters.
The judge sided with the state officials, who argued the fact that the amendment is up for a vote, and opponents have the opportunity to campaign against it, is all the relief the plaintiffs can get at this point.
Gamrath rejected the temporary restraining order request, saying it was being used to actually obtain a permanent win, immediately, without an “evidentiary hearing.”
Gamrath has served as a judge in Cook County since 2010, when she was appointed. She first won election in 2012, as a Democrat. She was retained by voters in 2018, and her current term expires in 2024.
Following the release of Gamrath’s written order on Tuesday, Austin Berg, vice president of marketing for the Illinois Policy Institute, issued the following statement:
"Our case lives on. The judge's order does not dismiss our case. And notably, it does not speak to our claims regarding a potential retirement tax in Illinois.
"We appeared before the court on Friday, asking for the judge to grant a procedural motion to allow for an expedited ruling before the election. We are committed to prosecuting our claims in court and will continue to fight for Illinois voters’ right to fair and accurate information. We look forward to our next opportunity to argue on behalf of voters and retirees.”
The state has been represented in the action by the Illinois Attorney General’s office.
The Attorney General’s office did not offer comment on the ruling.
The Institute and the retirees are represented by attorney Jack Vrett, of Honigman LLP, of Chicago.