An effort to jack up taxes on the sale of a host of residential and business property in the city of Chicago in the name of fighting homelessness has suffered a potentially fatal blow, after a Cook County judge declared Mayor Brandon Johnson and his allies had illegally placed the measure on the March primary election ballot.
On Feb. 23, Cook County Circuit Judge Kathleen Burke ruled from the bench at the close of an afternoon hearing that the ballot measure violated state election rules. A written ruling more fully explaining the legal reasoning behind the judge's decision is expected to come soon.
But the judge is understood to have ruled that the ballot measure improperly would have engaged in a practice similar to legislative "logrolling," in which a sweetener is improperly added to allow an otherwise unpopular measure to gain votes to secure passage.
In this instance, the judge appeared to rule that the ballot measure would have improperly allowed Chicagoans to vote on whether to raise taxes on some people and businesses, while at the same time cutting taxes for others, making it unclear to voters which measure they were actually voting on.
Supporters of the measure indicated Judge Burke's decision will be appealed, following the release of the written order.
Opponents of the measure, however, declared victory following the ruling.
"We are gratified in the judge's ruling, which underscores the necessity of presenting policy questions to the public with fairness, detail and transparency," said Farzin Parang, executive director of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Chicago. "This referendum would be a backdoor property tax on all Chicagoans, and it is important that our elected officials not mislead voters otherwise."
The Southland Black Chamber of Commerce also hailed the decision.
"This victory was something that we expected and anticipated as the ballot question had several issues, namely the logrolling issue," said Cornel Darden Jr., chairman of the Southland Black Chamber's board. "We also believed that the proposed ordinance would hurt both the business climate and rental market for obvious reasons.
"The question was very obviously worded in such a way to trick voters into voting 'Yes' to the referendum."
If successful, it would have restructured the real estate transfer tax, which is levied on properties when they are sold. The new RETT would have sharply increased the taxes on all properties sold for more than $1 million.
The referendum at the same time would have decreased the RETT assessed on properties sold for less than $1 million.
The referendum was strongly backed by Mayor Johnson and his democratic socialist allies on the Chicago City Council and other far left-wing organizations, including the Chicago Teachers Union and others.
They asserted the referendum would result in at least $100 million in new tax revenue for the city, which Johnson and others claimed would be put toward funding programs to help alleviate homelessness in Chicago.
And they asserted the tax would only apply to about 4% of all homes sold in the city.
Opponents of the referendum, however, noted the ballot measure included no language that would commit the city to actually using the money for the homeless, or any specified purpose. Rather, it would be left to Mayor Johnson and the City Council to determine how to spend the proposed new millions in tax revenue.
Opponents also asserted the measure would not just apply to the "mansions" of wealthy Chicagoans, but would apply to a wide swathe of properties, including storefronts and small apartment buildings, among others. They said this would place an even heavier tax burden on small businesses in the city, while further suppressing the development of new homes and pushing prices up, endangering housing affordability in the city.
After the City Council voted late last year to place the "Bring Chicago Home" referendum on the ballot for the March 19 primary, that decision was challenged in court by a coalition of business interests, who claimed the ballot question was illegal and violated rules governing such referendums spelled out in the state constitution.
Particularly, they noted the measure improperly asked voters two different questions at the same time: Whether to increase the RETT on certain properties, and then to decrease the tax on other properties. They asserted this would improperly encourage voters to vote for the referendum, thinking they would be guaranteed a tax decrease.
Judge Burke appeared to agree. The ruling doesn't necessarily remove the question from the ballot, particularly since early voting in the primary election has already begun and votes have been cast on the question.
However, the ruling means that the votes may not matter, unless a state appeals panel and perhaps the Illinois Supreme Court say otherwise before the election.
Following the ruling, the Chicago Board of Elections confirmed the judge's ruling had "invalidated" the ballot measure. However, they said they have not yet determined whether to appeal.
Supporters of the referendum, however, said they believed a quick appeal is all but inevitable, as they seek to keep the measure alive.
On social media, a variety of Johnson allies and referendum supporters attacked the judge, the ruling and referendum opponents, accusing them of racism and "voter suppression."
The statements, however, did not explain why the judge's decision was legally incorrect.
"Today's ruling, while disappointing, is not surprising," said Maxica Williams, president of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, which is helping to spearhead support for the referendum. "The far right has demonstrated over and over again their willingness to use the courts to disenfranchise voters and strip us of popular policies that help women, communities of color, and poor- and working-class people."
Mayor Johnson said: "Bring Chicago Home remains on the ballot. We are disappointed in the court's ruling, but will be exploring every legal option available. We firmly believe the referendum is legally sound and the final arbiter should be the voters of the City of Chicago."
It is not clear how the city or other supporters of the referendum can appeal the ruling, as they were not named as defendants in the lawsuit. And Judge Burke specifically denied the request by the city to intervene in the court fight to defend the referendum.
The city had attempted to argue that the challengers had named the wrong defendant by suing the Chicago Board of Elections, and not the city or Mayor Johnson directly.
Judge Kathleen Burke is a Democrat, and has served on the bench since 2004. She was last elected in 2022, when she received 77% of the vote to retain her judgeship. Her current term will end in 2028.
According to evaluations by legal organizations, Judge Burke has been described as "fair to all" and effective, and as a judge who "takes her job seriously."