A Kane County circuit court judge has upheld the Aurora electoral board's decision to put a referendum on mayoral recall on the November ballot. The question is already on early voting ballots and asks voters whether the city should adopt a mechanism allowing a sitting mayor to be recalled.
Judge Elizabeth Flood, of St. Charles, issued the ruling on Oct. 21 without hearing oral arguments. Aurora for Change, the group behind the referendum, said the quick decision confirmed the measure's soundness. "It's one thing to have your local electoral board hold something up, but when you have an actual judge saying this is sound case law, then that makes it even more significant," said organizer Adam Pauley.
The objectors plan to take the matter to the appellate court. They argue the referendum is unconstitutional and not self-executing. According to the appeal, they also contend Aurora lacks the constitutional authority to create such a system and that it could not legally operate even if voters approve it. Appealing the decision would invalidate votes cast on the question.
Under the proposed mechanism, residents seeking a recall would need to collect petition signatures equal to 20% of the total votes in the last mayoral election. With enough signatures, the recall would go to a general vote in the next election. The mayor would be removed if a majority voted in favor. The City Council would then have 30 days to fill the vacancy, and if more than 13 months remained in the term, a special election would be held within nine months.
Aurora Mayor John Laesch, who publicly opposes the referendum, said an appeal was always part of the objectors' "calculus." The objections were formally filed by Helen Francis Ratlow, who is represented by attorney Edward Mullen, who has often represented Laesch. "We didn't have high expectations of this being overturned at the Kane County level," Laesch said, adding that the judge did not hear oral arguments and that he expects better results on appeal.
Aurora for Change says the measure is nonpartisan and meant to empower voters rather than target any one official. Some people promoting the effort, however, have called for Laesch to be removed from office. Former Aurora mayor Richard Irvin, who has continually criticized Laesch's work as mayor, has supported the measure financially and publicly. Organizer Danny Souri said a mayor doing the job well should not worry about a recall.
John Fogarty, the attorney for the group's leaders, said Illinois law gives Aurora authority to set its officers' manner of selection and terms of office through a referendum. He noted that similar efforts in Illinois have often been struck down in court, and called Flood's decision a significant step toward giving voters an extra "check" on elected officials.
Laesch said the measure could set a "dangerous" precedent that undermines the democratic process. He argued that it could let a losing candidate gather signatures and promote a recall, creating "perpetual campaigns" that make elections more expensive and favor wealthier candidates. He also warned of voter fatigue and added work and cost for county clerks, electoral boards and election officials.
As the dispute continues in the courts, it has also spread to residents' lawns. Signs supporting the measure read, "vote 'yes' for your right to recall," while opposing signs say, "protect democracy, vote 'no' on the recall."
