For the record, I, hereby formally object to the composition of this municipal officers electoral board. Two of the three Electoral Board members, specifically Ronald Ghilardi and Judith Yuill have previously voted on the annexation in question on February 15, 1999 and thus cannot be said to be impartial. It would appear that the Illinois Election Code makes no provision for a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal in these matters.

On February 15, 1999, the Village of Lisle Corporate Authorities voted in favor of the annexation of the property commonly known as 2665 Maple Avenue in Lisle, Illinois. 65 ILCS 5/7-1-6 states in pertinent part: "If the vote is in favor of annexing the described territory....then.... a petition may be filed with the municipal clerk requesting that the question of the annexation of the described territory be submitted to the electors of the annexing municipality. The petition shall be signed by electors of the annexing municipality equal in number to 10% of the entire vote cast for all candidates for mayor or president of the annexing municipality at the last preceding general municipal election." The entire vote cast for all candidates for mayor in the last municipal election in Lisle was approximately 2600, thus the number of signatures necessary was something in excess of 260. There were, in fact, over 1100 signatures of qualified electors and registered voters on the petitions. would be erroneous to assume that all of the signatories oppose the annexation in question. The only accurate conclusion that can be reached is that all of the more than 1100 signatories wish to place the annexation question on the ballot. These Village of Lisle voters simply want to have the opportunity to vote on an annexation that will have an affect on there lives, which is clearly what the Illinois legislature intended.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that 65 ILCS 5/7-1-6 referenda apply only to certain types of annexations. Nowhere in the statutes does it say that 7-1-6 referenda are applicable only to certain types of annexations and not to others.

Article 7, Division 1 of the Illinois Municipal Code is the part of the Municipal code that deals with all kinds of annexations. There are about 50 sections that deal with annexations and the law in connection with annexations in Article 7, Division 1 of the code and there is no indication, whatsoever, anywhere in those 50 sections that the referenda provided for in Section 6 are applicable to certain types of annexations and not to other types of annexations.

Moreover, there is no reason that the Illinois Legislature would see fit to give the voters of an annexing municipality the right to vote on an annexation question in some circumstances and not in others. In the wisdom of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, the voters have been afforded a say in the annexation process under 65 ILCS 5/7-1-6.

Counsel for the objectors in this matter relies heavily upon Swinger v. Municipal Officers’ Electoral Board of the Village of Fairview. That case must be distinguished on a number of different bases.

First, contrary to the representation of objectors’ counsel in their petition, it is not an Illinois Supreme Court case, but rather a Third District Appellate court case. DuPage County is in the Second Appellate District.

In that case, James Heiple delivered the opinion of the court.

At the conclusion of Justice Heiple’s writing, he begins the second to last paragraph as follows:

"Although the above ruling is a complete disposition of the matter....."

Those words are an indication that what is to come next does not constitute part of the court’s ruling and is not to be regarded as precedent. In the law, this is what is called DICTUM. Dictum is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as: "A statement, remark or observation" that does not embody the resolution or determination of the court and made without argument or full consideration of the point.

It is the last two paragraphs of Justice Heiple’s writing that the objectors rely upon. In these paragraphs, Justice Heiple makes a parenthetical statement and offers no support or authority for his comments whatsoever. Had Justice Heiple intended these comments to be binding law, he would most certainly have explained his reasons. He would simply have explained the rationale for his statement and cited some authority from the statutes or case law. No such explanation, support or authority is offered by Justice Heiple and thus, the comments upon which the objectors rely cannot be regarded as binding authority or the law on the subject. The comments are nothing more than non-precendential dictum and are not binding upon any other tribunal in the State of Illinois.

Lastly, the objectors claim that the proponents have violated 10 ILCS 5/28-2(d) of the Illinois Election Code by not specifying an election at which the referendum is to be submitted to the voters. The proponents vehemently deny this claim.

The statute clearly makes the specification of an election optional. It reads: "A petition, resolution or ordinance initiating the submission of a public question MAY specify a regular election at which the question is to be submitted, and must so specify if the statute authorizing the public question requires submission at a particular election." The statute authorizing the public question makes no such requirement.

In fact, what the proponents of the referendum anticipate is some kind of special or emergency referendum to be held in the very near future, pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/2A-1.4. That statute gives the corporate authorities the discretion to put the annexation question before the voters by way of an emergency referendum. Such an emergency referendum would prevent any undue delay or postponement of action on the annexation.

To recap:

1. The Illinois Legislature deliberately created a way for the voters of a municipality to have a say in annexations to their municipality in 65 ILCS 5/7-1-6. There is no language anywhere in the Illinois statutes that restricts referenda to only certain types of annexations and there is no reason that the Illinois Legislature would grant the authority for referenda for some types of annexations and not others. The Illinois Legislature has recognized that votersshould have a voice in annexations that will affect them.

2. The Swinger case is not dispositive, binding nor controlling. The language of Justice Heiple’s that the objectors rely upon was never intended to be precedent. If it was, Justice Heiple would not have stated it in a parenthetical manner and would have explained his rationale and offered some authority in the form of case law or specific statutory citation.

3. The statute does not require that the petition for referendum specify an election at which the question is to be put on the ballot. The proponents recommend some type of emergency or special referendum for the question to prevent any undue delay or postponement.

On behalf of the proponents of a Petition for a Binding Referendum Regarding Annexation of Land in the Village of Lisle at the request of Meijer, Inc. and the St. Procopius Abbey Corp. I hereby respectfully request that this Electoral Board

a. Strike the objectors petition

b. declare the Petition for referendum be declared valid and in full compliance with all applicable laws and

c. print the question set forth in the Petition for Referendum upon an official ballot and submit same to the voters of the Village of Lisle at the next regularly scheduled election or at a specially called election.