Editorial on towns' merger went off rails

The Jan. 11 editorial, "A mysterious and disruptive 'stunt,'" was promising when it recognized, "Too often, one candidate … hopes to derail competition by getting a challenger thrown off the ballot for some missing detail on the nominating petitions."

Civic engagement in Illinois' political process is already very low. Illinois law severely restricts citizens' ability to use direct democracy, which describes when people decide on policy initiatives directly. Direct democracy is an integral civic participation tool that fulfills the promise of democracy "of, by, and for the people."

But then, the editorial went awry. First, it focused on the anonymity of the petitioners. The right to anonymous speech has been a protected First Amendment right since the framing of the United States Constitution and has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. Second, it focused on naming "the ghost," the naming of which would not affect challenges to the legality of the petitions.

These are binding petitions to consolidate municipal government; of course their legal sufficiency would be challenged, but to name the "ghost" is irrelevant to a petition challenge. Third, focusing on the "who" distracts from the pros and cons of the issue, of which there has been virtually no analysis.

In addition, the editorial's tagline "it's a terrible idea and no one wants it" quells public discourse. If any of the petition challenges determine there are enough valid signatures, apparently there are citizens who would like more dialogue, which would be engendered by placing the questions on the April election ballot.

Lastly, the editorial states that taxpayers are stuck for the bill. Rather, the editorial should question how taxpayer dollars to keep a question off the ballot does or does not conflict with Illinois law prohibiting use of tax dollars to influence elections.

Maryam Judar

Executive director/community lawyer

Citizen Advocacy Center

Elmhurst