Judge to hear arguments on Campton Hills referendum

A Kane County judge could decide as early as next week whether Nov. 4 voters in Campton Hills are asked if their village should be dissolved.

At an emergency hearing Tuesday, Civil Judge Michael J. Colwell set an Aug. 29 date to hear arguments for and against placement of the controversial question on the fall ballot.

Four villagers have sued Kane County Clerk Jack Cunningham, whose office runs local elections, and dissolution proponent Chris Baldwin in an attempt to block the question from the upcoming election.

On Tuesday, Baldwin's attorney said he intends to argue that a related 2007 ruling by Colwell himself, as well as a subsequent decision by the county electoral board, prove the referendum question is suitable for the next ballot.

The attorney, Richard Skelton, also questioned why the plaintiffs waited until last week to raise new issues about the referendum going on a ballot when petitions in support of the question had been challenged before.

"I'm kind of surprised we're here," Skelton told the judge.

Colwell responded by saying perhaps Skelton was "lulled into a sense of security" by attorneys for the village and plaintiffs, who have made repeated attempts to keep the question off the ballot for more than a year. The judge suggested the timing of the lawsuit - less than 80 days before the election - wasn't coincidental.

"Maybe they sat around their law firm coming up with this strategy," Colwell said to Skelton.

The lawsuit, filed by the same law firm that represents the village, argues the question should not appear this election cycle because it was originally scheduled for the "next election," which was Feb. 5 when referendum paperwork was filed with the county in November.

Colwell, citing state statute, ruled last year that three nonbinding village referendums placed on that same ballot left no room for a fourth question. The judge also ordered the county electoral board to review challenges to dozens of signatures on a petition in favor of the referendum.

The petition survived the challenges and dissolution proponents have been planning for the question to be on the Nov. 4 ballot ever since.

In addition to claiming the question was not intended for the upcoming ballot, the suit claims it's too soon to ask voters about dissolution because they were just asked what was essentially the opposite in a referendum that led to incorporation less than two years ago.

Colwell is expected to decide the case as early as next week's hearing. Cunningham's office faces a Sept. 5 deadline for mailing overseas absentee ballots for several military personnel from Campton Hills.