Two trustees want village to follow rules set by the state

Editors's note: Mount Prospect voters will be asked Tuesday, Feb. 2, whether the town should have its own rules for municipal elections, or should follow rules set by the State Board of Elections. The issue split the village board. Here, the mayor comments on why she favors a "yes" vote and two trustees explain why they favor a "no" vote.

"Mount Prospect will ask voters in the February primary - when no local races will be decided - if they want to go back to a non-primary system. They'll also ask if the village should raise the threshold for getting on the ballot. Both are in one oddly worded, grammatically incorrect question. Confused? So are we. And this referendum is only going to cause more confusion. It should be dropped."

- Daily Herald, Nov. 7, 2009

On Feb. 2, residents of Mount Prospect are presented with a confusing referendum to change the method of electing our municipal officials.

The supporters claim that the referendum will preserve the election process the way it has always been. That is a completely false statement, since candidates in the last election were only required to obtain 70 nominating signatures. The one issue boogie man candidate referendum supporters fear (without a higher signature requirement) never emerged in the Mount Prospect 2009 election. For as long as we have been on the board, the current system has produced a fair and balanced result.

The current system accomplishes two key factors: First, politically weak candidates are prevented from taking office with only a small amount of votes and secondly, the state standard to get one's name on the ballot allows a broader base of candidates to seek office. Supporting the referendum and changing our government is a vote against these principles.

Should a significant number of candidates seek office, the referendum seeks to eliminate a primary. Under our current system, if a significant number of candidates seek a municipal office, a primary is and should be conducted to remove the weak candidates from the ballot by voter's choice. This allows candidates to gain more political support for their ideas. The referendum would permanently eliminate a primary under any condition. A bad idea!

The referendum also substantially increases the number of signature required to run for office. This obstacle will be greater for challengers than incumbents. Incumbents are known, recognized and have an easier time getting signatures than challengers. The referendum requires candidates for trustee of Mount Prospect obtain a higher percentage of signatures than a candidate for governor - Why? This will have a chilling effect on candidates seeking to challenge incumbents and increase voter apathy.

Should we make it more difficult for candidates to seek office or should we encourage new candidates, fresh goals and more citizen participation in government? Again, the referendum is just a bad idea!

We ask each voter to support our democracy, retain our current system and vote "no" for the Mount Prospect referendum. It is not necessary and will only confuse issues in the future. We urge voters to continue our current form of elections and vote "no."