Eye On Illinois: Peoria County case illustrates potential challenges of office elimination

Just this week I expounded on the value of reading judicial opinions, but sometimes a court can have definitive impact by doing nothing at all.

The Illinois Supreme Court in September declined to hear Jessica Thomas’ appeal of a May 31 ruling from the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, thereby exhausting her legal options in hopes to remain auditor of Peoria County.

Thomas first won election in November 2018 to complete the term of Carol Van Winkle, who resigned a month after winning her third election, claiming the County Board wouldn’t allocate enough money for her to run the office. After Van Winkle left, the county appointed a temporary replacement, and in March 2018 a countywide referendum to do away with the auditor as an elected position failed by about 20 votes.

Justice Kathryn Zenoff wrote the appellate opinion, which explained Thomas won a four-year term as auditor in November 2020. A year later, she filed a lawsuit challenging the county’s shifting from her office to its finance department the job of filling payroll certification with the state labor department. She also sought an injunction preventing the implementation of cutting her budget by another 53.4% in fiscal 2022.

With that lawsuit pending, the county went back to its voters in November 2022 with this question: “Shall Peoria County eliminate the internal Office of County Auditor when Peoria County already has an external auditor as required by state law? This would be a cost savings of approximately $150,000 annually.”

About 70% of voters agreed with the idea, which immediately changed the focus of Thomas’ legal battle to staying in office as long as possible. She wanted to complete the four-year term, the county wanted the office shuttered by the end of that month.

Although Peoria County Circuit Court Judge James Mack issued a preliminary injunction that effectively kept the office open – with Thomas its only employee – the appellate ruling reversed that ruling and the Supreme Court’s abstention was the final nail.

Thomas failed to convince the appeals panel the county’s referendum was vague or ambiguous. The text explicitly referenced the county’s legal obligation, and although “including an express date indicating the temporal reach of the referendum may have made the referendum clearer,” Zenoff wrote, “we do not believe this omission rendered the referendum invalid.”

What remains in Peoria County is the issue of whether Johnson must return the salary she’s earned since Dec. 1, which the county might pursue to partially offset the significant expense of fighting the legal battle. But for the rest of the state the case stands as an example of the potential difficulties of even well-intentioned government streamlining efforts, the importance of ballot language and, ultimately voter participation.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Media. Follow him on Twitter @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.