Electoral Board Rules Against Smart Meter Advisory Ballot Question

Proponents of an advisory smart meter ballot question were not surprised when the city of Naperville’s electoral board ruled Thursday against its request to have the question placed on the March ballot.

Though they were not surprised at the outcome, the group’s attorney Doug Ibendahl said the ruling was “unprecedented” and that he would be taking the matter to the District Court. 

Thursday afternoon the electoral board, made up of Mayor George Pradel, most senior City Council Member Doug Krause and City Clerk Pam LeFeber ruled that there were not enough valid signatures from city residents to legally allow the question be placed on the March primary ballot.

The ballot question specifically would have asked voters:

“Shall the immediately and permanently stop the implementation of the $22 million smart meter project and dismantle all related equipment?”

The Naperville Smart Meter Awareness group is comprised of residents who have concerns about the installation of smart meters on homes, which would use an electronic network to transmit information about utility use. The group cites financial cost of the project, privacy, security and health concerns as cause for the city to hold off on installation of the meters, which has already started. The group is also .

Pradel announced the board’s decision at the hearing Thursday. He said that both he and Krause have experience collecting signatures to be nominated as candidates for elections. He said he successfully had collected petitions five times.

“The written decision and order of the board concludes that this advisory referendum cannot be placed on the ballot by law,” Pradel said.

The number of signatures required from registered voters, was always the core of the matter, LeFeber said.  She said the 3,758 required signatures was not disputed by either party.

“Neither party for their own reasons conducted a binder check or a cooperative review of the records to verify the entries, as such it was left to the members of this board to examine the petitions against the certified voter registration records provided by both Will and DuPage counties,” she said.

Krause said the law is very clear that without enough signatures the question couldn’t be placed on the ballot. He said the group should have collected 6,000 signatures to ensure it had enough valid signatures. He said that while Naperville has a reach of 50 square miles, only 37 square miles are incorporated and many people think they are residents who are not, including residents in White Eagle, which is in Aurora. 

Concuring with LeFeber, Krause said that a binder check should have been done.

“We knew coming into this they didn’t have enough signatures,” said Attorney Kevin McQuillan, who represented the objector William Dawe in the matter. “We’re not talking one or two signatures, we’re talking 565.”

The law was upheld that says that having a question placed on the ballot must be done in accordance with law and the proponents didn’t do that, he said.

For the last two weeks the proponents were aware of the objection and could have brought in witnesses who signed the petitions, but chose not to do that, McQuillan said. 

The proponents expected that on some level the hearing process would be questionable, said Ibendahl, the attorney representing the Naperville Smart Meter Awareness group.

“The final ruling was nebulous as to what are questionable signatures,” he said, adding that there was a lack of due process in the board’s coming to a final decision. 

Ibendahl said that this matter would be in District Court next week.

Lisa Rooney, a proponent and member of the all volunteer group, said that if anything the city should allow residents to have the option to choose the type of technology that is put on their homes, especially technology that is controversial.

Even though the electoral board ruled against having the question placed on the ballot, the city council could allow it, said Kim Bendis, another proponent. She said that even if the group fell short of signatures, that there were still roughly 3,800 people who wanted the issue put on the ballot.

“This is a valid question and people want to weigh in,” she said. “Why wouldn’t the council do that?”

McQuillan said that the proponents knew they were going to lose and used all the objections possible in an attempt to avoid the outcome.

“We are not saying people can’t vote [on the issue,]” McQuillan said. “They can do it right and present it again in the fall.”