[This is the 2nd part of a series examining home rule in Illinois. The first one is here.]

Municipal home rule powers are granted by the Illinois Constitution.

Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt.

About 37 states (different sources cite different numbers, seemingly depending on how it’s defined) allow for municipal home rule in some form. Illinois, however, is unique in that its constitution lacks a mechanism for local control, namely a municipal charter or constitution that could limit home rule powers at the local level.

John Gile, citizen journalist, author and NIU alum, runs a website called FixHomeRule.com. A Rockford resident who served as a spokesperson for the successful 1983 repeal of home rule in that city, Gile describes the problem thusly:

Without the controls of a local charter or constitution and with citizens stripped of their right to vote on city issues, so-called home rule empowers politicians to:
1. Raise taxes without citizen permission.
2. Impose new taxes in the form of fees, licenses, and regulations.
3. Expedite seizures of private property.
4. Give city property to private interests without competitive bidding.
5. Take greater control over citizens’ lives, livelihoods, property, and liberty.
6. And on and on . . . “…Powers and functions of home rule units shall be construed liberally.” (Illinois Constitution)
…
In states other than Illinois, the same constitutional process is followed to pass power from the state to local government. Because Illinois left that crucial provision out, home rule government in Illinois is like a car with no brakes and a steering wheel that works only once every four years.

Read the rest of this entry

Before we can think about revoking it, we have to understand it. Here is the best description I’ve come across so far:

In the United States, the national and state governments share power in a system of federalism, with both levels of government holding certain checks over the other. However, no similar balance exists when it comes to the relationship between a state and a local government; a local government performs its functions solely at the pleasure of the state government. Because the different communities of a state have widely different needs, the state government may not always be able to meet those needs. Therefore, for the sake of local autonomy, the state may grant communities the ability to exercise certain forms of self-governance. This delegation of power from the state to a unit of local government is known as home rule. Home rule designation allows units of local government, such as city councils, to exercise certain powers within their jurisdiction concurrently with the state legislature. Simply put, home rule allows local government to solve local problems. For example, in addition to the regular state sales tax, a city council might impose an additional sales tax for products sold within the city in order to raise revenue for city use.

There are three checks on home rule powers (emphasis mine):

First, the legislature has the authority to remove a function from the scope of home rule. Second, the voters of a community can revoke home rule power if the local government does something they do not like. Third, in its role as interpreter of the constitution, the court system has a say behind the precise meaning of the home rule power. Because the people have the authority to abolish home rule completely, they hold the ultimate check.

What we don’t like–and this is why I support a referendum question about revoking home rule–is that DeKalb is fixing to raise our taxes in as many as six different ways when we have made clear we would prefer cuts in the budget to eliminate shortfalls in this time of economic downturn. For whatever reason, Dekalb City Council has decided not to take its direction from the taxpayers.