Cook County judge rules 'Bring Chicago Home' tax referendum invalidated on March primary ballot

CHICAGO - A Cook County judge on Friday ruled that the "Bring Chicago Home" tax referendum would be invalidated on the primary ballot in March.

The referendum would have increased a one-time tax on property sales over a million dollars and decrease it for property valued under that amount.

Money raised would then be used to help Chicago's homeless population.

The Chicago Board of elections released the following statement:

"Today, Judge Kathleen Burke granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and invalidated the citywide referendum question on the March 19th Primary ballot.

The Circuit Court has not yet entered any written order based on the results of today's hearing. As such, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners has not yet moved to appeal this decision and is still evaluating its options.

Early Voting and Voting By Mail in Chicago will continue until the Board is directed otherwise. The Board awaits future direction from the Circuit Court of Cook County on this matter."

Alderman William Hall, of the 6th Ward, has spoken out in favor of the "Bring Chicago Home" tax referendum.

"We're asking Chicago to get ready to vote for the future, a future where children are not sleeping on trains, where parents are not having to struggle, whether or not they have to pick up their clothes and move from a shelter, and wake up in places that they do not know," Hall said.

But is there a downside to the referendum? The Illinois Realtors is rolling out an ad against Bring Chicago Home. The CEO says if it passes, it would have an impact on renters, homeowners, and even small businesses.

"It does not matter how much your property is worth, it doesn't matter if it's a business or a home. It doesn't matter in what neighborhood you live in. This will increase your cost of living regardless of where you are or regardless of how much you make," said Jeffrey Baker, CEO of Illinois Relators.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's office released the following statement regarding Friday's ruling:

"Bring Chicago Home remains on the ballot. We are disappointed in the court’s ruling, but will be exploring every legal option available. We firmly believe the referendum is legally sound and the final arbiter should be the voters of the City of Chicago."

The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless released this statement:

"Today’s ruling, while disappointing, is not surprising. The far right has demonstrated over and over again their willingness to use the courts to disenfranchise voters and strip us of popular policies that help women, communities of color, and poor- and working-class people.

"Today, plaintiffs in this lawsuit, like the so-called Neighborhood Building Owners Association, join their ranks. We are outraged by the fact that this small minority of wealthy real estate interests would rather spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to preserve a brutally unjust status quo than pay their fair share in taxes.

"It is our understanding that this decision will be appealed and continue on to the higher court and that Ballot Question 1 will remain on the ballot while that is underway. While today’s decision is not what we hoped it would be, we will continue to work tirelessly to encourage every person to vote yes on Ballot Question 1 and towards our broader goals of bringing every Chicagoan out of the cold and into a home."

The Chicago Southland Black Chamber of Commerce also released a statement:

"This victory was something that we expected and anticipated as the ballot question had several issues, namely the log-rolling issue. We also believed that the proposed ordinance would hurt both the business climate and rental market for obvious reasons," said Dr. Cornel Darden Jr., Chairman of the Board.

"The question was very obviously worded in such a way to trick voters into voting ‘Yes’ to the referendum. We also had extreme concerns for the business climate and rental market. When raising the cost of doing business, we can’t expect anything other than those raised costs being passed down the line, affecting consumers."