Journal & Topics is recommending a yes vote on Niles’ term-limit referendum. I think that’s bad advice. The proposal gives trustees a longer limit and a fresh clock, and the newspaper has not given residents a good enough reason to support either change.

We were just asked about longer terms in March. The village’s April 28 meeting minutes record that 53.67% of those voting on the question said no to a proposal allowing up to 20 years in the same elected office. November’s question covers trustees only and proposes 16 years. It is a different proposal, but that recent no vote still matters.

Here is what residents are being asked to change. The village’s existing rules generally allow trustees three full four-year terms, or 12 years. There are special rules for partial terms and officials who were already serving in 2013. November would replace conflicting rules with a new 16-year limit that starts counting from its effective date. The mayor’s office is not part of this question.

That means years already served would not count toward the new limit. That deserves more attention than the newspaper gives it.

Consider the difference: count 12 years already served toward a hypothetical 16-year cap, and four years remain. Start the count over, and those earlier years do not use up the new allowance. Nobody is guaranteed a seat. They would still have to be elected or appointed. But the reset would allow much more service than simply adding one four-year term.

The ballot also lets someone finish a term if they reach 16 counted years before that term ends. So even the 16-year figure is not a strict cutoff.

To be fair, the newspaper mentions the reset. But mentioning it does not explain why residents should approve it. Its main argument is that a court challenge could leave Niles with no term limits at all. I don’t think that explanation is good enough.

If that is the reason we should vote yes, show us the law and explain how it applies to Niles. The statute named on the ballot took effect in 2019 and applies to term-limit measures adopted on or after November 8, 2016. The village says our rules took effect after the April 2013 election and were confirmed in January 2019. How does that history fit the legal warning? The editorial does not tell us.

I am not saying the existing rules could never be challenged. State law also requires newly imposed municipal term limits to start counting forward, so we cannot assume a replacement could keep counting all earlier service. But neither point explains why the new limit needs to be 16 years.

The paper also says residents can change the rules through another referendum later. Why should we approve a longer limit now and then do the work of trying to undo it? The proposal should stand on its own today.

I expected the local paper to press harder on those questions before telling us to vote yes.

March’s result does not decide November’s vote. If you oppose giving trustees longer limits and a fresh count, vote NO on Referendum #3 on November 3, 2026. Make sure you answer that question on your ballot.

When trustee seats come up for election, my recommendation is to vote for new people. Any current trustee who decides to run again should not get your vote.

Sources

[1] Village of Niles official November 2026 referendum language. Referendum 3, including prospective counting and the term-completion exception.

[2] Village Focus Spring 2019. Page 3, village explanation of existing term limits and 2013 provisions.

[3] Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-17. Subsections a, b and d; Public Act 101-114, effective July 19, 2019.

[4] Journal and Topics editorial October 22 2026. A Less Than Enthusiastic Yes On Niles Term Limits.

[5] Niles Board of Trustees minutes April 28 2026. Page 1, March 17 question and reported 53.67 percent no vote.