not the request to have a play a question placed on the ballot complies with the statute on its face and i think if we look at the proposition that ultimately proposed to be placed on the ballot by the county used whether or not in a place that the ballot on the election and what he does is he goes to a prior petition that was circulat  i think most of the opinion and we're close was that i was all the way up until we got to what the court thought was an absurd decision so i want to focus on the site via of the court and raising  on arguments on to a vet applying a law would result in something absurd and it's not absurd because of this the statute that was created by the legislature the british in the context of knowing what the general election statutes are and so when the legislature passed that's the goal and the objective of it was to make it easier to get a proposition ballot to decide to dissolve  that they know full well about the twenty three month rule in essence designed into the statute or way that it would never be the same that the way to ensure that would not be dissing would be where a construct that would recognize that the twenty three month rule existed and therefore by making it different so that no matter what happens that there will be access to the ballot to allow the against my client's proposition however of courts objective really they are not the same because they have different dates now those different dates you know dates are always important how tracks  right within ninety days from the date of the propositions such orders could you ever have a situation where two of the same referenda referendums are on ballots they would have six and successive election periods where they would have the same day that would be impossible correct effective day i think that's the legislative construct of the statute was to eliminate the same effective date that's a function of statute depending on which election cycle the referendum is presented voted on if you could never have a situation where they would have the same date does legislature design the statutes pointedly so that it would never be the same so that by including those dates specific issues it would be in compliance with you know the election code  the look would be uniform because it would encourage voters when they decide to terminate a township but you wouldn't have a situation where the sick and therefore by passing out law in that fashion question perhaps i was in our poll is this if you can never have successive referendums they're identical with the same effective date because of two thousand seven hundred and twenty  how it goes about its business i think there's plenty of examples that most of you have jobs over because the legislature isn't always particularly clear about these kinds of smiles there are some you know  what you know has happened here and you know when you look at where the blue deviates from the all the historical you know keith this is really gets into this idea of absurdity with respect to the outcome that the legislature must pay out intended to keep that twenty three month rule in place well i don't see how the legislature went past the statute subsequent to the election code to say we you know are going to construct this in a way that would have this twenty three month rule a pint each and every time when even if it did it they have occasional twenty three month rule is clearly here but the idea of somewhere in sameness are two very different things and we can say that in fact that is a good example there's a criminal defendant that set to be sentenced and he hasn't been sentenced now his report it may never happen and his lifetime so we'll think about dates and times in this little hypothetical example that he just gave to you when it comes from a different case and i know time is always something that we look at as what date is the important date that something must occur upon it is not the idea of sameness versus someone else so is the outcome of the two if they had both been approved so more yes there and says well this this has to be absurd because we never get to the twenty three month rule it's not absurd because the legislature clearly knew the twenty three month rule and designed it so there would never be the same so the position of  a reason why am i'm here before you today and less to their questions justice brennan the boy justice jorgensen do you have a preference or any questions i have no i don't have any questions either then section eleven of that article also to state that proposal for actions authorised by that particular article which require referendum approval can be initiated and submitted by the governing board petition or by resolution from the governing body and even more importantly it says any referendum provided for in just a faction may not be held more than once in any twenty three month  and twenty one with all of the township a road district property in the asset personal obligations the liabilities transferred to mcandrew county it's critical to know that that exact same question had already appeared requirement that questions authorised way article seven of the constitution be limited to ballot consideration by voters to only once in any twenty three month period by simply pointing to a different  association the office or office of special prosecutor for thirty to deliberate decision six hundred and thirty eight dollars the court was construing the freedom of information act by referring to the plain language of the statute and resolution and you know addition of the election to a provision that of dallas has the appearance conformity authority section five plus ten dash eight relate only to candidate nominating sion to submit public questions for the referendum there is no mention of nor is there any similar provision that is directed at proposed help with questions submitted by resolution from the governing body of a government reunion i think the question of the questions for me is that where is the clerk's authority to go beyond the four corners of what is presented to determine whether or not it should or should not be on the ballot authority to go beyond the four corners whether it's a full blown investigation or it's a little bit of investigation doesn't the clerk have to look at does this document c perform with the statute as it appears without looking beyond the four corners and that's really the crux of my question well i would answer that in two ways st of all the appearance conformity issue in the statute question and an election at which the public question may not be placed on the ballot such alexion authority or board shall give notice of such prohibition by registered mail in the case of a certificate from the local election but it's giving notice who makes the decision to give them notice in other words the contents of the know it's i guess they're obligated to send notice to whoever it was that was proposing the referend where who who decides that the contents is insufficient and where is the authority for that the authority is within that section of the statute in a very popular to the authority for example in the particular case where the to the county clerk had to notify the township clerk that the that the questions and nationally didn't meet the requirements for immediately are you arguing that this is really a waiver issue then that because they accepted the notice from the clerk as to censoring the content the content that there is a waiver argument you know but i think it's very similar it was very clear that the county clerk can simply look at the statue and the wording of the question as submitted in the advisory governing body that the language doesn't meet the specifications and i think that's very similar to looking at the prohibition the county clerk have the duty to prepare the ballot and knew instantly that the question as being proposed was identical to the ballot if he had prepared it eight months previously i don't believe there was any investigation necessary the wording was identical and in a section of twenty five that the election the board the shall notif is your argument that because the clerk has authority over the ballots that the clerk is named with certain knowledge of the contents of all ballots and therefore  i guess my question is how did the clerks here and investigation be on station review so in other words if they if the clerk knows what's in all the ballots are you saying that he didn't look beyond the four corners or did love beyond the four corners but he has this in your knowledge of what's in the ballots i believe it may be  article article seven dollars has been there and you know obviously since one thousand nine hundred and seventy this scheme legislative scheme or you know placing these matters before the motors it's basically twenty one that's fair i'm i'm not sure i understand your question i guess my question is the the procedure that we're talking about for placing these referendum on the ballot was that just set up by the legs are unable by the legislature starting in two thousand and nineteen or going to or was it before something there before that well and i i hope i'm correct on prohibition well the twenty three month probation from the election code which says that any public question to be put on the ballot my complied with the section so it would apply to yes any public question that being proposed to be put on down and because i have subject matter experts here i just want to ask this question even though it wasn't raised in briefs and i recognize that article limits the application of the constitution that's problematic to be the only thing i can point to is that in the in the article seven of the constitution it does say that it shall be done and provided by law and so i think the constitution then does give leeway to the legislature in terms of the dictate on how the procedures are going to happen and it is interesting that the the twenty three months the twenty three month restrictions apply to those those referenda questions that are authorized by by article seven and in article seven those are major changes for example changes to governmental structure and how officials are going to be selected and so i can only assume that the parents there was that  major issues byrd to be considered they are they are limited to only certain it would be interesting if the legislature for whatever reason instead said only once every ten years and that her be twenty three months would it we look at with this twenty three month rule as you know if we look at the reason why the legislature adopt it i believe that the real rationale that the legislature had for adopting it was that they want to sane people restriction here by limiting the number of times that someone can petition government for the very structure by how they are self governing i think that twenty three month rule you know might actually infringe upon the i look at this i say if there's no statutory power granted to him you know and this goes to the you know a way back to judge jones rule that he came up with and i was saying hey you know the government gives in grants to elected official certain powers from a the i think the ultimate issue here is does he have any power to do that and he doesn't have any power to do what does he have the obligation placed question on the ballot and i believe that's clear have articulate a process for objections as there is with nominating sessions and then in the absence of that it by default falls on the local election entity which in effect here is the county clerk's office because the they are also the st level i guess of election review ballot review can you know go to the ballot you know and vote as well but when we talk about review you know at this point at what point in time do we review on a loss well usually when there's a the crime of you know being silly well you know we would all you know say well that wouldn't be a proper you know you know thing for one slater to enter into but it might be under certain circumstances such a counsel i appreciate where you're going but here's the point if the statute doesn't allow any objector from the outside does it by default fall into the clerk's authority no a court doesn't have any  exactly not affirmatively in the statute the clerk does not have the authority so you know not you let's assume for the sake of argument the clerk looks at this and just because he's got a good memory remembers that boy something really similar identical same whatever was on the ballot before and decides that it shouldn't be should it then be the clerk's burden to take it to the circuit court for a decision well i don't think it would be as bert now would because notify him not to to decide to very different things and you know when the how does he how does the clerk notify without doing some kind of an else well the problem lies in the question that you asked  side but in dillon specifically they do and i just want to ask they have certain language that says but that the legislature had not seen fit to make any provision for the determination of so you've gotta take it you don't pass that implied step you know to go you know much further than that because the it is clear from you know the