Effingham County committee advances nonbinding referendum on federal scholarship tax credit

At a meeting of the Effingham County Board committee, members voted to forward a standardized nonbinding referendum question to the March 17 primary ballot asking whether Illinois should opt into a federal scholarship tax credit program that would allow donors to claim up to $1,700 per year on federal taxes for private donations to support K–12 academic needs.

The referendum would ask voters: “Should Illinois opt into a federal program that would provide public K‑12, private school, and homeschool students with privately donated funds for academic needs, such as tutoring, test preparation, educational therapies for students with disabilities, tuition, books, exam fees, or other specified academic needs?” Committee members described the question as standardized wording being circulated to counties statewide and said the measure is nonbinding — intended as a signal to state leaders rather than an enactment of local policy.

Josh, a county board member who presented the request to the committee, said the proposal came from outside lobbying groups after a federal bill allowed states to opt into the program. “We were approached by a lobbying entity as a part of the beautiful big bill that was passed on the federal level,” he said, and asked the committee to allow voters to have a voice on whether Illinois should opt in. Josh said he understood, based on materials he had, that the program would affect federal taxes and “does not, to my knowledge, do anything to the state taxes.”

Committee members discussed logistics and authority. One member asked how the program would be overseen; Josh said entities would need to become scholarship-granting organizations and that applicants would apply to those organizations, adding he did not have full details on oversight. A question about ballot timing prompted discussion of deadline pressure: the committee was told a representative said the bill was sitting on the governor’s desk and advocates want counties to send signals quickly to encourage the governor to sign. The committee asked the county clerk to estimate costs and to confirm compliance with state election deadlines.

The formal motion — to move the nonbinding referendum to the full county board for placement on the March 17 primary ballot, pending legal approval from the state’s attorney — was made by Josh and seconded by Norbert. The committee voted “Aye;” the chair announced the motion carried.

The committee emphasized that this action would only place a public question on the ballot and that the county was not adopting a position for or against the program at this time. Committee members also asked that the county clerk and the state’s attorney review wording and statutory deadlines before finalizing placement on the ballot.

Proponents of the referendum told the committee they expected local legislators had supported similar past programs and that the measure would allow voters to express support. Opponents or alternative viewpoints were acknowledged as possible but were not represented in the committee discussion. The committee did not adopt any resolution supporting or opposing the policy itself; the motion strictly concerned ballot placement as a nonbinding referendum.