It was standing-room only at the City of Bloomington Township special meeting on Tuesday where more than 100 people gathered to discuss and vote on whether to place a question on the November ballot concerning U.S. military funding to Israel.
The measure failed, and the question will not appear on the ballot.
Registered voters in Bloomington who came to the meeting at the Government Center were eligible to serve as electors, or those who would vote on whether to allow the ballot question and any procedural motions that arose. Electors voted publicly, standing and announcing the number given to them on a pink ticket when called.
The proposed ballot question read: “Shall the United States federal government and subordinate divisions stop giving military funding to Israel, which currently costs taxpayers 3.8 billion dollars a year, given Israel’s global recognition as an apartheid regime with a track record of human rights violations?”
An identical question did not make it onto the ballot following a similar township meeting in Peoria last month.
Before discussion or voting, the Bloomington Township electors selected David Stanczak, who has served on the Bloomington Planning Commission, as the meeting’s moderator.
There was some confusion about the order of the meeting, as many signed up to give public comment before voting on whether to place the question on the ballot. However, unlike the Bloomington City Council where public comment comes early in the meeting, the structure of a township meeting includes public comment toward the end.
This came after the vote, and any concerned citizen could speak whether they were electors or not.
Instead, a discussion period was held only for the electors prior to the vote. Caleb Sneeden, who submitted the petitions that forced Tuesday’s meeting and vote, was the first to speak in favor of allowing the ballot question.
Sneeden described the petition and township meeting process as a “valuable tool for direct democracy,” and said that all citizens of Bloomington should be allowed to weigh in by voting for or against the ballot question in November.
Many of those who spoke in favor of allowing the ballot question made similar appeals to fairness and allowing the democratic process to unfold. They argued that only a select group of people was able to attend the township meeting, and that the much larger pool of registered voters should get a say.
Why the meeting was not well publicized
Concerns about the meeting attendance were a common complaint on both sides of the debate, with electors pressing the township to explain why the meeting was not well-publicized.
“The state of Illinois has an Open Meetings Act,” Stanczak explained. “The City of Bloomington Township follows all of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. That does not mean that the township has an obligation to go out and publicize its meetings.”
Stanczak concluded by saying that he appreciates those who took the time to attend the meeting as electors, “but we can’t go beyond what the law requires as far as the Open Meetings Act, and we’ve done that.”
Some of those who spoke against the ballot question used religious language and referred to religious beliefs when expressing their opinions. One elector who spoke in favor of the measure asked to “keep things sectarian,” expressing concerns that religious language at a government meeting violates the separation of church and state. Several others echoed her concerns.
Stanczak allowed the language, and then some who spoke in favor of the ballot question also appealed to their religious beliefs as a foundation for their positions.
Many of those who spoke in favor of the measure referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a form of “ethnic cleansing.” Some also argued that tax dollars would be better spent on programs that would directly help U.S. citizens, such as health care and education programs.
“When we say never again, we mean never again for everyone. We mean never again by anyone,” said Matt Tosco, who identified himself as a member of the Bloomington-Normal chapter of the Communist Party USA.
Palestinian-American Janna Alshabah, 18, who founded the organization Free Palestine BloNo, also spoke.
“To see my people being killed every single day at a drastic rate is horrifying,” she said. “And if you stand for human rights in general, you cannot stand for them unless you also stand for… the Palestinian people.”
The discussion period was spirited, with many commenters struggling with interruptions and back-and-forth from other electors and audience members.
Elector Matt Sanders, who spoke against the ballot question, said he heard another elector say during someone else’s speaking time that “all zionists know how to do is lie.”
“I can’t help but wonder if ‘zionist’ is maybe just meant to be a polite public word for ‘Jew.’” Sanders said.
Several other electors later reiterated that their opposition to the actions of Israel as a state is not antisemitic in nature.
Sanders also argued that placing a question on the ballot “reflects something about our community,” and ought to be carefully considered.
Elector Meryl Brown, who also spoke against the proposed ballot question, referenced the history of Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and pointed out that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East.”
“The problem isn’t Israel,” Brown said. “The ideas behind this question being placed on the ballot have been nothing short of following propaganda that has been perpetuated in the media and within our community since and even before Oct. 7.”
Many of those who spoke against allowing the ballot question also referenced the hostages who are still being held by Hamas.
“Send the hostages home and we’ll talk about it,” said Surena Fish.
When it came time to vote, the measure failed with 28 electors voting in favor of allowing the ballot question, and 88 voting against doing so.
As the vote had already occurred, most of those who signed up for public comment left the meeting before the public comment period commenced.
Even before voting had concluded, many started to leave as the results became clear.
“OK, you won already,” one man called as he joined a crowd leaving the room with votes still being counted.
