OUR CURRENT FOCUS
VOTE YES: Highland Park Term Limits
Balanced reform with continuity — protecting civic participation while preserving experienced oversight.
WATCH
Vote YES for Highland Park Term Limits
Three reasons to VOTE YES
REASON 1
Open seats create opportunity
Research on local elections shows that holding office itself gives incumbents an electoral advantage.
Term limits periodically guarantee something elections alone cannot: an open seat.
REASON 2
Eight years is real experience
Two terms is not a revolving door. Eight years gives elected officials substantial time to learn the job, establish priorities and turn ideas into results.
REASON 3
Professional management provides continuity
Highland Park is a council-manager community. Elected officials set policy. The City Manager and professional staff provide the expertise and continuity to run the city.
“Why not just let the voters decide?”
We do. Voters choose who serves and whether that person earns a second term. But incumbency itself carries an electoral advantage. Term limits ensure that no one owns the seat.
Term limits don’t guarantee better leaders. They guarantee the opportunity to find them.
Research: J. Trounstine, Legislative Studies Quarterly (2011); K. Kouba & T. Dosek, Cities (2023).
Respect the Past, Focus on the Future
Highland Park has benefited from dedicated leadership, especially during difficult moments. This conversation is not about any one person. It is about whether our city should create regular, predictable opportunities for new leadership, fresh ideas, and broad civic participation — while preserving the experience necessary to govern well.
Reasonable, prospective term limits reopen that door without removing anyone from office today. Under Illinois law, municipal term limits apply only going forward.
What We Are Proposing
A balanced limit that allows substantial service while ensuring leadership regularly renews:
- Two full four-year terms as a City Council member, plus any time served by appointment — and the same again as Mayor.
- Time away doesn’t reset the count. The limit applies whether or not terms are served back to back.
- Continuity is further protected by Highland Park’s council-manager form of government, in which a professional City Manager provides day-to-day stability.
Eight years in each office is more than enough time to lead effectively, complete major projects, mentor future leaders, and leave a lasting legacy — while still ensuring Highland Park regularly opens the door to new voices.
WHAT A YES VOTE MEANS
10* years is enough!
- New leaders
- Fresh ideas
- More opportunity to serve
Two four-year terms give an elected official time to lead, deliver results, and make a difference.
* Voting YES allows an elected official to serve two full four-year terms, plus up to two additional years if appointed to fill the position.
Protecting Against Both Extremes
A well-designed limit guards against two opposite risks at once: permanent political incumbency, and excessive dependence on unelected administration. Our proposal preserves experienced, elected oversight while making sure no single office effectively becomes permanent. That is a modernization of how our institutions work — not a judgment about any individual.
Where We Stand
This proposal is not anti-experience. It is pro-participation.
Healthy institutions should not depend on any one person indefinitely.
A city thrives when leadership opportunities regularly open for new voices.
This proposal balances continuity with renewal — reform with stability, not constant turnover.
What About Voter Choice?
Real voter choice requires real competition. Long incumbency can discourage qualified challengers from ever running in the first place. Reasonable term limits expand participation and create more competitive elections over time — and this proposal still preserves continuity by allowing substantial service: two full four-year terms as a councilmember and two as mayor, plus any time served by appointment.
COMPARATIVE SURVEY
How nearby communities handle term limits
In April 2026, a survey of selected neighboring and comparable municipalities was compiled and delivered to the Highland Park City Council by Steven Elrod, Corporation Counsel for the City of Highland Park. It asked about formal and informal term limits for elected municipal officials. This page reorganizes and summarizes the survey responses for comparison.
An eight-year limit on service would not be unusual when compared with practices already used in several nearby North Shore municipalities.
9 of 15
surveyed communities have a formal (4) or informal (5) limit on service
5 of 15
use an eight-year limit: Des Plaines, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff, Wilmette and Winnetka
Three approaches
There is no single model. Communities generally fall into three categories:
- Formal term limits established through law, charter or referendum: Des Plaines, Lake Forest, Skokie and Wilmette.
- Informal term limits imposed through caucus or community political practices: Glencoe, Glenview, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff and Winnetka. These communities use informal practices that encourage or impose turnover.
- No identified formal or informal limits: Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Highwood, Libertyville and Lincolnshire.
Eight years appears again and again
Community-by-community comparison
| Community | Type of limit | Maximum service | How established, and reported experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arlington Heights | None | No formal or informal limits reported | None reported |
| Buffalo Grove | None | No formal or informal limits reported | None reported |
| Deerfield | None | No term limits reported | Caucus system exists. None reported. |
| Des Plaines | Formal | No more than two 4-year terms for each elected city official, whether consecutive or not | Voter referendum; the original effort involved a resident petition. Referenda occurred in 1998, 2022 and 2023. No challenges reported. |
| Glencoe | Informal | Caucus generally prefers 2 terms as a Board member and 2 additional terms as head of the body | Unwritten caucus practice. Exceptions have periodically been made. |
| Glenview | Informal | Caucus-type organization has expressed a preference that the Village President serve no more than 2 terms | Informal caucus practice. No problems identified. |
| Highwood | None | No formal or informal limits reported | None reported |
| Kenilworth | Informal | 8 years as Village President and 8 years as Trustee | Caucus system. No problems identified. |
| Lake Bluff | Informal | 8 years as Village President and 8 years as Trustee | Informal practice. No problems identified. |
| Lake Forest | Formal | Mayor: two 2-year terms. Aldermen: three 2-year terms. | City Charter. The Mayor’s allowable terms were previously changed from two 1-year terms to two 2-year terms. |
| Libertyville | None | No term limits reported | None reported |
| Lincolnshire | None | No term limits reported | None reported |
| Skokie | Formal | Mayor, Trustees and Clerk: no more than three 4-year terms in the same elected position | Referendum approved by voters on November 5, 2024, after the Village Board placed the question on the ballot. No challenges reported. |
| Wilmette | Formal | Two 4-year terms as Trustee and two 4-year terms as Village President/Mayor | Municipal term-limit policy dating to 1979. No significant issues reported; a 2024 amendment addressed individuals who were elected but did not serve a full term. |
| Winnetka | Informal | Caucus limits both President and Trustees to 8 years in each position, so a person could serve 8 years as Trustee and then 8 years as President | Caucus system. The Village Council discussed formal term limits in July 2024 but took no further action. |
Source: Municipal Term Limits Survey (April 2026), compiled and delivered to the Highland Park City Council by Steven Elrod, Corporation Counsel for the City of Highland Park. This page reorganizes and summarizes the responses in that survey. Counts of communities are tallied from the survey’s comparison table.
ILLINOIS PRECEDENT
Illinois voters have approved term limits
Term limits have been put to voters in other Illinois municipalities and approved by wide margins.
| Municipality | Year | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Orland Park (about 58,000 residents) | 2020 | 88.46% voted yes |
| Oak Lawn (about 56,000 residents) | 2014 | About 86% voted yes (binding referendum) |
| Alsip (about 18,500 residents) | 2016 | More than 80% voted yes (binding referendum) |
| Skokie (about 65,000 residents) | 2024 | About 84% voted yes (unofficial results) |
Results as reported in local news coverage; certified results are available from each county clerk. Population figures are approximate. Sources: Orland Park results (Patch via Yahoo News); Skokie results (Patch).
IN OUR COMMUNITY’S WORDS
Letter to the Editor
Highland Park’s term-limit debate should not be turned into a personality contest. The real question is whether our city benefits from more regular opportunities for new leadership.
Communities benefit from a regular injection of fresh perspectives, new visions, and fresh ideas. We can see the results in many of our neighboring communities.
Today, incumbents running for reelection benefit from name recognition, financial nest eggs, established networks, and a real fear voters have in challenging a sitting official. These challenges have made recruitment of new candidates difficult and made the cost and effort required to win an election well beyond what should be expected for a community of our size.
This referendum and the specific term limits were discussed and put onto the ballot by unanimous consent of our city council. This issue has been on the ballot in several other Illinois municipalities and has been approved by substantial margins. Orland Park voters (58,000 residents) approved a 2020 referendum with 88.46% voting yes, while Oak Lawn voters (56,000 residents) approved a binding term-limits referendum with approximately 86% in support in 2014. In Alsip (18,500 residents), more than 80% of voters supported term limits in a 2016 binding referendum, and, in 2024, Skokie voters (65,000 residents) approved term limits for the Mayor, Clerk, and Trustees.
The proposed limit of two four-year terms also allows substantial time to learn the job, develop priorities, accomplish meaningful work, and recruit fresh talent. At the same time, Highland Park’s council-manager structure provides continuity through the City Manager and professional staff as elected leadership changes.
Please join me in voting YES for Term Limits on the November ballot.
The Bottom Line
This referendum is not about the past. It is about ensuring Highland Park continues to cultivate new leaders, fresh ideas, and broad civic participation while preserving the experience necessary to govern effectively. Continuity can come from our City Manager; our Council should be regularly rejuvenated with fresh eyes and fresh ideas.
Vote YES for Term Limits campaign is sponsored by Highland Park Forward, a nonpartisan Political Action Committee promoting vibrancy and good government in Highland Park.
Paid for by Highland Park Forward, an IL nonpartisan Political Action Committee.