Federal funds; creating the Federal Funds Oversight Act; requiring agencies to submit report and reject federal funds under certain circumstances. Effective date.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Micheal Bergstrom and 1 co-sponsor

SB 1399 caps park-commissioner nomination petitions at 300 signatures, lowering the 2% turnout rule when it would exceed 300 (minimum 25 still applies).

Coauthored by Representative Lepak (principal House author)

Summary — SB 1399 (Park Commissioner Elections)

Status (key points)
- Bill: SB 1399 (Illinois) — amends Park District Code (70 ILCS 1205/2‑11)
- Sponsor: Sen. Adriane Johnson
- Introduced: January 29, 2025
- Effective date: “upon becoming law” (per the bill text)
- Current procedural status at introduction: First reading; referred to Assignments

Purpose
- To limit the number of petition signatures a candidate for park commissioner in a General Park District must gather to qualify for the ballot, reducing the nominating signature burden for prospective candidates.

Key provisions
- Amends Section 2‑11 of the Park District Code to add a hard cap on nomination petition signatures: “no candidate shall be required to file more than 300 petition signatures” from qualified voters of the district.
- Retains existing baseline nomination rules: nominations are by petition signed in the aggregate equal to not less than 2% of the number who voted at the last preceding election for commissioners in the district, but in no case fewer than 25 voters.
- Other eligibility requirements remain unchanged (must be a qualified elector of the district, one-year residency, not in arrears to the district, and no convictions for specified crimes).
- Administrative/ballot provisions (certification by district secretary, ballot formatting, and modification for voting machines/electronic systems) are left intact.

Who is affected
- Prospective candidates for park commissioner in General Park Districts (directly) — signature-gathering requirement reduced where 2% would exceed 300 signatures.
- District election officials — will enforce the new maximum signature requirement.
- Voters — may see a larger or more diverse candidate field where signature barriers are lowered.
- Political parties and civic groups involved in recruitment/support of local candidates.

Practical impact and examples
- For small districts where 2% of prior election turnout is under 300, no change. Example: if 2% = 25–200, requirement remains as before (but minimum remains 25).
- For larger districts where 2% would exceed 300, the cap reduces the requirement — e.g., if 2% = 1,000 signatures previously required, the bill would lower that to 300.
- Likely effects include lowering the barrier to entry for candidates, potentially increasing candidate participation and competition; may also change petition‑validation workloads for election officials.

Notes
- The bill does not change substantive qualifications for office, nor does it alter other nomination or ballot procedures besides imposing the 300‑signature maximum.
- Because the bill text states it takes effect upon becoming law, implementation would occur immediately after gubernatorial signature (or other act that makes it law).