Legal action filed against Triad School District over 2025 election mailer

by Randy Pierce • Keith Melton, who identified himself as a resident, taxpayer and voter in the Triad School District, has filed a legal complaint related to its dissemination of information leading to the passage of a referendum in the April 1 consolidated election.

Represented by Collinsville attorney C. Catherine Demers, Melton alleges the school district unlawfully utilized public funds to promote a favorable vote for the bond issue and is asking the State of Illinois Third Judicial Court of Madison County to place an injunction preventing the issuance of said bonds or incurring any debt that would have been authorized as a direct result of the approval of the referendum.

On Aug. 8, Dr. Jason Henderson, Triad School District superintendent, sent the following statement:

“In April 2025, Triad voters approved a bond referendum by a 2-to-1 margin to fund a new middle school and other facility improvements. In June, the district was notified that a local resident sued the district, claiming that the district had improperly promoted the measure using public funds.

“The school district has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that:

The materials shared were factual, they were not improperly promotional and they included a clear disclaimer that they did not urge a “yes” or “no” vote.

“Additional details regarding the referendum — including funding and tax impact — were available online through a link on the flyers and were discussed at several public meetings.

“The bond passed by a wide margin and there’s no evidence that the materials influenced the votes of any particular voters, much less the election outcome.

“The lawsuit comes too late — the election results are certified, the bonds have been issued and work on projects has already begun.

“Illinois law allows public entities to share factual information; but does not allow private individuals to try to overturn elections through this type of a lawsuit.

“In short, the district contends that it followed the law, acted transparently and that this challenge should be dismissed as both untimely and legally groundless.”

Melton is basing his argument on a section of the Illinois Election Code which states, “No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization.”

Melton’s legal document, set for a hearing on Sept. 5 in circuit court, as prepared by Demers, acknowledges that there is an exception in that part of the election code concerning the use of public funds for the preparation and distribution of information, provided that “such materials are factual and do not contain statements urging electors to vote for or against a candidate or proposition.”

At issue specifically is a card stock, two-sided mail piece sent out by the district in advance of the April 1 vote which is headed on the front side with “Our Plan to Keep Triad Strong” and a paragraph of explanation below it then sections elaborating on the specifics concerning the components of that plan, a “reminder to vote” and another brief statement under a heading that says “Zero-Rate Change Bond Proposal.”

The reverse side of the mailer is headed with “Watch Our Video” and includes instructions on how to access it along with some other verbiage under a heading saying, “Investing in Our Schools, Our Students and Our Future” plus an “Election Day – April 1” reminder and another mention of the “Zero-Rate Change Bond Proposal.”

According to what Melton said through his attorney in the lawsuit, the postcard and videos produced and paid for by CUSD 2 “were not strictly informational but was (sic) advocating for passage of the proposition.”

This statement is followed by a sentence noting, “While the material did not explicitly state to vote for the proposition/referendum, the advocacy material implied that voting for the passage of this proposition/referendum had no downside.”

Further charging that there was no mention on the postcard how the expenses detailed in the proposition were to be funded or what money was being used for the costs covering the postcard and the aforementioned videos, Melton also said there was no explanation in the literature sent out “how the taxes or tax rate would be impacted if the bond initiative failed.” 

Melton said he would have voted against the measure if the mailed flyer had shown a “downside” related to the proposition while adding that only 19% of registered voters went to the polls and cast ballots on it.

This led him to contend that “but for the one-sided advocacy done by the school district, it is likely that the proposition/referendum would have failed.”

Such type of election interference, Melton goes on, is considered by the state election code to be a Class B misdemeanor for a first offense.

Along with seeking an injunction to stop the district’s issuance of bonds or incurring debt for the proposed projects, Melton is seeking attorney’s fees and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

Standing behind Melton in support of this action is Kurt Prenzler, the immediate past chairman of the Madison County Board, who likens what Triad did concerning its mailer with what happened during the past month involving St. Louis County Executive Sam Page who was charged with illegally using more than $25,000 of government funds to campaign against a ballot proposition, also presented to the voters in April, including mailed flyers advocating its defeat. 

That proposition called for giving the St. Louis County Council the power to fire department heads, according to broadcast news reports related to the charges against Page.

Sent by first-class mail, the card which is the subject of Melton’s focus includes a statement, on the front side above the recipient’s name and address and the Triad return address, in print much smaller than any elsewhere on the piece, stating:

“These materials were paid for by the Triad School District. These materials are intended solely to disseminate and provide factual information about a question that will be before voters. These materials are not intended to advocate, support, oppose or defeat the measure. Each voter should vote for or against the question based on their judgment.”

In what Prenzler sent out regarding this situation, he commented, “If you believe they (Triad) are not advocating for the $99.2 million bond issue, then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!”

The question posed in the referendum sought response to the issuance of bonds by the school district to build and equip a new middle school building, renovate and expand its career and technical education programming space, build and equip an auditorium at the high school plus make other repairs and improvements to buildings and facilities including those related to safety, security and accessibility for those with disabilities.

Those ideas were included among the summary statements set forth on the card Melton is objecting to having been created and sent using school district funds.