Do the Math Before You Vote in the Illinois Primary

Kelly A. Anderson and Gabriel Kokoszka • February 27, 2024

Understanding the Referendum: “Amending the Real Estate Transfer Tax”

A city skyline with a river in the foreground and mathematical equations in the background.


Chicago residents participating in the March 19th primary will walk into the voting booths expecting to make consequential decisions about their nominees for President and States Attorney. But, the typical voter may find themselves slightly confused and overwhelmed when they reach a lengthy referendum at the end of their ballot, entitled “Amending the Real Estate Transfer Tax.” This referendum is four entire paragraphs of tax jargon and financial chatter, informing the reader about a ballot measure on a local tax change. 


In fact, this is a highly consequential ballot referendum on a proposed change to the local real estate transfer tax, and it’s essential to understand what the referendum means before primary day. Read on, and we’ll break it down for you. 


Flat Tax No More: Changes to Chicago Real Estate Transfer Tax


The current real estate transfer tax rate in Chicago is 0.75 percent of the sales price of the subject property, regardless of what the price is. This means that no matter what type of property you sell in the city of Chicago, big or small, the city takes a 0.75 percent slice of the total sale price. 


This proposed ballot referendum would change that. If passed, the transfer tax on properties sold for more than $1 million would increase from 0.75 percent to 2 percent, more than doubling the existing rate, but would only apply to the amount of the sale greater than $1 million. Basically, every dollar over $1 million would be taxed at that higher rate. 


In addition, properties sold for more than $1.5 million would be taxed at an increased rate of 3 percent, with the increase, once again, only applying to every dollar in the sale price over $1.5 million.


And finally, the transfer tax on properties sold for less than $1 million, would receive a tax decrease from that original rate of 0.75 percent to 0.60 percent.


The referendum requires that the increased revenue generated from the tax must “be used for the purpose of addressing homelessness, including providing permanent affordable housing and the services necessary to obtain and maintain permanent housing.” 


Critics have attacked the city’s lack of specifics for how the funds must be used, and insist that while many properties that sell for less than $1 million will receive a tax cut, the tax increases on the sales above $1 million will chill commercial investment in Chicago at a time when downtown is struggling with post-pandemic work culture, and this could also result in residential and commercial renters seeing increased transfer tax costs passed on to them by landlords.


Meanwhile, proponents of the referendum insist that the above arguments amount to fearmongering over a relatively minor tax change, and emphasize Chicagoan’s shared interests in not seeing homelessness go unabated—both from a standpoint of human compassion and due to the blight and decreased livability that cities can experience if homelessness is not addressed.


Possibly a Moot Point?


At this time, interestingly, the ballot referendum has been declared invalid and will not be counted in response to a February 23rd ruling from a Cook County judge, who decided in part that the ballot measure was an illegal, textbook example of “logrolling,” or putting politically-unpopular proposals with popular ones on a ballot, and asking voters or legislators to decide on them in a single vote. In this case, the ballot referendum frames the single proposal as both a tax cut for some, and two types of tax increases for others, amounting to three separate tax decisions at once.


So, although the question will remain physically on the ballot, the results will not be tallied and reported unless the judge’s decision is overturned on appeal. However, an appellate court decision could make this ballot measure binding again in the blink of an eye. And even if the ballot language remains stricken, proponents of the tax change will likely rephrase the referendum and work to get it on the next citywide ballot. If you rent, own, or are looking to own property in the city of Chicago, this referendum could ultimately impact you, and you should walk into the voting booth with a clear understanding of that impact.


For questions about this and other real estate tax issues or any legal needs, Lavelle Law offers free consultations. Please contact Attorney Kelly Anderson at (847) 241-1786 or kanderson@lavellelaw.com and we can set up your appointment!


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

Judge Says “You’re Out!” to Stalker Ex  - a Lavelle Law Success Story
By Family Law Practice Group July 28, 2026
A client came to us needing protection from an ex-boyfriend who wouldn’t take no for an answer. She broke up with him after he used her indoor pet camera to spy on her without her permission, then surveilled her at her home and chased her through a parking lot.
Type F Reorganization
By Frank J. Portera July 28, 2026
Thinking about selling your business? In this video, Lavelle Law attorney Frank Portera explains how a Type F Reorganization can create tax efficiencies and simplify the sale process by reducing the need for third-party consents.
6 reasons why you shouldn’t rely on AI for legal advice.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Shelley McCarthy July 17, 2026
Thinking about using AI to represent yourself in litigation? Think again. It is well-documented that pro se litigants are less likely to prevail compared to their represented counterparts. Regardless, AI has provided people with a false sense of security, tempting them to represent themselves regardless.
Representation and Warranties Insurance Democratization: A Game Changer for Many Deals
By Steven A. Migala July 13, 2026
Representations and warranties insurance (“RWI”) for mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) is more accessible than ever due to increasing democratization in the market. Now, RWI can be a viable option for smaller, mid-market deals.
IRS Announces Simplified Penalty Relief
By Timothy M. Hughes July 10, 2026
On July 8, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service announced a new automatic process to provide penalty relief for taxpayers with a history of filing and paying on time, reducing the need for those taxpayers to request assistance in addressing penalty relief.
NDAs in the Spotlight: What Swift and Kelce’s Wedding Reveals About Protecting Your Privacy.
By Theodore M. McGinn June 30, 2026
High-profile couples like Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are taking strict steps to protect their privacy. Reports confirm that wedding guests must sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before receiving event details. This highlights how NDAs help individuals and businesses safeguard sensitive information.
Gross Lease vs. Net Lease: Which is Better for Your Business?
By Theodore M. McGinn June 29, 2026
For many businesses, the commercial lease is the largest single expense each year. But are you actually getting the best deal, or are you unknowingly paying for hidden costs? In this Lavelle Law Minute, Attorney Ted McGinn breaks down the two most common commercial leases: Gross Leases and Net Leases.
Cubs Legend Ryne Sandberg’s Family Heads to Court Over Mishandling of Trust
By Brian I. Warens June 25, 2026
Cubs Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg, affectionately known as “Ryno,” is forever remembered for his legendary “Sandberg Game.” Sadly, his death last July has since triggered a bitter family dispute, with his children now suing his widow, Margaret Sandberg, over alleged violations of his trust.
Success Story - $7.5 Million Ukrainian Village Commercial Land Sale
By Commercial Real Estate June 23, 2026
This transaction highlights Lavelle Law’s deep expertise in managing complex commercial real estate deals in Chicago’s dynamic market, delivering efficient, client-focused outcomes even under accelerated timelines.
SCOTUS Rules SEC Can Seek Disgorgement Without Proving Victim Financial Loss
By Steven A. Migala June 22, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on June 4, 2026, in Sripetch v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, clarifying a significant question in securities enforcement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not need to identify victims who suffered actual financial harm to pursue disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
More Posts