South Side residents protest rejection of Quantum Shore nonbinding referendum

Board of Elections says it rejected the Quantum Shore question because it contained too many propositions.

Jan. 28, 2026 at 5:31pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

On a brisk Wednesday morning, South Side residents gathered outside New Sullivan Elementary School to demand their voices be heard about a major development rising just across the street: Quantum Shore Chicago. Southside Together, a local activist group, proposed a nonbinding referendum asking whether elected officials should halt the multibillion-dollar Quantum Shore project, but the Chicago Board of Elections rejected the petition, citing problems with the phrasing of the question.

Why it matters

The rejected referendum comes as other South Side advocacy groups continue to push for a community benefits agreement with the Quantum Shore developers. Organizers argue that the massive development is already driving up rent, property taxes, utility and water bills for a community long burdened by legacy pollution, and they want residents to have a formal opportunity to voice opposition to the estimated $9 billion project.

The details

According to Board of Election spokesperson Max Bever, the board rejected the question because it contained too many propositions. Illinois election law allows only one distinct question per referendum. Organizers argued that investors influenced the decision, saying their 'opposition paid lawyers to challenge our referendum and remove it from the ballots, saying that the question was too confusing.' Bever compared the case to the 2024 Bring Chicago Home case, which faced similar challenges over questionable phrasing.

  • On Jan. 13, the Chicago Board of Elections rejected the petition.
  • On March 7 at noon, Southside Together plans to host its own community referendum on the matter.

The players

Southside Together

A local activist group that proposed the nonbinding referendum.

Stephanie Williams

A lifelong South Chicago resident and member of Southside Together who spoke at the demonstration.

Akele Spencer

A lifelong Pill Hill resident and new homeowner who also spoke at the rally.

Max Bever

A spokesperson for the Chicago Board of Elections.

Gregory Mitchell

An alderman.

Peter Chico

An alderman.

Brandon Johnson

The mayor of Chicago.

JB Pritzker

The governor of Illinois.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I'm being told that I can't even vote to express my opinion on a project in my backyard using my taxes.”

— Stephanie Williams, Lifelong South Chicago resident and member of Southside Together

“Our opposition paid lawyers to challenge our referendum and remove it from the ballots, saying that the question was too confusing. I, and over 300 of my neighbors, understood it and signed it.”

— Stephanie Williams, Lifelong South Chicago resident and member of Southside Together

“This facility will use enough power for a third of a nuclear power plant that's going to be offloaded into our electricity bills, just like data centers around this country. We don't need a quantum facility in our community. … We need resources that uplift our community so that we don't have to leave to go get what we need.”

— Akele Spencer, Lifelong Pill Hill resident and new homeowner

“What's the problem with allowing people to vote? They don't want us to have a say in what's happening in our own neighborhoods, and they never have.”

— Stephanie Williams, Lifelong South Chicago resident and member of Southside Together

“Proponents of this facility wouldn't spend money to prevent residents from voting on a nonbinding referendum unless they were scared of our ability to stop the project. Our community deserves to have our voices shared, to be received and heard. We will not be overlooked.”

— Akele Spencer, Lifelong Pill Hill resident and new homeowner

What’s next

Organizers can resubmit the petition for the November election, but would need to collect signatures again. Bever noted that voter turnout is typically higher in November and encouraged the organizers to try again.

The takeaway

This case highlights the challenges that community groups can face when trying to have a say in major development projects in their neighborhoods, even through nonbinding referendums. It raises questions about the influence of powerful interests and the accessibility of the electoral process for grassroots organizations.