URBANA – The city's electoral board ruled unanimously Thursday that a shortage of signatures was "a fatal flaw" sufficient to keep an instant runoff referendum off the ballot on Feb. 5.

Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing said the shortage of signatures – about half of what was required – made two other objections, one about vagueness of wording and the other a constitutional question, moot.

Last summer, Citizens for Instant Run-Off Voting collected 1,062 signatures after being advised mistakenly by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden that by statute, 766, or 8 percent of the votes in the most recent gubernatorial election in Urbana, were required to get the issue on the ballot.

The group would actually have needed about 2,000 signatures, or 10 percent of Urbana's registered voters.

Shelden acknowledged earlier this month that he had pointed the proponents to the wrong part of the statute, and the proponents testified at the same hearing that they had not contacted the State Board of Elections for verification.

Al Klein of Urbana challenged the petitions, claiming that there was a shortage of signatures, that the wording of the petition was vague and that there were constitutional questions about whether a referendum question to change the way Urbana votes was binding.

He was represented by Champaign attorney Ruth Wyman.

Durl Kruse, a leader of the movement, contended that allowing the signatures was in the best interests of the community and since the relevant statute should be "broadly" construed, it must be allowed.

He also said the wording was not vague and that his group was correct in its interpretation of the constitutional issue.

In instant runoff, voters can pick a favorite and a runoff choice by ranking candidates. If no candidate receives a majority, the lowest-chosen candidates are eliminated. The second choice of those who voted for the eliminated candidates is added, and this process continues until a candidate wins a majority.

Prussing was joined in the vote by Urbana City Clerk Phyllis Clark and Alderman Dennis Roberts.

After the decision was announced, several members of the Citizens for Instant Run-Off Voting heatedly questioned the electoral board.

Joe Futrelle of the Urbana Green Party argued that it was not the petition that was vague, but the statutes that even the experienced Shelden misinterpreted.

"The objection against a Green-supported referendum by a high-ranking Democratic official (Klein) is being heard by three top ranking Democratic officials. The process is not impartial on its face and speaks to the desperate need for electoral reform," he said after the hearing.

Urbana resident Dianna Visek called upon the board to rule on the two objections that Prussing had called moot, to establish precedents.

She called the decision "an act of cowardice and incompetence."

Prussing repeated that the significant shortage of signatures was the critical issue. She said that in her 35 years of collecting election petition signatures, she had always been careful to gather far more signatures than required.

Clark, pressed to address the "vagueness" issue, said the law required her to meet the legal requirements on numbers, but she also had concerns that the wording of the petition could disenfranchise her constituents who might have trouble understanding the description of the run-off process.

Roberts, in discussing his vote, commended the run-off proponents for their active approach to the electoral process. He said their mistake on the signature number was honest, but told them that checking with the state elections board was "a cogent thing to do" and that the shortage was "a fatal flaw."

He also questioned whether the use of the words "may vote" in the petition met the statutes, suggesting "shall vote" was the proper wording.

Kruse said the board's reasoning was "weak" and not in the best interests of democracy.

He said the group will probably not appeal the decision, but may request the Urbana City Council to show interest in the concept.