Upcoming Data

Published on

Here is what I’m working on and what will be available soon:

  1. Updated Fundraising Totals – quarterly campaign finance reports for Q1 were due on Friday and a few late filers are still trickling in (looking at you Sen. Lightford and Rep. Ford). Once they’are all in I’ll put together a full analysis similar to what I did after 2015 Q4.
  2. Precinct Level Vote Totals – also on Friday the State Board made available the certified election results for the 2016 primary including the statewide precinct by precinct results. As I did with the 2014 general election results I’ll download each election authority’s results, combine them, fix the formatting and build some search capabilities that you’ll soon find in the Analysis section.
  3. Senate/House Profiles – once I have the fundraising and vote total information that I want to include I’m going to do a profile of the most likely targeted races for each of the House and Senate this fall based on the 2014 election results. Some of that may be eye-opening, particularly in the Senate.
  4. Updated Maps – I’ll update the Maps for the statewide primaries including President, US Senate and Comptroller.

I’ll post an update when each is available.

Millionaire’s Tax Amendment

Published on

With the possible resurfacing of the Millionaire’s Tax Amendment it’s worth remembering that this issue was on the ballot for the 2014 General Election and we have district by district vote totals.

Below are the results for each district for the House and Senate. This process uses the simple method, which has to do with instances where more than one district are represented in a precinct. Using the simple method the entire precinct data is used for any precinct that is in part or in whole in each district.

As you can see this issue won a majority in all but two Senate districts, the 26th (Duffy 48.67%) and 33rd (McConnaughay 49.93%), and it won a majority in all but five House districts, the 47th (Bellock 49.67%), 50th (Wheeler 49.43%), 51st (Sullivan 47.60%), 52nd (McSweeney 49.51%) and the 65th (Andersson 48.10%).

State Senate Districts

District Senator Party YES % NO % Total
State Senator – 1 Antonio Muñoz D 24,872 80.63% 5,976 19.37% 30,848
State Senator – 2 William Delgado D 30,433 81.71% 6,813 18.29% 37,246
State Senator – 3 Mattie Hunter D 47,445 81.35% 10,876 18.65% 58,321
State Senator – 4 Kimberly A. Lightford D 50,895 78.68% 13,794 21.32% 64,689
State Senator – 5 Patricia Van Pelt D 43,750 81.45% 9,961 18.55% 53,711
State Senator – 6 John J. Cullerton D 43,006 69.62% 18,763 30.38% 61,769
State Senator – 7 Heather A. Steans D 44,826 82.92% 9,232 17.08% 54,058
State Senator – 8 Ira I. Silverstein D 34,638 69.73% 15,038 30.27% 49,676
State Senator – 9 Daniel Biss D 48,318 63.38% 27,921 36.62% 76,239
State Senator – 10 John G. Mulroe D 35,202 65.89% 18,227 34.11% 53,429
State Senator – 11 Martin A. Sandoval D 28,010 75.13% 9,272 24.87% 37,282
State Senator – 12 Steven M. Landek D 24,932 73.11% 9,170 26.89% 34,102
State Senator – 13 Kwame Raoul D 50,857 83.65% 9,938 16.35% 60,795
State Senator – 14 Emil Jones, III D 58,842 79.74% 14,946 20.26% 73,788
State Senator – 15 Napoleon Harris, III D 48,292 80.53% 11,674 19.47% 59,966
State Senator – 16 Jacqueline Y. Collins D 49,035 81.11% 11,417 18.89% 60,452
State Senator – 17 Donne E. Trotter D 56,819 80.78% 13,516 19.22% 70,335
State Senator – 18 Bill Cunningham D 48,629 65.66% 25,433 34.34% 74,062
State Senator – 19 Michael E. Hastings D 49,151 65.74% 25,613 34.26% 74,764
State Senator – 20 Iris Y. Martinez D 30,270 81.68% 6,790 18.32% 37,060
State Senator – 21 Michael Connelly R 40,150 52.07% 36,956 47.93% 77,106
State Senator – 22 Michael Noland D 23,517 63.99% 13,232 36.01% 36,749
State Senator – 23 Thomas Cullerton D 32,572 57.50% 24,078 42.50% 56,650
State Senator – 24 Chris Nybo R 41,295 52.25% 37,733 47.75% 79,028
State Senator – 25 Jim Oberweis R 34,783 50.37% 34,275 49.63% 69,058
State Senator – 26 Dan Duffy R 37,046 48.67% 39,065 51.33% 76,111
State Senator – 27 Matt Murphy R 38,505 54.57% 32,057 45.43% 70,562
State Senator – 28 Laura M. Murphy D 34,627 61.30% 21,859 38.70% 56,486
State Senator – 29 Julie A. Morrison D 36,435 57.30% 27,146 42.70% 63,581
State Senator – 30 Terry Link D 28,058 63.84% 15,895 36.16% 43,953
State Senator – 31 Melinda Bush D 32,752 58.14% 23,585 41.86% 56,337
State Senator – 32 Pamela J. Althoff R 34,535 51.71% 32,248 48.29% 66,783
State Senator – 33 Karen McConnaughay R 35,432 49.93% 35,527 50.07% 70,959
State Senator – 34 Steve Stadelman D 33,415 62.82% 19,776 37.18% 53,191
State Senator – 35 Dave Syverson R 39,802 56.08% 31,170 43.92% 70,972
State Senator – 36 Neil Anderson R 41,070 62.80% 24,332 37.20% 65,402
State Senator – 37 Chuck Weaver R 44,180 57.13% 33,147 42.87% 77,327
State Senator – 38 Sue Rezin R 42,152 60.66% 27,340 39.34% 69,492
State Senator – 39 Don Harmon D 36,321 74.13% 12,675 25.87% 48,996
State Senator – 40 Toi W. Hutchinson D 42,247 61.65% 26,276 38.35% 68,523
State Senator – 41 Christine Radogno R 42,119 53.38% 36,786 46.62% 78,905
State Senator – 42 Linda Holmes D 24,534 64.60% 13,445 35.40% 37,979
State Senator – 43 Pat McGuire D 33,693 67.03% 16,569 32.97% 50,262
State Senator – 44 William E. Brady R 43,599 58.66% 30,723 41.34% 74,322
State Senator – 45 Tim Bivins R 42,219 58.36% 30,126 41.64% 72,345
State Senator – 46 David Koehler D 37,093 64.46% 20,452 35.54% 57,545
State Senator – 47 John M. Sullivan D 39,024 60.86% 25,097 39.14% 64,121
State Senator – 48 Andy Manar D 40,339 63.58% 23,108 36.42% 63,447
State Senator – 49 Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant D 38,292 61.33% 24,141 38.67% 62,433
State Senator – 50 Wm. Sam McCann R 48,790 59.22% 33,596 40.78% 82,386
State Senator – 51 Chapin Rose R 46,083 55.69% 36,661 44.31% 82,744
State Senator – 52 Scott M. Bennett D 35,065 64.04% 19,686 35.96% 54,751
State Senator – 53 Jason A. Barickman R 39,105 56.89% 29,630 43.11% 68,735
State Senator – 54 Kyle McCarter R 41,311 56.37% 31,975 43.63% 73,286
State Senator – 55 Dale A. Righter R 38,138 56.53% 29,322 43.47% 67,460
State Senator – 56 William R. Haine D 38,131 61.48% 23,890 38.52% 62,021
State Senator – 57 James F. Clayborne, Jr. D 41,154 64.85% 22,305 35.15% 63,459
State Senator – 58 David S. Luechtefeld R 42,015 60.34% 27,616 39.66% 69,631
State Senator – 59 Gary Forby D 39,457 60.40% 25,868 39.60% 65,325

 

State House Districts

District Representative Party YES % NO % Total
State Representative – 1st Daniel J. Burke D 13,150 80.47% 3,191 19.53% 16,341
State Representative – 2nd Edward J. Acevedo D 12,045 80.80% 2,862 19.20% 14,907
State Representative – 3rd Luis Arroyo D 14,244 80.55% 3,439 19.45% 17,683
State Representative – 4th Cynthia Soto D 17,876 83.19% 3,611 16.81% 21,487
State Representative – 5th Kenneth Dunkin D 27,717 80.90% 6,543 19.10% 34,260
State Representative – 6th Sonya M. Harper D 23,138 81.37% 5,297 18.63% 28,435
State Representative – 7th Emanuel Chris Welch D 26,595 77.53% 7,706 22.47% 34,301
State Representative – 8th La Shawn K. Ford D 25,298 79.70% 6,444 20.30% 31,742
State Representative – 9th Arthur Turner D 21,887 79.85% 5,523 20.15% 27,410
State Representative – 10th Pamela Reaves-Harris D 24,724 82.51% 5,241 17.49% 29,965
State Representative – 11th Ann M. Williams D 21,905 69.38% 9,666 30.62% 31,571
State Representative – 12th Sara Feigenholtz D 21,588 69.85% 9,319 30.15% 30,907
State Representative – 13th Gregory Harris D 23,598 81.68% 5,294 18.32% 28,892
State Representative – 14th Kelly M. Cassidy D 22,211 84.33% 4,128 15.67% 26,339
State Representative – 15th John C. D’Amico D 19,489 67.05% 9,578 32.95% 29,067
State Representative – 16th Lou Lang D 15,988 72.44% 6,084 27.56% 22,072
State Representative – 17th Laura Fine D 24,139 64.00% 13,581 36.00% 37,720
State Representative – 18th Robyn Gabel D 25,239 62.90% 14,889 37.10% 40,128
State Representative – 19th Robert Martwick D 17,284 70.11% 7,369 29.89% 24,653
State Representative – 20th Michael P. McAuliffe R 18,764 62.41% 11,302 37.59% 30,066
State Representative – 21st Silvana Tabares D 11,934 74.11% 4,169 25.89% 16,103
State Representative – 22nd Michael J. Madigan D 16,269 75.72% 5,216 24.28% 21,485
State Representative – 23rd Michael J. Zalewski D 13,298 71.03% 5,424 28.97% 18,722
State Representative – 24th Elizabeth Hernandez D 12,261 75.41% 3,999 24.59% 16,260
State Representative – 25th Barbara Flynn Currie D 24,634 88.37% 3,243 11.63% 27,877
State Representative – 26th Christian L. Mitchell D 30,809 81.12% 7,170 18.88% 37,979
State Representative – 27th Monique D. Davis D 33,763 80.06% 8,410 19.94% 42,173
State Representative – 28th Robert Rita D 27,903 80.10% 6,931 19.90% 34,834
State Representative – 29th Thaddeus Jones D 27,561 80.30% 6,761 19.70% 34,322
State Representative – 30th William Davis D 20,879 80.84% 4,947 19.16% 25,826
State Representative – 31st Mary E. Flowers D 29,804 79.85% 7,523 20.15% 37,327
State Representative – 32nd André Thapedi D 22,655 83.51% 4,473 16.49% 27,128
State Representative – 33rd Marcus C. Evans, Jr. D 28,604 84.18% 5,374 15.82% 33,978
State Representative – 34th Elgie R. Sims, Jr. D 30,886 77.95% 8,739 22.05% 39,625
State Representative – 35th Frances Ann Hurley D 26,535 64.52% 14,591 35.48% 41,126
State Representative – 36th Kelly M. Burke D 24,867 66.29% 12,643 33.71% 37,510
State Representative – 37th Margo McDermed R 21,574 54.34% 18,131 45.66% 39,705
State Representative – 38th Al Riley D 28,363 77.95% 8,025 22.05% 36,388
State Representative – 39th Will Guzzardi D 16,026 81.95% 3,529 18.05% 19,555
State Representative – 40th Jaime M. Andrade, Jr. D 16,725 81.41% 3,820 18.59% 20,545
State Representative – 41st Grant Wehrli R 20,397 53.64% 17,626 46.36% 38,023
State Representative – 42nd Jeanne M Ives R 19,753 50.54% 19,330 49.46% 39,083
State Representative – 43rd Anna Moeller D 10,980 62.10% 6,700 37.90% 17,680
State Representative – 44th Fred Crespo D 13,376 65.10% 7,170 34.90% 20,546
State Representative – 45th Christine Winger R 17,676 54.58% 14,709 45.42% 32,385
State Representative – 46th Deb Conroy D 15,186 61.29% 9,590 38.71% 24,776
State Representative – 47th Patricia R. Bellock R 20,104 49.67% 20,375 50.33% 40,479
State Representative – 48th Peter Breen R 21,350 54.97% 17,491 45.03% 38,841
State Representative – 49th Mike Fortner R 17,383 51.05% 16,669 48.95% 34,052
State Representative – 50th Keith R. Wheeler R 17,653 49.43% 18,059 50.57% 35,712
State Representative – 51st Ed Sullivan R 19,310 47.60% 21,257 52.40% 40,567
State Representative – 52nd David McSweeney R 18,682 49.51% 19,050 50.49% 37,732
State Representative – 53rd David Harris R 20,538 55.68% 16,351 44.32% 36,889
State Representative – 54th Thomas Morrison R 18,165 53.40% 15,849 46.60% 34,014
State Representative – 55th Martin J. Moylan D 17,628 61.76% 10,914 38.24% 28,542
State Representative – 56th Michelle Mussman D 16,999 60.83% 10,945 39.17% 27,944
State Representative – 57th Elaine Nekritz D 16,793 61.79% 10,384 38.21% 27,177
State Representative – 58th Scott Drury D 19,642 53.96% 16,762 46.04% 36,404
State Representative – 59th Carol Sente D 16,749 59.74% 11,288 40.26% 28,037
State Representative – 60th Rita Mayfield D 12,028 70.69% 4,987 29.31% 17,015
State Representative – 61st Sheri Jesiel R 16,852 57.02% 12,701 42.98% 29,553
State Representative – 62nd Sam Yingling D 16,197 59.28% 11,125 40.72% 27,322
State Representative – 63rd Jack D. Franks D 16,422 52.01% 15,153 47.99% 31,575
State Representative – 64th Barbara Wheeler R 19,831 51.29% 18,834 48.71% 38,665
State Representative – 65th Steven A. Andersson R 19,840 48.10% 21,409 51.90% 41,249
State Representative – 66th Michael W. Tryon R 16,333 52.65% 14,690 47.35% 31,023
State Representative – 67th Litesa E. Wallace D 14,348 67.16% 7,015 32.84% 21,363
State Representative – 68th John M. Cabello R 22,663 60.53% 14,775 39.47% 37,438
State Representative – 69th Joe Sosnowski R 22,127 57.24% 16,530 42.76% 38,657
State Representative – 70th Robert W. Pritchard R 18,112 54.73% 14,983 45.27% 33,095
State Representative – 71st Mike Smiddy D 22,205 61.18% 14,092 38.82% 36,297
State Representative – 72nd Patrick J. Verschoore D 20,687 64.52% 11,378 35.48% 32,065
State Representative – 73rd David R. Leitch R 21,066 53.54% 18,283 46.46% 39,349
State Representative – 74th Donald L. Moffitt R 24,339 60.75% 15,723 39.25% 40,062
State Representative – 75th John D. Anthony R 20,367 57.23% 15,220 42.77% 35,587
State Representative – 76th Andrew F Skoog D 21,880 64.21% 12,198 35.79% 34,078
State Representative – 77th Kathleen Willis D 11,065 67.70% 5,278 32.30% 16,343
State Representative – 78th Camille Y. Lilly D 25,256 77.35% 7,397 22.65% 32,653
State Representative – 79th Katherine Cloonen D 18,104 54.02% 15,408 45.98% 33,512
State Representative – 80th Anthony DeLuca D 24,790 68.50% 11,400 31.50% 36,190
State Representative – 81st Ron Sandack R 22,081 55.85% 17,456 44.15% 39,537
State Representative – 82nd Jim Durkin R 20,038 50.90% 19,330 49.10% 39,368
State Representative – 83rd Linda Chapa LaVia D 10,548 66.96% 5,204 33.04% 15,752
State Representative – 84th Stephanie A. Kifowit D 14,692 63.50% 8,444 36.50% 23,136
State Representative – 85th Emily McAsey D 17,099 66.89% 8,464 33.11% 25,563
State Representative – 86th Lawrence Walsh, Jr. D 17,253 66.94% 8,519 33.06% 25,772
State Representative – 87th Tim Butler R 23,104 60.38% 15,159 39.62% 38,263
State Representative – 88th Keith P. Sommer R 21,053 56.70% 16,076 43.30% 37,129
State Representative – 89th Brian W. Stewart R 20,301 56.59% 15,575 43.41% 35,876
State Representative – 90th Tom Demmer R 22,326 60.03% 14,864 39.97% 37,190
State Representative – 91st Michael D. Unes R 20,542 63.15% 11,988 36.85% 32,530
State Representative – 92nd Jehan Gordon-Booth D 17,140 66.16% 8,765 33.84% 25,905
State Representative – 93rd Norine K. Hammond R 19,558 65.16% 10,459 34.84% 30,017
State Representative – 94th Randy E. Frese R 19,494 57.06% 14,671 42.94% 34,165
State Representative – 95th Avery Bourne R 20,760 61.29% 13,112 38.71% 33,872
State Representative – 96th Sue Scherer D 21,742 66.13% 11,137 33.87% 32,879
State Representative – 97th Mark Batinick R 20,708 58.14% 14,908 41.86% 35,616
State Representative – 98th Natalie A. Manley D 20,577 65.23% 10,966 34.77% 31,543
State Representative – 99th Sara Wojcicki Jimenez R 27,319 60.24% 18,032 39.76% 45,351
State Representative – 100th C.D. Davidsmeyer R 21,516 57.94% 15,616 42.06% 37,132
State Representative – 101st Bill Mitchell R 24,538 55.67% 19,541 44.33% 44,079
State Representative – 102nd Adam Brown R 22,673 55.59% 18,110 44.41% 40,783
State Representative – 103rd Carol Ammons D 16,639 68.28% 7,729 31.72% 24,368
State Representative – 104th Chad Hays R 21,543 60.91% 13,823 39.09% 35,366
State Representative – 105th Dan Brady R 19,620 57.13% 14,725 42.87% 34,345
State Representative – 106th Thomas M. Bennett R 19,756 56.63% 15,133 43.37% 34,889
State Representative – 107th John Cavaletto R 19,483 58.05% 14,078 41.95% 33,561
State Representative – 108th Charles Meier R 22,268 55.00% 18,222 45.00% 40,490
State Representative – 109th David B. Reis R 19,647 53.90% 16,803 46.10% 36,450
State Representative – 110th Reginald Phillips R 19,334 59.76% 13,020 40.24% 32,354
State Representative – 111th Daniel V. Beiser D 18,501 62.34% 11,176 37.66% 29,677
State Representative – 112th Dwight Kay R 20,702 60.79% 13,352 39.21% 34,054
State Representative – 113th Jay Hoffman D 21,578 64.87% 11,683 35.13% 33,261
State Representative – 114th Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr. D 23,343 64.79% 12,685 35.21% 36,028
State Representative – 115th Terri Bryant R 22,501 62.61% 13,435 37.39% 35,936
State Representative – 116th Jerry Costello, II D 20,701 58.07% 14,947 41.93% 35,648
State Representative – 117th John Bradley D 19,888 60.91% 12,765 39.09% 32,653
State Representative – 118th Brandon W. Phelps D 19,760 59.87% 13,245 40.13% 33,005

You can find all of this data here.
Or you can search by going Analysis -> Precinct Level Election Results -> View Statewide Race by Districts (Simple Method).

Downloading Chicago Mayor by Precinct

Published on

If you’re like me you want to download all of the Chicago Mayor election results in this April runoff by precinct and you don’t want to have to load each ward’s page and then copy and paste that into a spreadsheet. Paul Smith was kind enough to share a Python script to download the results but I was unfortunately unable to get his Python script to work so I wrote one in php and got that to work.

Download the 2015 Mayor Runoff by Precinct

Click on the link above to download the April Runoff Election Results by precinct. This will probably take 60 – 120 seconds to run before it lets you save the file. This script will check the CBOE website and then it will write the data to a CSV file that you should be able to download and open in Excel and it will have the Mayor’s race election results by precinct. If the CBOE updates their vote totals with either 1) updated precinct totals or 2) updated VBM totals (or both) just click on the link above again and it will pull the latest data.

If something isn’t working right let me know. Thanks.

What To Watch For

Published on

On election night back in February the only vote totals made available by the Chicago Board of Elections were the citywide totals. It wasn’t until around 11 or midnight that the ward by ward totals were available. There isn’t a whole lot of interesting analysis that can be gleaned from just the aggregate totals so I probably won’t be doing much tomorrow night.

My hope is that the major media outlets cover this election night well, I thought they did a good job with the runoff. Keep an eye on the Sun-Times, on election night in February a few of their reporters were discussing ward by ward totals well before the Chicago Board of Elections was making that data publicly available. Also, WBEZ has had a lot of good data work throughout this election.

Here are a few of the questions I think people will want to try to quantify on election night, if possible.

  1. How many total votes are projected: (total votes counted so far) / (whole number percent precincts reporting / 100)
  2. What percentage of the uncounted vote does the candidate who is behind need to win in order to move ahead?
  3. Separate the wards by majority African American, majority Hispanic, majority white and no majority, how did each candidate do? How many total votes in each area? Which areas saw the greatest increase/decrease in support levels and turnout?

You should be able to answer the first two questions even without ward by ward totals. Also, the CBOE should be able to tell you how many vote by mail applications were processed and how many ballots were returned so far. The remainder will be a useful number, if there are 20,000 outstanding VBM ballots and the election night totals are within 20,000 votes you’ll want to know that. Any vote by mail ballots have to be postmarked today to be counted but they can be received at any time in the next few weeks.

Unlike November there is no same day registration so the total number of uncounted provisional ballots will not be as significant.

Speaking Engagement

On Thursday afternoon I will be speaking at a lunch panel on the Chicago municipal elections sponsored by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. The event is at noon in the French Room of the Union League Club, ticket info is available here.

Post Mortem

I typically do a post-mortem in the day or two after the election to cover all the various insights available from the data. For this election I have agreed to be part of a larger and more comprehensive written report, I will probably even have to double check my spelling and grammar. The report should be available early next week, I’ll provide a link when it is available.

Some More Numbers – Chicago Mayor Race

Published on

Total Votes – Participation Rate:

There has been a lot of attention given to the fact that turnout last night was significantly lower than four years ago, which is true, however that year was a bit of an outlier and this year’s numbers track pretty closely to the 2007 and 2003 Chicago Municipal elections:

Reg Voters Tot Mayor Voters Participation Rate
Feb 2003 1,436,286 463,145 32.25%
Feb 2007 1,407,979 456,765 32.44%
Feb 2011 1,406,037 590,357 41.99%
Feb 2015 1,421,430 466,177 32.80%

With some valid late arriving vote by mail ballots left to be counted the total votes in the Mayor’s race last night currently stands at about 466K (very close to my projection last night) and a participation rate of a little under 33% on about 1.4 million registered voters. You can see that over the last four cycles the number of citywide registered voters has stayed within a band of 30,000 so it’s held pretty flat. The total vote last night held remarkably similar to 2003 and 2007. In other words last night’s election was nothing special, wasn’t a big turnout like 2011 and wasn’t a horrible one either, it just tracked well with other recent elections with an incumbent Mayor.


Projecting April’s Turnout:

Today I saw two schools of thought on the likely turnout for the April runoff: 1) the number of total voters in the Mayor’s race in the April runoff will be lower because a) there aren’t competitive aldermanic elections in every ward, b) some supporters of the candidates that did not qualify for the runoff will not vote and c) election fatigue. The other school of thought is 2) the number of total voters in the Mayor’s race in the April runoff will actually be higher than February because a) with a slimmed down field the campaign coverage will be more focused and more voters will be paying attention, b) the Mayor’s veil of invincibility has been pierced leading some disaffected voters to participate, c) the weather will be better and d) with fewer other races to distract the campaigns or dilute the campaign staffs more people will be working to drive up turnout.

I still tend to believe that the overall number of voters in the Mayor’s race in April will be lower than the total from February but I find the conversation interesting. We don’t have much historical data to work with, there hasn’t been a runoff in the Mayor’s race since the current format was put in place in 1999. However we can look at all of the aldermanic elections that went to runoff in the last three cycles and see how regularly the April runoffs featured more total voters than the February elections:

Year Ward Feb Total Apr Total Diff Diff %
2011 6 15,045 10,114 (4,931) -32.8%
2011 15 7,059 3,550 (3,509) -49.7%
2011 16 6,116 3,654 (2,462) -40.3%
2011 17 9,900 6,063 (3,837) -38.8%
2011 20 7,467 4,518 (2,949) -39.5%
2011 24 9,255 5,490 (3,765) -40.7%
2011 25 8,823 7,291 (1,532) -17.4%
2011 36 14,052 10,074 (3,978) -28.3%
2011 38 12,256 7,880 (4,376) -35.7%
2011 41 20,109 14,458 (5,651) -28.1%
2011 43 14,267 9,644 (4,623) -32.4%
2011 45 15,879 12,136 (3,743) -23.6%
2011 46 13,906 9,967 (3,939) -28.3%
2011 50 11,487 9,698 (1,789) -15.6%
2011 Combined 165,621 114,537 (51,084) -30.8%
2007 2 11,103 9,399 (1,704) -15.3%
2007 3 8,087 8,369 282 3.5%
2007 15 6,046 4,641 (1,405) -23.2%
2007 16 6,104 5,278 (826) -13.5%
2007 18 13,228 8,970 (4,258) -32.2%
2007 21 14,096 10,563 (3,533) -25.1%
2007 24 8,421 6,416 (2,005) -23.8%
2007 32 8,107 8,237 130 1.6%
2007 35 6,561 6,543 (18) -0.3%
2007 43 9,307 8,321 (986) -10.6%
2007 49 7,441 7,803 362 4.9%
2007 50 10,489 11,325 836 8.0%
2007 Combined 108,990 95,865 (13,125) -12.0%
2003 1 6,930 9,007 2,077 30.0%
2003 6 12,686 9,354 (3,332) -26.3%
2003 15 6,048 4,450 (1,598) -26.4%
2003 21 13,451 11,902 (1,549) -11.5%
2003 Combined 39,115 34,713 (4,402) -11.3%

Looking at the table above the general expectation for an aldermanic runoff is the April election will have fewer total votes than the February election, in fact the average for the 14 aldermanic runoffs of 2011 was about 31% lower (12% lower on average in 2007 and 11% lower on average in 2003). There are a few exceptions of course but it’s clear that April just has a lower participation rate.

However I would caution these totals are just for downballot aldermanic races. A runoff in a Mayor’s race is likely to lead most newscasts over the next 6 weeks. You’ll also see plenty of broadcast TV ads and heavy mail and likely phone calls or door knocks. The level of attention given to this runoff will be very different from these past aldermanic runoffs. No matter what your preferred theory is for turnout in April I don’t think the data rules out any possibility.

Two New Election Bills Signed Into Law

Published on

Today outgoing Governor Pat Quinn signed two election bills into law, 1) HB4576, which passed both chambers during a special session on Thursday, that will allow for a special election for certain constitutional offices under certain circumstances and will result in a special election in 2016 for Comptroller to fill the remaining term of the late Judy Baar Topinka, and 2) SB172 the omnibus elections bill that was passed during veto session which has received the most attention for making same day registration permanent but also makes changes to vote by mail, early voting, college campus voting, vote counting procedures and election administrative changes.

For anyone who followed the lengthy vote counting process in the very close 2014 State Treasurer’s race SB172 includes some changes that will make more vote counting information available for any similar situations in the future. Here is a rundown for both bills.

HB4576

This bill is pretty straightforward, this about covers it:

Provides that if there are more than 28 months remaining in the term of office for Secretary of State, State Comptroller, Treasurer or Attorney General, the appointed office holder shall serve until the next general election, at which time the office shall be filled by special election for the remainder of the term. Provides for nominations for special elections to fill the unexpired term of a vacant office. Effective immediately.

 

SB172

Voter Registration

  • Same Day Registration (Grace Period Registration): extends grace period registration up to and including election day. Election authorities in counties with a population of greater than 100,000 or election authorities that have electronic poll books must offer in-precinct same day registration. Election authorities in counties with a population less than 100,000 that do not have electronic poll books may opt out of in-precinct same day registration but they must offer same day registration at their main office and must include a location in any municipality where 20% or more of the county’s residents reside.
  • ERIC Registration: beginning in 2016 requires participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) system.
  • National Change of Address check: requires the SBE to perform a check of the Postal Service’s National Change of Address database to find voters who have moved. Voters who have changed their address will be automatically re-registered at their new address after being given an opportunity to opt out
  • State Websites: requires all executive department websites to link to the statewide online voter registration.
  • Phone App: requires the SBE to develop a phone app for voter registration.
  • Government Offices: requires that when a person is interacting with a state agency online or at their government office they can easily register to vote or update their registration.

 

Voting

  • Provisional Voting: a voter attempting same day registration on election day that does not have the necessary documentation may still vote provisionally. That voter will then have 7 days to submit the proper documentation to their election authority.
  • Early Voting: early voting now runs up to and including the day before election day. During the final week of early voting the locations must be open until 7pm on weekdays. Saturdays are 9am – noon and Sundays are 10am – 4pm. Permanent sites must offer grace period registration. Each election authority must provide the SBE a list of early voting locations and hours, the SBE will make this info available on their website.
  • Vote By Mail: ballots must now be postmarked no later than election day (it used to be the day before), ballots can be delivered by any carrier, ballots may be returned in person to the election authority by any authorized person (previously only family members) and election authorities must print the amount of postage required on the return envelope.
  • Campus Voting: early voting and grace period registration must be available in the student union Wed – Fri from 10am to 5pm before a general primary or general election but not during a consolidated election.

 

Vote Counting

  • Ballot Processing: election authorities may process ballots up to 15 days prior to election day but they may not count/tabulate the ballots until after the polls close.
  • Uncounted Ballot Disclosure: after election day each election authority must report to the SBE the number of uncounted ballots and the SBE must make this info available on their website.
  • Announcements: election authorities must provide at least 24 hours advance notice the date, time and location where they will analyze, cast or count any centrally located ballots and they must send email notification to anyone requesting notification.
  • Wrong Precinct: codifies current SBE rules regarding counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

 

Election Administration

  • Eliminates “Absentee Voting”: removes any references to “absentee voting” which is now obsolete and has been replaced by early voting and vote by mail.
  • Polling Places: requires election authorities to disclose polling places that designate their entire property as campaign free.
  • Petitions: clarifies the SBE’s jurisdiction over petitions for the General Assembly when the districts are not entirely within Cook County, sets the signature requirements for Chicago aldermen (473 signatures) and eliminates the requirement that statewide advisory referendum petitions must be segregated by election jurisdiction.
  • Election Judges: in Cook County the township and ward committeemen now have final approval of partisan election judges (used to be the county chairman).
  • “I Voted” Stickers: if an election authority distributes “I Voted” stickers must make them available to all voters.
  • Pollwatchers: cleaned up language on pollwatchers watching the casting of vote by mail ballots in a precinct on election day.

Updating the Treasurer’s Race (cont.)

Published on

Illinois Treasurer’s Race Tracker

UPDATE: 11/15 (11:00am)

I checked every election authority that has public data on a website this morning and the only further update was in Clark county where 3 new votes were added, all for Tom Cross. The new margin is Cross by 381 votes.

Also, Tom Kacich of the Champaign News-Gazette has some more information about the votes expected to be made public early next week in east central Illinois.

Later this afternoon I will have some info on what to expect this upcoming week when the clerks finalize their totals.

End of Update.


UPDATE: 11/14 (5:00pm)

I was told about some additional counties that had updated numbers, here is what I have found:

  • Wabash County – according to the employees in the county clerk’s office they found that they had accidentally counted some votes twice so after a careful review their updated numbers actually declined. There was a net total vote reduction of 690 votes over what was previously publicly reported and Cross lost a net of 306 votes. I am told that these will be their final numbers.
  • Livingston County – there were a total of 51 new votes over what was previously publicly reported and Cross gained 10 votes.
  • Piatt County – there were a total of 21 new votes over what was previously publicly reported and Cross gained 10 votes. Per their website these should be their final totals.
  • I was also told that DeWitt, Jasper, Marshall, Pope and Richland had updated numbers however Marshall and DeWitt do not have new totals on their websites, the rest don’t have websites and by the time I was able to call all of them their offices were already closed. I will hopefully find time to call them when they reopen on Monday.

I will check everything again most likely tomorrow. I will also put up an explanation about what to expect for next week.

End of Update.


UPDATE: 11/14 (1:00pm)

I was told that Hancock County had updated numbers so I called during lunch and sure enough they do. They added 511 votes over what was previously publicly available and Cross gained 127 votes. They also said this was their final count and would have no further updates. The current margin is Tom Cross by 664 votes.

I will check everything again either tonight or more likely tomorrow.

End of Update.


UPDATE: 11/13 (6:00pm)

I went through all of the election authorities that have a website and data again tonight and here is the update:

  • Kane County (only, not including Aurora) – there were a total of 564 new votes over what was previously publicly reported and Cross gained 44 votes.
  • Lee County – there were a total of 18 new votes over what was previously publicly reported and Cross gained 2 votes.

The current margin is Tom Cross by 537 votes.

End of Update.


UPDATE: 11/12 (9:00pm)

I went through all of the election authorities that have a website and data again tonight and 1 vote was updated. One vote. It was in Ogle County and it went to Frerichs so the difference changed by 1 vote, now it’s Tom Cross by 491 votes.

End of Update.


Previous Updates

The Difference Between the Treasurer’s Race and the Governor’s Race

Published on

With so much attention being paid to the Treasurer’s race and the ballots being counted/updated in Cook County you could be forgiven for thinking that Cook County is the only area where ballots are still being counted, it is not. All 102 counties (and all 110 election authorities) are still counting late arriving vote by mail ballots, same day registration ballots and valid provisional ballots. Both Cook County and the Chicago Board of Elections have been updating their totals as they count their ballots and they are also giving us some public updates about how many ballots they have left to count, which is why we are seeing so much discussion of their totals. But the truth is every county is going through the exact same process, most of them are just not updating their totals while they’re doing it and they’re not likely to give us any updates until 11/18 when they stop accepting vote by mail ballots.

Analyzing the difference between the Treasurer’s race and the Governor’s race is suffering from the same Cook County focus, the most significant portion of the explanation lies elsewhere. When you look at the unofficial totals in the Governor’s race and the Treasurer’s race you’ll see:

  • In Cook County Tom Cross underperformed Bruce Rauner by about 2 points while Mike Frerichs and Pat Quinn ran essentially the same, within 0.2% of each other. The difference in Cook County is the Libertarian candidate in the Treasurer’s race got almost 2 points more than the Libertarian candidate in the Governor’s race in Cook County and since Frerichs and Quinn received essentially the same percentage here this basically came out of Cross’ pocket.
  • In the 5 traditional collar counties Cross underperformed Rauner by almost 2.5 points while Frerichs did better than Quinn by a little more than half a point.
  • In the downstate 96 counties the gap was the most pronounced, Cross underperformed Rauner by 3.5 points while Frerichs did better than Quinn by more than 4 points.

The difference maker in this race is downstate, not Cook County.

Here’s a table that shows the difference between the party candidates for Treasurer and Governor (sorted by Republican underperformance):

County Dem Rep Lib
Vermilion 22.24% -19.05% -3.19%
Adams 14.46% -13.41% -1.06%
Douglas 14.43% -12.59% -1.86%
Pike 13.77% -11.79% -1.99%
Piatt 13.01% -11.43% -1.59%
Champaign 12.03% -11.13% -0.91%
Marion 12.55% -10.75% -1.81%
White 10.65% -10.08% -0.57%
Hancock 11.81% -9.58% -2.23%
Ford 11.28% -9.54% -1.72%
Moultrie 9.84% -8.33% -1.52%
Iroquois 9.10% -8.26% -0.84%
Gallatin 9.98% -8.19% -1.80%
Calhoun 9.88% -8.11% -1.76%
Edgar 10.21% -8.09% -2.13%
Clinton 8.79% -8.08% -0.71%
Kankakee 7.03% -7.65% 0.62%
Wayne 7.17% -7.35% 0.18%
Scott 10.27% -7.20% -3.07%
Macoupin 9.07% -7.11% -1.95%
Shelby 9.78% -7.07% -2.72%
Jasper 8.75% -6.80% -1.95%
Brown 9.16% -6.52% -2.65%
Schuyler 7.91% -5.99% -1.92%
Monroe 5.50% -5.92% 0.42%
Pulaski 8.08% -5.80% -2.28%
Jersey 6.82% -5.65% -1.17%
Union 7.07% -5.57% -1.51%
Henderson 6.40% -5.56% -0.85%
Alexander 9.44% -5.48% -3.96%
Franklin 7.16% -5.35% -1.82%
Christian 8.09% -5.14% -2.95%
Mason 8.48% -4.78% -3.70%
Madison 4.83% -4.69% -0.14%
Washington 6.40% -4.59% -1.81%
McHenry 2.56% -4.56% 1.99%
Macon 5.50% -4.53% -0.97%
Greene 6.72% -4.52% -2.21%
Edwards 4.95% -4.37% -0.58%
Hamilton 6.40% -4.25% -2.14%
Clay 6.43% -4.17% -2.26%
Montgomery 6.63% -4.11% -2.53%
Cumberland 5.39% -3.97% -1.42%
Effingham 5.04% -3.94% -1.10%
Bond 5.27% -3.80% -1.46%
Stephenson 3.89% -3.62% -0.27%
Lake 1.95% -3.53% 1.58%
McDonough 4.70% -3.51% -1.18%
St. Clair 3.20% -3.46% 0.26%
Jefferson 4.49% -3.33% -1.18%
DeWitt 4.15% -3.32% -0.83%
Fayette 5.23% -3.17% -2.06%
Randolph 4.93% -2.94% -1.99%
Coles 4.45% -2.92% -1.54%
Rock Island 2.73% -2.87% 0.14%
Whiteside 3.19% -2.86% -0.33%
Marshall 4.57% -2.85% -1.72%
Perry 4.34% -2.79% -1.54%
Clark 4.76% -2.78% -1.99%
Mercer 3.73% -2.72% -1.00%
Kane 0.62% -2.34% 1.72%
DuPage 0.32% -2.32% 2.00%
Wabash 2.10% -2.24% 0.15%
DeKalb 0.71% -2.22% 1.51%
Fulton 4.95% -2.15% -2.80%
Henry 2.64% -2.06% -0.58%
LaSalle 1.19% -2.01% 0.82%
Winnebago 1.69% -1.98% 0.29%
Cook 0.18% -1.94% 1.75%
Carroll 2.37% -1.90% -0.46%
Peoria 2.69% -1.81% -0.88%
Richland 2.68% -1.81% -0.86%
Grundy 1.49% -1.68% 0.19%
Jackson 2.10% -1.55% -0.54%
Saline 3.73% -1.42% -2.31%
Boone 0.56% -1.32% 0.75%
McLean 1.09% -1.30% 0.21%
Tazewell 3.12% -1.30% -1.81%
Crawford 3.79% -1.28% -2.51%
Putnam 2.37% -1.16% -1.19%
Williamson 1.49% -1.10% -0.38%
JoDaviess 0.14% -1.09% 0.95%
Cass 3.77% -1.04% -2.72%
Woodford 2.40% -1.01% -1.38%
Stark 2.24% -0.88% -1.36%
Lawrence 2.18% -0.50% -1.69%
Morgan 2.49% -0.44% -2.05%
Will -1.14% -0.13% 1.27%
Bureau 0.31% -0.04% -0.28%
Pope 1.31% 0.45% -1.76%
Knox 0.55% 0.51% -1.06%
Warren 0.41% 0.52% -0.93%
Massac -0.87% 0.66% 0.21%
Hardin 2.31% 0.71% -3.02%
Ogle -1.04% 0.90% 0.14%
Johnson 0.27% 1.62% -1.89%
Kendall -4.26% 3.04% 1.23%
Lee -2.11% 3.16% -1.05%
Menard -2.02% 3.53% -1.51%
Livingston -1.76% 3.94% -2.18%
Sangamon -2.51% 4.08% -1.57%
Logan -1.44% 4.19% -2.75%

Two things stand out, 1) Cross only outperformed Rauner in 13 of 102 counties, and the two most favorable were Sangamon and Logan where a lot of state workers live; and 2) while some of the counties where Cross most underperformed Rauner include parts of Frerichs’ senate district like Vermilion and Champaign counties they also include other parts of the state like far western Adams County, southwestern Pike County and southern Marion and White counties.

Even in Cross’ home base of Kendall County he only outperformed Rauner by about 3 points whereas there were 12 counties where Frerichs outperformed Quinn by more than 10 points. The downstate vote makes up the lion’s share of the difference in these two races, Cross was unable to match Rauner’s example and Frerichs outperformed Quinn throughout.

Cook County is getting all the attention right now simply because they’re offering the most information but if you really want to understand why this race is incredibly close and the Governor’s race wasn’t the explanation mostly lies in the other 101 counties.