General Election Filing Roundup

Published on

Most candidates qualify for the general election ballot by winning the primary but in races where no candidate filed and won a primary the party chairmen can appoint a candidate to fill the vacancy. Those appointed candidates still have to go get petition signatures so it’s not a labor free process, established party candidates for the House need 500 signatures and 1,000 for the Senate, but it’s a far cry from the almost 600,000 signatures the Independent Maps group just turned in so it’s not overly difficult either. The deadline for established political parties (Democrat, Republican) to appoint candidates and file their candidate paperwork was yesterday May 31st.

While budget and end of session news dominated the day, and rightfully so, the most surprising development of filing day was just how few new candidates filed. Only one new Senate Republican candidate filed and that was in the 22nd for the open seat to replace Mike Noland. The House Republicans had two new candidates file, one in the 111th to take on Dan Beiser and one in the 43rd to take on Anna Moeller. Surprisingly no Republicans filed in the 116th to take on Jerry Costello despite the fact that his district is the most mathematically favorable Republican district currently held by a Democrat based on the 2014 vote totals.

The Senate Democrats had two new candidates file, one in the 32nd to take on Pam Althoff and one in the 26th to take on Dan McConchie. The House Democrats led the day having three new candidates file, one in the 48th to take on Peter Breen, another in the 50th to take on Keith Wheeler and one in the 110th to take on Reggie Phillips.

The most significant development of the day is that the Republicans do not have enough candidates on the ballot in the Illinois Senate to win control of the chamber. There are currently 20 Republicans in the Senate and they would need to win 10 more seats to have a majority in the chamber but of the 29 Democratic Senators up for re-election this fall only 9 will face a Republican opponent. Governor Rauner has struggled to pass his agenda through the General Assembly controlled by Democrats resulting in a multi-year stalemate and despite committing millions of dollars of his own money to electing more Republicans this fall he is guaranteed to have to find a way forward with an Illinois Senate that will be controlled by the Democrats for the remainder of his current term. The Republicans do have enough candidates on the ballot in the House to attempt to win control of that chamber.

Our tracker for General Assembly races that could or will be targeted races is up to date with all of yesterday’s new filings.

 

A Few New House Polls

Published on

Courtesy of Politico this morning we have new polls of five House districts that are currently held by Republicans and could be potential Democratic targets in the fall. Each of these districts is listed in our tracker of potential target General Assembly races.

The polling was done by Public Policy Polling on behalf of SEIU Healthcare. The service union wanted to test some messages related to possible upcoming votes that would affect the union’s members. The polls also included numbers on the Governor’s approval rating in the district and the district’s preference on whether or not to re-elect the incumbent.

 

First, the Governor’s approval rating in each district:

Rauner Approval Good Bad Neutral Not Sure
20th House (McAuliffe) 34% 48% 16% 2%
61st House (Jesiel) 40% 37% 21% 2%
95th House (Bourne) 30% 46% 21% 2%
99th House (Wojicki-Jimenez) 32% 51% 16% 1%
115th House (Bryant) 27% 50% 21% 2%

The Governor’s approval rating is upside down in all but one district, the 61st.

 

Next, the generic re-elect numbers for each incumbent:

Incumbent Re-Elect Someone New Not Sure
Mike McAuliffe (20th) 45% 40% 15%
Sheri Jesiel (61st) 36% 43% 21%
Avery Bourne (95th) 42% 47% 11%
Sara Wojcicki-Jimenez (99th) 33% 49% 19%
Terri Bryant (115th) 45% 44% 11%

McAuliffe has his head above water despite the Governor’s numbers, Jesiel is behind in the generic re-elect by 7 points despite the Gov’s +3 approval rating, Bourne and Wojcicki-Jimenez (both of whom were appointed to their seats via the Governor) are well under water in their districts along with the Governor and Bryant is just holding about even despite the Governor’s dismal numbers.

These numbers are just a limited snapshot but interesting nonetheless. The Governor’s team has telegraphed that they intend to tie Democratic House candidates to the Speaker so it would have been interesting to see those numbers in each of these districts, also while generic re-elect numbers are interesting it would have been more interesting to see actual head to head matchups with the Democratic candidates that will appear on the ballot this fall.

Here are the links to the full poll results and crosstabs:

 

Republican State Party Transfers $2 Million to HRO – Some Context

Published on

You may remember that about two months ago Governor Rauner put $2 million more of his own money into his candidate committee and then a week ago he transferred $5 million from his candidate committee to the Illinois Republican Party. Well today the House Republican Organization reported receiving $2 million from the State Party. Any time that much money is transferred it is significant but this is significant for a number of reasons, here are a few:

  1. Fundraising by the House Democrats had been far outpacing the House Republicans. You may remember from our financial analysis back at the start of May the four committees controlled by the Speaker (personal, DPI, Democratic Majority & 13th Ward) had about $7.5 million available compared with just $1.2 million in the three committees controlled by House leadership (Durkin, HRO & House Republican Leadership Committee). Plus when you add up the balances in all the other House candidate committees aside from the leaders the Democrats have an additional $14 million compared to just $5.4 million for House Republican candidates.
     

    Further, if you look at all the likely targeted House races you’ll see that the cash available numbers are very lopsided for the Democrats. The Democrats fundraised heavily into their targeted candidate committees in the 4th quarter of last year, aside from the Speaker 14 House Democrats raised more than $100K (11 of them more than $247K and 3 of them more than $500K) while the only House Republican to break $100K that quarter was Leader Durkin. The numbers last quarter were a little skewed because of the primary but aside from Bob Romanik loaning himself $1 million the only other House Republicans who raised more than $100K last quarter all had primaries (Scobbie, Acklin, Phillips, Schofield and Bourne). So far this quarter Romanik has loaned himself another $1 million and after that the leading fundraiser (aside from Leader Durkin) is David McSweeney with $26,700.

    The House Republicans just haven’t been fundraising with any significant results, now the Governor (via the State Party) is sending in at least some of the cavalry.

  2.  
  3. It’s May. In a typical budget year this is when many or all of the year’s most complicated votes happen. It’s going to be easier to hold the party and the caucus together when they know the needed resources will be there.
  4.  
  5. The House Republican Organization will decide how this money is spent. With the Governor’s campaign committee so flush and the legislative committees less so it wasn’t clear who would decide how and where the money gets spent on legislative races. The Governor’s team could have spent this money directly on various campaigns on behalf of the campaigns they chose but by transferring this money to the HRO for at least this part of the spending those decisions will be made by the House Republican leadership team.
  6.  

I’m sure this won’t be the last of it either. Stay tuned.

 
 

The Money Race for the State House (05/1/2016)

Published on

With the filing deadline passed for the 1st quarter 2016 campaign finance reports (D-2’s) I thought it would be interesting to update our post from last quarter on the state of the money race for the State House. Since we last looked at this data we had a primary election and now this look gives a much better idea of the state of the money race going into the general election. This data is as of 9pm on April 30th.

Here are the key figures: as of right now Democratic committees have an estimated cash available advantage of about $2.1 million ($35.6 million for the Dems, $33.5 million for the Republicans). Looking at spending the Dems have already spent $26 million so far this cycle, Republicans have already spent $18.2 million this cycle and Independent Expenditure committees (B-1’s) spent $11.2 million on legislative races during the primary. That’s a total of $55.4 million already spent. When you factor in the amounts of cash currently estimated available and add it to what’s already been spent it means that even if no additional money is raised and no new independent expenditures appear we’re likely to see $124.5 million spent on legislative races this cycle. Wow!

Let’s take a look at the data starting with the current estimated cash available, here is the current cash position of all the committees involved combining the 3/30 cash on hand, plus the 3/30 investment total plus any reported A-1 amounts so far this quarter.

Current Cash Position

Committee Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Est Funds Available
Democratic Party of Illinois $2,429,001.87 $0.00 $26,500.00 $2,455,501.87
Friends of Michael J. Madigan $1,372,783.15 $0.00 $30,275.00 $1,403,058.15
Democratic Majority $2,333,149.51 $0.00 $91,000.00 $2,424,149.51
13th Ward Democratic Org $1,245,449.07 $0.00 $0.00 $1,245,449.07
Citizens for John Cullerton for State Senate $1,482,635.98 $301,506.32 $0.00 $1,784,142.30
Senate Democratic Victory Fund $2,229,955.11 $405,301.22 $0.00 $2,635,256.33
Committee to Support John Cullerton for State Central Committeeman $769,358.93 $0.00 $0.00 $769,358.93
Dem Senators Not On Ballot This Cycle $3,502,698.50 $42.36 $3,500.00 $3,506,240.86
Dem Senate Candidates $4,994,097.14 $220,007.00 $70,868.24 $5,284,972.38
Dem House Candidates $12,769,369.04 $809,320.66 $482,918.70 $14,061,608.40
Total $33,128,498.30 $1,736,177.56 $705,061.94 $35,569,737.80
Committee Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Est Funds Available
Citizens for Rauner, Inc $20,311,643.80 $0.00 $0.00 $20,311,643.80
Turnaround Illinois $2,254,635.33 $0.00 $0.00 $2,254,635.33
Illinois Republican Party $651,799.75 $0.00 $16,100.00 $667,899.75
Citizens for Durkin $780,472.40 $0.00 $37,200.00 $817,672.40
House Republican Organization $303,042.08 $0.00 $39,500.00 $342,542.08
House Republican Leadership Committee $65,277.40 $0.00 $0.00 $65,277.40
Citizens for Christine Radogno $561,536.37 $0.00 $26,000.00 $587,536.37
Republican State Senate Campaign Committee $517,892.38 $0.00 $13,500.00 $531,392.38
Rep Senators Not On Ballot This Cycle $912,951.84 $0.00 $8,500.00 $921,451.84
Rep Senate Candidates $1,508,708.01 $45,300.00 $48,707.53 $1,602,715.54
Rep House Candidates $4,281,283.44 $0.00 $1,135,461.66 $5,416,745.10
Total $32,149,242.80 $45,300.00 $1,324,969.19 $33,519,511.99
Committee Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Est Funds Available
Democratic Primary Losing Candidates $340,235.14 $0.00 $1,000.00 $341,235.14
Republican Primary Losing Candidates $93,896.41 $0.00 $7,765.00 $101,661.41

Going into the fall general election the Democrats actually have a little more than a $2 million estimated cash available advantage, but as we have seen the Governor and his allies are able to commit additional funds in amounts that are virtually unprecedented in Illinois politics.

Now let’s look at the same info while adding in the amounts that have already been spent so far this cycle (including in-kinds as spending):

Cycle Spending Ability

Committee Already Spent Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Cycle Spending Ability
Democratic Party of Illinois $538,072.80 $2,429,001.87 $0.00 $26,500.00 $2,993,574.67
Friends of Michael J. Madigan $1,640,020.17 $1,372,783.15 $0.00 $30,275.00 $3,043,078.32
Democratic Majority $871,977.99 $2,333,149.51 $0.00 $91,000.00 $3,296,127.50
13th Ward Democratic Org $272,060.96 $1,245,449.07 $0.00 $0.00 $1,517,510.03
Citizens for John Cullerton for State Senate $688,272.67 $1,482,635.98 $301,506.32 $0.00 $2,472,414.97
Senate Democratic Victory Fund $1,536,150.63 $2,229,955.11 $405,301.22 $0.00 $4,171,406.96
Committee to Support John Cullerton for State Central Committeeman $85,590.57 $769,358.93 $0.00 $0.00 $854,949.50
Dem Senators Not On Ballot This Cycle $1,698,911.71 $3,502,698.50 $42.36 $3,500.00 $5,205,152.57
Dem Senate Candidates $4,208,546.60 $4,994,097.14 $220,007.00 $70,868.24 $9,493,518.98
Dem House Candidates $11,203,399.75 $12,769,369.04 $809,320.66 $482,918.70 $25,265,008.15
Total $22,743,003.85 $33,128,498.30 $1,736,177.56 $705,061.94 $58,312,741.65
Committee Already Spent Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Cycle Spending Ability
Citizens for Rauner, Inc $2,624,772.17 $20,311,643.80 $0.00 $0.00 $22,936,415.97
Turnaround Illinois $4,001,086.86 $2,254,635.33 $0.00 $0.00 $6,255,722.19
Illinois Republican Party $1,663,295.77 $651,799.75 $0.00 $16,100.00 $2,331,195.52
Citizens for Durkin $550,350.74 $780,472.40 $0.00 $37,200.00 $1,368,023.14
House Republican Organization $656,686.28 $303,042.08 $0.00 $39,500.00 $999,228.36
House Republican Leadership Committee $3,286.25 $65,277.40 $0.00 $0.00 $68,563.65
Citizens for Christine Radogno $168,490.63 $561,536.37 $0.00 $26,000.00 $756,027.00
Republican State Senate Campaign Committee $693,245.16 $517,892.38 $0.00 $13,500.00 $1,224,637.54
Rep Senators Not On Ballot This Cycle $565,648.77 $912,951.84 $0.00 $8,500.00 $1,487,100.61
Rep Senate Candidates $2,282,987.18 $1,508,708.01 $45,300.00 $48,707.53 $3,885,702.72
Rep House Candidates $3,357,574.75 $4,281,283.44 $0.00 $1,135,461.66 $8,774,319.85
Total $16,567,424.56 $32,149,242.80 $45,300.00 $1,324,969.19 $50,086,936.55
Committee Already Spent
Primary Independent Expenditure Spending (B-1’s) $11,168,207.97
Committee Already Spent Q1 Cash on Hand Q1 Investments Q2 A-1s Cycle Spending Ability
Democratic Primary Losing Candidates $3,337,775.14 $340,235.14 $0.00 $1,000.00 $3,679,010.28
Republican Primary Losing Candidates $1,606,159.06 $93,896.41 $0.00 $7,765.00 $1,707,820.47

Looking at the already spent figures (and including the losing primary candidates) the Democrats have already spent $26 million and the Republicans have already spent $18.2 million, plus another $11.2 million was spent by independent expenditure committees (B-1 filings) on legislative races for an already spent total of $55.4 million. When you factor in the amounts of cash currently estimated available and add it to what’s already been spent it means that even if no additional money is raised an no new independent expenditures appear we’re likely to see $124.5 million spent on legislative races this cycle. That’s unbelievable!

Finally, here are the other top 25 committees that have notable funds and could impact the fall elections if they so choose.

Name COH INV A-1 Est Funds Avail
Friends of Edward M Burke $2,160,076.64 $6,273,896.00 $5,500.00 $8,439,472.64
IllinoisGO IE $6,149,225.57 $0.00 $0.00 $6,149,225.57
Laborers’ Political League – Great Lakes Region $3,023,155.22 $0.00 $0.00 $3,023,155.22
Citizens for Lisa Madigan $2,173,498.62 $0.00 $0.00 $2,173,498.62
Illinois State Medical Society PAC $415,826.75 $1,251,596.00 $14,400.00 $1,681,822.75
Carpenters Helping in the Political Process (CHIPP) $1,612,141.33 $0.00 $0.00 $1,612,141.33
Laborers’ Political Action and Education League $1,443,781.99 $0.00 $0.00 $1,443,781.99
Chicagoland Operators Joint Labor-Management PAC $1,128,549.69 $0.00 $263,144.71 $1,391,694.40
Biss for Illinois $1,360,488.45 $0.00 $0.00 $1,360,488.45
The Burnham Committee $1,307,346.28 $0.00 $0.00 $1,307,346.28
Support Independent Maps $478,768.86 $0.00 $686,500.00 $1,165,268.86
Friends for Susana Mendoza $1,102,541.75 $0.00 $0.00 $1,102,541.75
Stand for Children IL PAC $1,070,877.79 $0.00 $22,600.00 $1,093,477.79
Citizens for Alderman Reilly $1,012,213.26 $0.00 $0.00 $1,012,213.26
REALTORS Political Action Committee $941,494.05 $0.00 $16,700.00 $958,194.05
Roofers’ Political Educational and Legislative Fund $185,753.65 $749,380.67 $0.00 $935,134.32
Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee $13,432.35 $844,463.00 $0.00 $857,895.35
Citizens for Judy Baar Topinka $840,769.03 $0.00 $0.00 $840,769.03
Committee to Elect Joseph Berrios Assessor $831,314.73 $0.00 $0.00 $831,314.73
Citizens for Giannoulias $779,479.42 $0.00 $0.00 $779,479.42
Friends of Suarez $14,708.65 $750,000.00 $0.00 $764,708.65
Cook County Democratic Party $741,225.55 $0.00 $5,000.00 $746,225.55
Illinois PAC for Education (IPACE) $741,903.61 $0.00 $0.00 $741,903.61
Finishing Trades of Chicago Corp PAC $688,727.48 $0.00 $0.00 $688,727.48
14th Ward Regular Democratic Org $669,790.30 $0.00 $0.00 $669,790.30
James Pate Philip Campaign Fund $736.10 $650,000.00 $0.00 $650,736.10

If you’d like to check my math or investigate and calculate further the data I used to create the tables above can be found here.

 

Note: these figures are our best estimates and include some double counting of funds, which cannot be avoided. For example not all funds listed in “Transfers In” come from political committees that are already registered with the State Board but for those that do these transfers aren’t new money coming into the system, they’re simply transfers from one fund to another. If those transfers are from funds that are involved in legislative elections to funds involved in legislative elections (such as when Governor Rauner transferred funds to the state party who then spent money to assist incumbents Bourne and Wojcicki-Jimenez) then we are double counting those funds. The same goes for in-kinds, not all in-kinds are double counted but when a committee that is involved in legislative elections provides and in-kind to another committee involved in legislative elections (such as when the Speaker’s leadership committee, Democratic Majority, spent money on mailings on behalf of incumbent House Dems who then reported those transactions as in-kind donations received) we’re just seeing the same numbers twice. The only way to control for this double counting would involve manually going through and coding tens of thousands of transactions to determine if each transaction a) involved two committees that were both registered with the State Board and b) both funds were involved with this cycle’s legislative elections. That’s just not a realistic option so we’re left with our best estimates above.

 

 

General Election Candidate Filing

Published on

For offices where no candidate was nominated by an established political party that party can appoint someone to the ballot for the General Election so long as they submit petitions and their candidate filing papers by May 31st. For example in the 1st State House District the Democrats nominated incumbent Dan Burke, he won his primary with no opposition but no Republican candidate filed so the party could appoint someone to appear on the fall ballot so long as they submit the required paperwork. That is true for every such situation.

Here are the relevant sections of the election code which explain this process. I had to look it up so I figured others might find it useful as well.

10 ILCS 5/7-61
If the name of no established political party candidate was printed on the consolidated primary ballot for a particular office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidate for such office, a vacancy in nomination shall be created which may be filled in accordance with the requirements of this Section. If the name of no established political party candidate was printed on the general primary ballot for a particular office and if no person was nominated as a write-in candidate for such office, a vacancy in nomination shall be filled only by a person designated by the appropriate committee of the political party and only if that designated person files nominating petitions with the number of signatures required for an established party candidate for that office within 75 days after the day of the general primary. The circulation period for those petitions begins on the day the appropriate committee designates that person. The person shall file his or her nominating petitions, statements of candidacy, notice of appointment by the appropriate committee, and receipt of filing his or her statement of economic interests together. These documents shall be filed at the same location as provided in Section 7-12. The electoral boards having jurisdiction under Section 10-9 to hear and pass upon objections to nominating petitions also shall hear and pass upon objections to nomination petitions filed by candidates under this paragraph.

In the proceedings to nominate a candidate to fill a vacancy or to fill a vacancy in the nomination, each precinct, township, ward, county or congressional district, as the case may be, shall through its representative on such central or managing committee, be entitled to one vote for each ballot voted in such precinct, township, ward, county or congressional district, as the case may be, by the primary electors of its party at the primary election immediately preceding the meeting at which such vacancy is to be filled.

 
 

10 ILCS 5/8-17
In the event that a candidate of a party who has been nominated under the provisions of this Article shall die before election (whether death occurs prior to, or on, or after, the date of the primary) or decline the nomination or should the nomination for any other reason become vacant, the legislative or representative committee of such party for such district shall nominate a candidate of such party to fill such vacancy. However, if there was no candidate for the nomination of the party in the primary, no candidate of that party for that office may be listed on the ballot at the general election, unless the legislative or representative committee of the party nominates a candidate to fill the vacancy in nomination within 75 days after the date of the general primary election. Vacancies in nomination occurring under this Article shall be filled by the appropriate legislative or representative committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-61 of this Code. In proceedings to fill the vacancy in nomination, the voting strength of the members of the legislative or representative committee shall be as provided in Section 8-6.

Auditing Campaign Committees

Published on

Reaction to the news that Ken Dunkin finished the quarter with $1.2 million remaining in his campaign committee account has been varied, including some speculation that perhaps this reported figure is due to inaccurate accounting and his committee’s actual cash balance is significantly less.

In various situations the State Board of Elections can order an audit of a political committee, in some instances based on certain parameters that would warrant an audit and also they have the ability to randomly audit a limited number of committees. A few years ago I was involved in the record keeping of a committee that was randomly audited, it was a minor headache to assemble all the records for the auditor and of course we then had to pay a fee to an auditor but our records were in order so it wasn’t an overly burdensome process. It will be interesting to see if an audit is ordered in this situation.

Here is the relevant section of the election code:

5/9-13. Audits of political committees.

(a) The Board shall have the authority to order a political committee to conduct an audit of the financial records required to be maintained by the committee to ensure compliance with Sections 9-8.5 and 9-10. Audits ordered by the Board shall be conducted as provided in this Section and as provided by Board rule.

(b) The Board may order a political committee to conduct an audit of its financial records for any of the following reasons: (i) a discrepancy between the ending balance of a reporting period and the beginning balance of the next reporting period, (ii) failure to account for previously reported investments or loans, or (iii) a discrepancy between reporting contributions received by or expenditures made for a political committee that are reported by another political committee, except the Board shall not order an audit pursuant to this item (iii) unless there is a willful pattern of inaccurate reporting or there is a pattern of similar inaccurate reporting involving similar contributions by the same contributor. Prior to ordering an audit, the Board shall afford the political committee due notice and an opportunity for a closed preliminary hearing. A political committee shall hire an entity qualified to perform an audit; except, a political committee shall not hire a person that has contributed to the political committee during the previous 4 years.

(c) In each calendar year, the Board shall randomly order no more than 3% of registered political committees to conduct an audit. The Board shall establish a standard, scientific method of selecting the political committees that are to be audited so that every political committee has an equal mathematical chance of being selected.

(d) Upon receipt of notification from the Board ordering an audit, a political committee shall conduct an audit of the financial records required to be maintained by the committee to ensure compliance with the contribution limitations established in Section 9-8.5 and the reporting requirements established in Section 9-3 and Section 9-10 for a period of 2 years or the period since the committee was previously ordered to conduct an audit, whichever is shorter. The entity performing the audit shall review the amount of funds and investments maintained by the political committee and ensure the financial records accurately account for any contributions and expenditures made by the political committee. A certified copy of the audit shall be delivered to the Board within 60 calendar days after receipt of notice from the Board, unless the Board grants an extension to complete the audit. A political committee ordered to conduct an audit through the random selection process shall not be required to conduct another audit for a minimum of 5 years unless the Board has reason to believe the political committee is in violation of Section 9-3, 9-8.5, or 9-10.
26

(e) The Board shall not disclose the name of any political committee ordered to conduct an audit or any documents in possession of the Board related to an audit unless, after review of the audit findings, the Board has reason to believe the political committee is in violation of Section 9-3, 9-8.5, or 9-10 and the Board imposed a fine.

(f) Failure to deliver a certified audit in a timely manner is a business offense punishable by a fine of $250 per day that the audit is late, up to a maximum of $5,000.

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).

2016 Illinois Primary – IE Scorecard

Published on

Spending by independent expenditure committees has been massive this primary and may continue in the general. In some races the spending by IE committees dwarfed the amounts raised by the candidates themselves. Below is a table of each of the IE committees (I did not include IE spending by party committees) and how much they spent on their favored candidates as of 9pm last night (3/14/16).

As the results go final we’ll try to keep this table up to date.

Party District Committee Name Supporting Amount Result
R Sen-58 Ballot Access Illinois Sharee Langenstein
$12,221.82
LOST
R Sen-50 Basic Crafts Council of Mid-Central IL PEF Sam McCann
$1,818.00
WON
D Sen-02 Chicagoans United for Economic Security PAC Omar Aquino
$27,651.72
WON
D Rep-26 Chicagoans United for Economic Security PAC Jay Travis
$254,938.92
LOST
R Rep-63 Government For The People Jeffery Lichte
$15,500.00
LOST
D Rep-05 Illinois Chamber IE Committee Ken Dunkin
$970,982.00
LOST
D Rep-26 Illinois Federation of Public Employees PAC Jay Travis
$1,500.00
LOST
R Sen-50 Illinois Federation of Public Employees PAC Sam McCann
$5,000.00
WON
R Rep-63 Illinois PAC for Education (IPACE) Jeffery Lichte
$12,500.00
LOST
D Cook-SA Illinois Safety & Justice Kim Foxx
$437,515.87
WON
D Rep-22 Illinois United for Change Jason Gonzales
$767,903.50
LOST
D Sen-02 IllinoisGO IE Angelica Alfaro
$96,736.64
LOST
D Rep-06 IllinoisGO IE Genita Robinson
$72,865.44
LOST
D Rep-26 IllinoisGO IE Christian Mitchell
$66,658.80
WON
D Rep-05 IllinoisGO IE Ken Dunkin
$1,581,924.70
LOST
D Sen-05 IllinoisGO IE Patricia Van Pelt
$92,989.60
WON
D Sen-02 INCS Action Independent Committee Angelica Alfaro
$33,705.00
LOST
R Rep-95 INCS Action Independent Committee Avery Bourne
$24,094.95
WON
D Sen-05 INCS Action Independent Committee Patricia Van Pelt
$25,121.34
WON
D Rep-06 INCS Action Independent Committee Genita Robinson
$25,125.12
LOST
D Rep-26 INCS Action Independent Committee Christian Mitchell
$33,573.00
WON
D Rep-29 INCS Action Independent Committee Thaddeus Jones
$19,945.88
WON
R Sen-26 Lake County Life PAC Dan McConchie
$1,000.00
WON
R Rep-66 Liberty Principles PAC Allen Skillicorn
$456,962.80
WON
R Rep-102 Liberty Principles PAC Brad Halbrook
$300,062.44
WON
R Rep-72 Liberty Principles PAC Brandi McGuire
$238,882.22
WON
R Sen-50 Liberty Principles PAC Bryce Benton
$3,075,404.33
LOST
D Rep-07 Liberty Principles PAC Chris Harris
$22,925.67
LOST
R Sen-26 Liberty Principles PAC Dan McConchie
$493,567.24
WON
R Rep-74 Liberty Principles PAC Mike DeSutter
$51,716.51
LOST
R Sen-58 Liberty Principles PAC Paul Schimpf
$87,036.15
WON
R Rep-110 Liberty Principles PAC Reggie Phillips
$108,777.33
WON
D Rep-02 National Association of REALTORS Fund Alex Acevedo
$42,411.70
LOST
R Rep-66 National Association of REALTORS Fund Carolyn Schofield
$34,725.00
LOST
D Rep-07 National Association of REALTORS Fund Chris Welch
$11,708.48
WON
D Rep-26 National Association of REALTORS Fund Christian Mitchell
$27,000.00
WON
D Rep-04 National Association of REALTORS Fund Cynthia Soto
$5,416.32
WON
D Rep-40 National Association of REALTORS Fund Jaime Andrade
$9,999.99
WON
R Sen-26 National Association of REALTORS Fund Martin McLaughlin
$42,922.72
LOST
D Sen-19 National Association of REALTORS Fund Michael Hastings
$25,298.62
WON
D Cook-SA Personal PAC Independent Committee Kim Foxx
$93,731.04
WON
D Sen-02 Stand for Children IL IEC Angelica Alfaro
$70,340.00
LOST