In late May Senate Bill 250 passed both chambers and will soon be sent to the Governor for signature.

The key feature of the bill is to allow for the automatic registration of eligible voters (or updating the registration for voters who have moved) after interacting with one of the five state agencies that currently participate in the "motor voter" program: the Secretary of State, Department of Aging, Department of Employment Security, Department of Human Services and the Department of Healthcare and Family Services. These new provisions are to be implemented no later than January 1, 2018. The bill allows for the State Board of Elections to allow other agencies to participate as well, for example the Department of Revenue.

After interacting with one of the participating agencies the agency will electronically send all of the relevant information to the State Board of Elections who will review the information and then send it to the local election authority who will make the final determination for properly registering the voter. The bill lays out the procedures for validating eligibility, notification when a participant is not eligible and there are explicit protections in place so that a previously registered voter may still vote a full ballot in the event that an automatic change in that voter's registration causes an error in their registration.

Here are a few of the bill's other features:

  • The State Board of Elections and participating government agencies must implement policies and procedures to protect the privacy and security of the data being transmitted between agencies.
  • The agencies are directed to adopt practices to protect the information of individuals, such as domestic violence survivors, who have order of protection or otherwise need to keep their personal information off of a publicly available voter list.
  • The State Board will submit an annual report specifying the number of various types of transmittals and registrations specified by the bill.
  • State agency and election authority websites will be updated to include information about the new registration procedures.
  • The State Board of Elections is required to hold at least one public hearing by January 1, 2017.
  • If an ineligible voter is accidentally registered automatically through no fault of their own they are not deemed to have committed a crime.


Thank you to Abe Scarr of Illinois PIRG for sharing your bill analysis with me.

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.


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 ApprovalGoodBadNeutralNot 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:

IncumbentRe-ElectSomeone NewNot 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:


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.
  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.
  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.

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


Note: I have moved this out of the blog and into a standalone page where I can use more dynamic computer code. This page can be viewed HERE

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

CommitteeQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sEst 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
CommitteeQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sEst 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
CommitteeQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sEst 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

CommitteeAlready SpentQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sCycle 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
CommitteeAlready SpentQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sCycle 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
CommitteeAlready Spent
Primary Independent Expenditure Spending (B-1's)$11,168,207.97
CommitteeAlready SpentQ1 Cash on HandQ1 InvestmentsQ2 A-1sCycle 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.

NameCOHINVA-1Est 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.



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.

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.

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.

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
State Senator - 1Antonio MuñozD24,87280.63%5,97619.37%30,848
State Senator - 2William DelgadoD30,43381.71%6,81318.29%37,246
State Senator - 3Mattie HunterD47,44581.35%10,87618.65%58,321
State Senator - 4Kimberly A. LightfordD50,89578.68%13,79421.32%64,689
State Senator - 5Patricia Van PeltD43,75081.45%9,96118.55%53,711
State Senator - 6John J. CullertonD43,00669.62%18,76330.38%61,769
State Senator - 7Heather A. SteansD44,82682.92%9,23217.08%54,058
State Senator - 8Ira I. SilversteinD34,63869.73%15,03830.27%49,676
State Senator - 9Daniel BissD48,31863.38%27,92136.62%76,239
State Senator - 10John G. MulroeD35,20265.89%18,22734.11%53,429
State Senator - 11Martin A. SandovalD28,01075.13%9,27224.87%37,282
State Senator - 12Steven M. LandekD24,93273.11%9,17026.89%34,102
State Senator - 13Kwame RaoulD50,85783.65%9,93816.35%60,795
State Senator - 14Emil Jones, IIID58,84279.74%14,94620.26%73,788
State Senator - 15Napoleon Harris, IIID48,29280.53%11,67419.47%59,966
State Senator - 16Jacqueline Y. CollinsD49,03581.11%11,41718.89%60,452
State Senator - 17Donne E. TrotterD56,81980.78%13,51619.22%70,335
State Senator - 18Bill CunninghamD48,62965.66%25,43334.34%74,062
State Senator - 19Michael E. HastingsD49,15165.74%25,61334.26%74,764
State Senator - 20Iris Y. MartinezD30,27081.68%6,79018.32%37,060
State Senator - 21Michael ConnellyR40,15052.07%36,95647.93%77,106
State Senator - 22Michael NolandD23,51763.99%13,23236.01%36,749
State Senator - 23Thomas CullertonD32,57257.50%24,07842.50%56,650
State Senator - 24Chris NyboR41,29552.25%37,73347.75%79,028
State Senator - 25Jim OberweisR34,78350.37%34,27549.63%69,058
State Senator - 26Dan DuffyR37,04648.67%39,06551.33%76,111
State Senator - 27Matt MurphyR38,50554.57%32,05745.43%70,562
State Senator - 28Laura M. MurphyD34,62761.30%21,85938.70%56,486
State Senator - 29Julie A. MorrisonD36,43557.30%27,14642.70%63,581
State Senator - 30Terry LinkD28,05863.84%15,89536.16%43,953
State Senator - 31Melinda BushD32,75258.14%23,58541.86%56,337
State Senator - 32Pamela J. AlthoffR34,53551.71%32,24848.29%66,783
State Senator - 33Karen McConnaughayR35,43249.93%35,52750.07%70,959
State Senator - 34Steve StadelmanD33,41562.82%19,77637.18%53,191
State Senator - 35Dave SyversonR39,80256.08%31,17043.92%70,972
State Senator - 36Neil AndersonR41,07062.80%24,33237.20%65,402
State Senator - 37Chuck WeaverR44,18057.13%33,14742.87%77,327
State Senator - 38Sue RezinR42,15260.66%27,34039.34%69,492
State Senator - 39Don HarmonD36,32174.13%12,67525.87%48,996
State Senator - 40Toi W. HutchinsonD42,24761.65%26,27638.35%68,523
State Senator - 41Christine RadognoR42,11953.38%36,78646.62%78,905
State Senator - 42Linda HolmesD24,53464.60%13,44535.40%37,979
State Senator - 43Pat McGuireD33,69367.03%16,56932.97%50,262
State Senator - 44William E. BradyR43,59958.66%30,72341.34%74,322
State Senator - 45Tim BivinsR42,21958.36%30,12641.64%72,345
State Senator - 46David KoehlerD37,09364.46%20,45235.54%57,545
State Senator - 47John M. SullivanD39,02460.86%25,09739.14%64,121
State Senator - 48Andy ManarD40,33963.58%23,10836.42%63,447
State Senator - 49Jennifer Bertino-TarrantD38,29261.33%24,14138.67%62,433
State Senator - 50Wm. Sam McCannR48,79059.22%33,59640.78%82,386
State Senator - 51Chapin RoseR46,08355.69%36,66144.31%82,744
State Senator - 52Scott M. BennettD35,06564.04%19,68635.96%54,751
State Senator - 53Jason A. BarickmanR39,10556.89%29,63043.11%68,735
State Senator - 54Kyle McCarterR41,31156.37%31,97543.63%73,286
State Senator - 55Dale A. RighterR38,13856.53%29,32243.47%67,460
State Senator - 56William R. HaineD38,13161.48%23,89038.52%62,021
State Senator - 57James F. Clayborne, Jr.D41,15464.85%22,30535.15%63,459
State Senator - 58David S. LuechtefeldR42,01560.34%27,61639.66%69,631
State Senator - 59Gary ForbyD39,45760.40%25,86839.60%65,325


State House Districts
State Representative - 1stDaniel J. BurkeD13,15080.47%3,19119.53%16,341
State Representative - 2ndEdward J. AcevedoD12,04580.80%2,86219.20%14,907
State Representative - 3rdLuis ArroyoD14,24480.55%3,43919.45%17,683
State Representative - 4thCynthia SotoD17,87683.19%3,61116.81%21,487
State Representative - 5thKenneth DunkinD27,71780.90%6,54319.10%34,260
State Representative - 6thSonya M. HarperD23,13881.37%5,29718.63%28,435
State Representative - 7thEmanuel Chris WelchD26,59577.53%7,70622.47%34,301
State Representative - 8thLa Shawn K. FordD25,29879.70%6,44420.30%31,742
State Representative - 9thArthur TurnerD21,88779.85%5,52320.15%27,410
State Representative - 10thPamela Reaves-HarrisD24,72482.51%5,24117.49%29,965
State Representative - 11thAnn M. WilliamsD21,90569.38%9,66630.62%31,571
State Representative - 12thSara FeigenholtzD21,58869.85%9,31930.15%30,907
State Representative - 13thGregory HarrisD23,59881.68%5,29418.32%28,892
State Representative - 14thKelly M. CassidyD22,21184.33%4,12815.67%26,339
State Representative - 15thJohn C. D'AmicoD19,48967.05%9,57832.95%29,067
State Representative - 16thLou LangD15,98872.44%6,08427.56%22,072
State Representative - 17thLaura FineD24,13964.00%13,58136.00%37,720
State Representative - 18thRobyn GabelD25,23962.90%14,88937.10%40,128
State Representative - 19thRobert MartwickD17,28470.11%7,36929.89%24,653
State Representative - 20thMichael P. McAuliffeR18,76462.41%11,30237.59%30,066
State Representative - 21stSilvana TabaresD11,93474.11%4,16925.89%16,103
State Representative - 22ndMichael J. MadiganD16,26975.72%5,21624.28%21,485
State Representative - 23rdMichael J. ZalewskiD13,29871.03%5,42428.97%18,722
State Representative - 24thElizabeth HernandezD12,26175.41%3,99924.59%16,260
State Representative - 25thBarbara Flynn CurrieD24,63488.37%3,24311.63%27,877
State Representative - 26thChristian L. MitchellD30,80981.12%7,17018.88%37,979
State Representative - 27thMonique D. DavisD33,76380.06%8,41019.94%42,173
State Representative - 28thRobert RitaD27,90380.10%6,93119.90%34,834
State Representative - 29thThaddeus JonesD27,56180.30%6,76119.70%34,322
State Representative - 30thWilliam DavisD20,87980.84%4,94719.16%25,826
State Representative - 31stMary E. FlowersD29,80479.85%7,52320.15%37,327
State Representative - 32ndAndré ThapediD22,65583.51%4,47316.49%27,128
State Representative - 33rdMarcus C. Evans, Jr.D28,60484.18%5,37415.82%33,978
State Representative - 34thElgie R. Sims, Jr.D30,88677.95%8,73922.05%39,625
State Representative - 35thFrances Ann HurleyD26,53564.52%14,59135.48%41,126
State Representative - 36thKelly M. BurkeD24,86766.29%12,64333.71%37,510
State Representative - 37thMargo McDermedR21,57454.34%18,13145.66%39,705
State Representative - 38thAl RileyD28,36377.95%8,02522.05%36,388
State Representative - 39thWill GuzzardiD16,02681.95%3,52918.05%19,555
State Representative - 40thJaime M. Andrade, Jr.D16,72581.41%3,82018.59%20,545
State Representative - 41stGrant WehrliR20,39753.64%17,62646.36%38,023
State Representative - 42ndJeanne M IvesR19,75350.54%19,33049.46%39,083
State Representative - 43rdAnna MoellerD10,98062.10%6,70037.90%17,680
State Representative - 44thFred CrespoD13,37665.10%7,17034.90%20,546
State Representative - 45thChristine WingerR17,67654.58%14,70945.42%32,385
State Representative - 46thDeb ConroyD15,18661.29%9,59038.71%24,776
State Representative - 47thPatricia R. BellockR20,10449.67%20,37550.33%40,479
State Representative - 48thPeter BreenR21,35054.97%17,49145.03%38,841
State Representative - 49thMike FortnerR17,38351.05%16,66948.95%34,052
State Representative - 50thKeith R. WheelerR17,65349.43%18,05950.57%35,712
State Representative - 51stEd SullivanR19,31047.60%21,25752.40%40,567
State Representative - 52ndDavid McSweeneyR18,68249.51%19,05050.49%37,732
State Representative - 53rdDavid HarrisR20,53855.68%16,35144.32%36,889
State Representative - 54thThomas MorrisonR18,16553.40%15,84946.60%34,014
State Representative - 55thMartin J. MoylanD17,62861.76%10,91438.24%28,542
State Representative - 56thMichelle MussmanD16,99960.83%10,94539.17%27,944
State Representative - 57thElaine NekritzD16,79361.79%10,38438.21%27,177
State Representative - 58thScott DruryD19,64253.96%16,76246.04%36,404
State Representative - 59thCarol SenteD16,74959.74%11,28840.26%28,037
State Representative - 60thRita MayfieldD12,02870.69%4,98729.31%17,015
State Representative - 61stSheri JesielR16,85257.02%12,70142.98%29,553
State Representative - 62ndSam YinglingD16,19759.28%11,12540.72%27,322
State Representative - 63rdJack D. FranksD16,42252.01%15,15347.99%31,575
State Representative - 64thBarbara WheelerR19,83151.29%18,83448.71%38,665
State Representative - 65thSteven A. AnderssonR19,84048.10%21,40951.90%41,249
State Representative - 66thMichael W. TryonR16,33352.65%14,69047.35%31,023
State Representative - 67thLitesa E. WallaceD14,34867.16%7,01532.84%21,363
State Representative - 68thJohn M. CabelloR22,66360.53%14,77539.47%37,438
State Representative - 69thJoe SosnowskiR22,12757.24%16,53042.76%38,657
State Representative - 70thRobert W. PritchardR18,11254.73%14,98345.27%33,095
State Representative - 71stMike SmiddyD22,20561.18%14,09238.82%36,297
State Representative - 72ndPatrick J. VerschooreD20,68764.52%11,37835.48%32,065
State Representative - 73rdDavid R. LeitchR21,06653.54%18,28346.46%39,349
State Representative - 74thDonald L. MoffittR24,33960.75%15,72339.25%40,062
State Representative - 75thJohn D. AnthonyR20,36757.23%15,22042.77%35,587
State Representative - 76thAndrew F SkoogD21,88064.21%12,19835.79%34,078
State Representative - 77thKathleen WillisD11,06567.70%5,27832.30%16,343
State Representative - 78thCamille Y. LillyD25,25677.35%7,39722.65%32,653
State Representative - 79thKatherine CloonenD18,10454.02%15,40845.98%33,512
State Representative - 80thAnthony DeLucaD24,79068.50%11,40031.50%36,190
State Representative - 81stRon SandackR22,08155.85%17,45644.15%39,537
State Representative - 82ndJim DurkinR20,03850.90%19,33049.10%39,368
State Representative - 83rdLinda Chapa LaViaD10,54866.96%5,20433.04%15,752
State Representative - 84thStephanie A. KifowitD14,69263.50%8,44436.50%23,136
State Representative - 85thEmily McAseyD17,09966.89%8,46433.11%25,563
State Representative - 86thLawrence Walsh, Jr.D17,25366.94%8,51933.06%25,772
State Representative - 87thTim ButlerR23,10460.38%15,15939.62%38,263
State Representative - 88thKeith P. SommerR21,05356.70%16,07643.30%37,129
State Representative - 89thBrian W. StewartR20,30156.59%15,57543.41%35,876
State Representative - 90thTom DemmerR22,32660.03%14,86439.97%37,190
State Representative - 91stMichael D. UnesR20,54263.15%11,98836.85%32,530
State Representative - 92ndJehan Gordon-BoothD17,14066.16%8,76533.84%25,905
State Representative - 93rdNorine K. HammondR19,55865.16%10,45934.84%30,017
State Representative - 94thRandy E. FreseR19,49457.06%14,67142.94%34,165
State Representative - 95thAvery BourneR20,76061.29%13,11238.71%33,872
State Representative - 96thSue SchererD21,74266.13%11,13733.87%32,879
State Representative - 97thMark BatinickR20,70858.14%14,90841.86%35,616
State Representative - 98thNatalie A. ManleyD20,57765.23%10,96634.77%31,543
State Representative - 99thSara Wojcicki JimenezR27,31960.24%18,03239.76%45,351
State Representative - 100thC.D. DavidsmeyerR21,51657.94%15,61642.06%37,132
State Representative - 101stBill MitchellR24,53855.67%19,54144.33%44,079
State Representative - 102ndAdam BrownR22,67355.59%18,11044.41%40,783
State Representative - 103rdCarol AmmonsD16,63968.28%7,72931.72%24,368
State Representative - 104thChad HaysR21,54360.91%13,82339.09%35,366
State Representative - 105thDan BradyR19,62057.13%14,72542.87%34,345
State Representative - 106thThomas M. BennettR19,75656.63%15,13343.37%34,889
State Representative - 107thJohn CavalettoR19,48358.05%14,07841.95%33,561
State Representative - 108thCharles MeierR22,26855.00%18,22245.00%40,490
State Representative - 109thDavid B. ReisR19,64753.90%16,80346.10%36,450
State Representative - 110thReginald PhillipsR19,33459.76%13,02040.24%32,354
State Representative - 111thDaniel V. BeiserD18,50162.34%11,17637.66%29,677
State Representative - 112thDwight KayR20,70260.79%13,35239.21%34,054
State Representative - 113thJay HoffmanD21,57864.87%11,68335.13%33,261
State Representative - 114thEddie Lee Jackson, Sr.D23,34364.79%12,68535.21%36,028
State Representative - 115thTerri BryantR22,50162.61%13,43537.39%35,936
State Representative - 116thJerry Costello, IID20,70158.07%14,94741.93%35,648
State Representative - 117thJohn BradleyD19,88860.91%12,76539.09%32,653
State Representative - 118thBrandon W. PhelpsD19,76059.87%13,24540.13%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).

© Illinois Electon Data