The Illinois General Assembly is considering SJRCA0001, a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition against multiple personal income tax rates, essentially permitting an Illinois state graduated income tax. The Senate has approved the amendment and if the House does as well it will go before the voters for ratification on the 2020 ballot.
Per Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Illinois state constitution there are two possible ways the proposed amendment could be ratified by the voters:
A proposed amendment shall become effective as the amendment provides if approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election.
That means it will either need 60% of the Yes votes or it will need a simple majority of Yes votes among all ballots cast. There will be some voters who cast a ballot but for whatever reason don't vote on this item on their ballot, those voters are included in the simple majority calculation for the latter ratification method.
For those who are working to try to ratify the amendment which of the two methods is easier? That depends, specifically it depends on the dropoff rate, the percentage of voters who cast a ballot but don't vote on this measure. If the dropoff rate is 0.00%, if every voter who takes a ballot votes on the amendment, then the denominator of both calculations is the same and you only need a simple majority of voters to ratify the amendment. However as the dropoff rate increases so does the threshold for ratification. If the dropoff rate is less than 16.667% it's easier to get a simple majority of those voting in the election than three-fifths of those voting on the question, otherwise the 60% threshold is the only path.
Here's a table showing the ratification and dropoff history for amendments going back to the 70's, based on this data source (see notes 1 & 2 below for data concerns). In the 80's and 90's it was common to have dropoff rates that were very large but that has changed in recent years. Looking back on the last three amendments to go before the voters all three had a dropoff rate lower than 16.667%.
| Cycle | Issue | Total Votes | Ballots Cast | Dropoff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Transportation Lockbox | 4,811,115 | 5,627,149 | 14.50% |
| 2014 | Victim's Bill of Rights | 3,382,466 | 3,680,417 | 8.10% |
| 2014 | Voter Discrimination | 3,310,295 | 3,680,417 | 10.06% |
| 2012 | Pension Benefits | 4,337,888 | 5,236,120 | 17.15% |
| 2010 | Governor Recall | 3,285,617 | 3,780,779 | 13.10% |
| 2008 | ConCon | 4,555,927 | 5,539,172 | 17.75% |
| 1998 | Courts Commission | 2,084,123 | 3,541,379 | 41.15% |
| 1994 | Rights After Indictment | 2,431,908 | 3,219,122 | 24.45% |
| 1994 | Effective Date of Laws | 2,144,200 | 3,219,122 | 33.39% |
| 1992 | Crime Victim's Rights | 3,680,194 | 5,164,357 | 28.74% |
| 1992 | Education | 3,300,089 | 5,164,357 | 36.10% |
| 1990 | Tax Sales | 1,390,318 | 3,420,720 | 59.36% |
| 1988 | Voting Qualifications | 3,249,002 | 4,697,192 | 30.83% |
| 1988 | Delinquent Tax Sales | 2,533,075 | 4,697,192 | 46.07% |
| 1988 | ConCon | 3,627,253 | 4,697,192 | 22.78% |
| 1986 | Bail and Habeas Corpus | 1,771,133 | 3,322,657 | 46.70% |
| 1986 | Veterans' Property Tax Exemption | 1,588,346 | 3,322,657 | 52.20% |
| 1984 | Veterans' Property Tax Exemption | 2,190,345 | 4,969,330 | 55.92% |
| 1982 | Bail | 1,629,176 | 3,856,875 | 57.76% |
| 1980 | Legislative Article (Cutback Amendment) | 3,074,549 | 4,868,623 | 36.85% |
| 1980 | Revenue Article (Delinquent Tax Sales) | 2,656,407 | 4,868,623 | 45.44% |
| 1978 | Personal Property Tax | 1,686,261 | 3,342,985 | 49.56% |
| 1978 | Veterans Organizations' Post Homes Exemption | 1,554,486 | 3,342,985 | 53.50% |
| 1974 | Governor's Amendatory Veto | 2,632,032 | 3,047,822 | 13.64% |
Oddly enough, of those three the transportation lockbox amendment probably had the most media attention, but it had a higher dropoff rate than either of those in 2014. That may be due to the fact that it was the only one of the three on the ballot in a presidential election year, where you have more low-information voters participating who may not vote all the way down the ballot.
Why have modern elections had a much lower dropoff rate than those from late last century? It's hard to say but a likely explanation has to do with changes in the way we vote. It varies county to county but many counties in the state now have touchscreen voting machines or other electronic methods and it's common for those voting systems to warn voters when they've undervoted any questions and we're seeing a significant reduction in dropoff votes now.
Here's a table of the Yes vote needed to pass the measure with a simple majority of all ballots cast at different dropoff rates:
| Dropoff | Yes/BC | Yes % |
|---|---|---|
| 0.00% | 50.01% | 50.01% |
| 1.00% | 50.01% | 50.52% |
| 2.00% | 50.01% | 51.03% |
| 3.00% | 50.01% | 51.56% |
| 4.00% | 50.01% | 52.09% |
| 5.00% | 50.01% | 52.64% |
| 6.00% | 50.01% | 53.20% |
| 7.00% | 50.01% | 53.77% |
| 8.00% | 50.01% | 54.36% |
| 9.00% | 50.01% | 54.96% |
| 10.00% | 50.01% | 55.57% |
| 11.00% | 50.01% | 56.19% |
| 12.00% | 50.01% | 56.83% |
| 13.00% | 50.01% | 57.48% |
| 14.00% | 50.01% | 58.15% |
| 15.00% | 50.01% | 58.84% |
| 16.00% | 50.01% | 59.54% |
| 16.67% | 50.01% | 60.01% |
If the dropoff rate for the upcoming vote is only 1% then it will simply need a Yes vote of 50.52% to pass, if the dropoff rate is 15% it will need a Yes vote of 58.84% to pass. It will automatically pass with a Yes vote of 60% or greater via the "three-fifths of those voting on the question" method.
Both sides are already spending on TV at a significant rate and that is before the measure has passed both houses of the General Assembly, it's likely that if the measure goes before the voters for ratification the media spending will grow even further. That kind of paid media attention will probably reduce the dropoff rate lowering the threshold needed for passage. That presents a difficult predicament for opponents, by bringing more attention to the measure, even negative attention, it will likely reduce the dropoff rate lowering the threshold needed for passage but they really don't have better options. If opponents encourage voters to skip voting on the measure then they run the risk of only Yes voters voting, which isn't an improvement.
What is clear though is that unless the Yes votes are well above 60% the outcome may not be known for certain until well after election day. It's entirely possible we have to wait until the vote totals are certified to be able to run the simple majority calculation on ballots cast.
Data Note 1: this was the data source for much of the historical data in the table above, however it has at least one error on it, probably a copy/paste mistake, the ballots cast number on the 2014 Voters Rights question is definitely wrong.
Data Note 2: for recent elections the ballots cast number is available via the State Board of Elections website in the Official Vote Total Book. However that report lists ballots cast numbers that are different in different locations. For example in the 2016 book it is listed as 5,666,118 on page ii for the purpose of calculating turnout but page vi lists it as 5,627,149. The 2014 book has the same issue, ballots cast is listed as 3,680,417 on page ii for the purpose of calculating turnout but on pages 4 and 8 it's listed as 3,667,206. Last week I emailed the State Board asking for a clarification, if I hear back from them I'll provide an update.
Over the weekend Governor Rauner's campaign committee filed an amended quarterly report for the quarter ending 6/30/2015. The most notable change in this amended report is a reduction in the transfers out from $400,000 to $322,000, a reduction of $78,000.
You may remember that in May of the first year of his administration Governor Rauner made a contribution to every Republican member of the General Assembly, both Senate and House, totaling $400,000. Here's how it was described by the AP:
Gov. Bruce Rauner has started doling out money from his campaign fund to fellow Republicans as the Illinois Legislature approaches what could be difficult votes on several big issues. Rauner divided $400,000 among every Republican member of the Illinois House and Senate, spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said Saturday. The contributions, made Monday, come with just weeks to go before the May 31 end to the spring legislative session, and with Rauner looking to his GOP allies to support his pro-business agenda in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly.
The timing and political ramifications made some of these Republican beneficiaries uncomfortable, some did not cash these checks while others held them and did not cash them right away.
"I don't want to make it look like someone is influencing me from the administration. So, it's setting in a drawer and we're going to hold it," said state Rep. David Reis, a Willow Hill Republican, speaking of the checks worth $3,000 to $10,000 that Rauner sent to each Republican member of the House and Senate. "I thought the timing was unusual. So while we are debating issues, I thought it inappropriate to accept it," added state Rep. Keith Sommer, R-Morton. Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, also said the contributions felt odd. "While we appreciate the donation, I haven't made a final decision of where, if and when, that I'll do with the check," said Brady, adding he may even give away the money Rauner gave to him.
It appears the Governor's campaign filed this amendment over the weekend to remove the contributions that were never cashed. Here are the contributions that were listed previously that are no longer listed in the latest amendment, these were likely never cashed or otherwise considered contributed under the law:
| Committee | Date | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Citizens for C.D. Davidsmeyer | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Hammond | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Committee to Elect Michael W. Tyron | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends for Avery Bourne | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends for Randy Frese | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Karen McConnaughay | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Kyle McCarter | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Michael P. McAuliffe | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Reggie Phillips | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Unes | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Committee to Elect Sheri Jesiel | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Committee to Elect Terri Bryant | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| David McSweney for State Representative | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends for John Cavaletto | 5/5/2015 | $3,000 |
| Friends for Poe | 5/5/2015 | $3,000 |
And here is the list of contributions that remain, these likely were cashed.
| Committee | Date | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Citizens for Christine Radogno | 5/5/2015 | $10,000 |
| Citizens for Durkin | 5/5/2015 | $10,000 |
| Brady for Senate | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Bill Mitchell | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Chad Hays | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Chris Nybo | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Dale A. Righter | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Joe Sosnowski | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Kay | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Leitch | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Matt Murphy | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens For Moffitt | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Pamela J Althoff | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Pritchard | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Steve Andersson | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens for Sullivan | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens to Elect Patricia R. Bellock | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Citizens to Elect Ron Sandack | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Committee to Elect Dan Duffy | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Committee to Elect Keith Wheeler | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Adam Brown | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Chapin Rose | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Dan Brady | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Jason Barickman | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Mark Batinick | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Mike Fortner | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Tim Butler | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Friends of Tom Bennett | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Team Demmer | 5/5/2015 | $8,000 |
| Anderson for Illinois | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Barbara Wheeler 64 | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Bivins | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Brian W. Stewart | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Connelly | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for John M. Cabello | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Luechtefeld | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Tom Morrison | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens to Elect Grant Wehrli | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Committee to Elect David Harris | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends of Jeanne Ives | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends of Jim Oberweis | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends of John D. Anthony | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends of Peter Breen | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Friends of Sue Rezin | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Keith Sommer Campaign Committee | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Sam McCann for Senate | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Syverson for Senate | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Vote for Margo McDermed for Illnois House | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Winger for Representative | 5/5/2015 | $4,000 |
| Citizens for Charlie Meier | 5/5/2015 | $3,000 |
| Citizens for David Reis | 5/5/2015 | $3,000 |
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).
If you've been following along with our regular Twitter updates you have likely noticed a number of B-1 filings, notice of independent expenditures. Independent expenditures are a relatively new type of uncoordinated independent spending that was defined in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This primary cycle independent expenditures are playing a larger role in Illinois elections than ever before so I thought I'd put together a primer on some of the more frequent questions.
Note: I am not an election law attorney, if you need legal advice you should consult an attorney that specializes in the subject matter.
For starters, I cribbed the Illinois Election Code and State Board rules for the sections that apply to independent expenditures. It's not that long and you can read up on all of the language that applies.
Here is some additional info in a Q & A format:
1. What's the difference between a traditional PAC and an independent expenditure committee?
Illinois election law allows for the creation of both a traditional political action committee (PAC) and an independent expenditure committee. Under Illinois law a PAC is subject to all of the contribution limits that apply to PACs. Independent expenditure committees are the allowable exception to campaign finance limits under the Citizens United Supreme Court decision:
The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.
Independent expenditure committees are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds, with certain reporting requirements. However independent expenditure committees are not allowed to give directly to other candidate committees, party committees or PACs.
5/9-8.6 (d) In the event that a political committee organized as an independent expenditure committee makes a contribution to any other political committee other than another independent expenditure committee or a ballot initiative committee, the State Board shall assess a fine equal to the amount of any contribution received in the preceding 2 years by the independent expenditure committee that exceeded the limits for a political action committee set forth in subsection (d) of Section 9-8.5
2. What makes an expenditure independent?
5/9-1.15 Independent Expenditure.
"Independent expenditure" means any payment, gift, donation, or expenditure of funds (i) by a natural person or political committee for the purpose of making electioneering communications or of expressly advocating for or against the nomination for election, election, retention, or defeat of a clearly identifiable public official or candidate or for or against any question of public policy to be submitted to the voters and (ii) that is not made in connection, consultation, or concert with or at the request or suggestion of the public official or candidate, the public official's or candidate's designated political committee or campaign, or the agent or agents of the public official, candidate, or political committee or campaign.
3. Are independent expenditures only allowed from independent expenditure committees?
No, candidate committees, party committees and PACs can also make independent expenditures and then would face the same reporting requirements as it pertains to B-1 filings. Independent expenditure committees can raise unlimited funds to spend on independent expenditures whereas candidate committees, party committees and PACs are subject to campaign finance limits.
4. How are independent expenditures reported?
Independent expenditures of $1,000 or more are disclosed on form B-1 within 5 business days, except in the 60 days preceding an election when they must be reported in 2 business days.
5/9-10. (e) A political committee that makes independent expenditures of $1,000 or more shall file a report electronically with the Board within 5 business days after making the independent expenditure, except that the report shall be filed within 2 business days after making the independent expenditure during the 60-day period before an election.
5. What is the independent expenditure threshold that removes contribution limits from an election for office?
For statewide races it is $250,000, for all other races it is $100,000.
5/9-8.5 (h-5) If a natural person or independent expenditure committee makes independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to the campaign of a particular public official or candidate in an aggregate amount of more than (i) $250,000 for statewide office or (ii) $100,000 for all other elective offices in an election cycle, as reported in a written disclosure filed under subsection (a) of Section 9-8.6 or subsection (e-5) of Section 9-10, ... all candidates for that office in that election, including the public official or candidate for whose benefit or detriment the natural person or independent expenditure committee made independent expenditures, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limits imposed by subsection (b).
Note: contribution limits can also be removed in the event of self funding at the same thresholds:
5/9-8.5 (h) Self-funding candidates. If a public official, a candidate, or the public official's or candidate's immediate family contributes or loans to the public official's or candidate's political committee or to other political committees that transfer funds to the public official's or candidate's political committee or makes independent expenditures for the benefit of the public official's or candidate's campaign during the 12 months prior to an election in an aggregate amount of more than (i) $250,000 for statewide office or (ii) $100,000 for all other elective offices, ... all candidates for that office, including the public official or candidate who filed a Notification of Self-funding, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limits imposed by subsection (b). If a public official or candidate filed a Notification of Self-Funding during an election cycle that includes a general primary election or consolidated primary election and that public official or candidate is nominated, all candidates for that office, including the nominee who filed the notification of self-funding, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limit imposed by subsection (b) for the subsequent election cycle. For the purposes of this subsection, "immediate family" means the spouse, parent, or child of a public official or candidate.
6. Are there any additional filing obligations?
Yes, when an independent expenditure committee makes an independent expenditure that results in exceeding the thresholds for removing contribution limits as outlined above that independent expenditure committee is required to notify the State Board of Elections.
5/9-10. (e-5) An independent expenditure committee that makes an independent expenditure supporting or opposing a public official or candidate that, alone or in combination with any other independent expenditure made by that independent expenditure committee supporting or opposing that public official or candidate during the election cycle, equals an aggregate value of more than (i) $250,000 for statewide office or (ii) $100,000 for all other elective offices must file a written disclosure with the State Board of Elections within 2 business days after making any expenditure that results in the independent expenditure committee exceeding the applicable threshold. The Board shall assess a civil penalty against an independent expenditure committee for failure to file the disclosure required by this subsection not to exceed (i) $500 for an initial failure to file the required disclosure and (ii) $1,000 for each subsequent failure to file the required disclosure.
7. Once the contribution limits have been removed from an election for office why don't these IE's just give their remaining funds directly to their favored candidate?
Independent expenditure committees are not permitted to make donations directly to candidate committees, party committees or PACs, they can only legally give money to other independent expenditure committees or ballot initiative committees.
5/9-8.6 (d) In the event that a political committee organized as an independent expenditure committee makes a contribution to any other political committee other than another independent expenditure committee or a ballot initiative committee, the State Board shall assess a fine equal to the amount of any contribution received in the preceding 2 years by the independent expenditure committee that exceeded the limits for a political action committee set forth in subsection (d) of Section 9-8.5
