Illinois
What you need to know about advisory questions on Illinois ballots
Illinoisans will be asked to vote on three advisory questions in the election Nov. 5. Here is what voters should know.
Come Election Day, Illinoisans will see three questions on the statewide ballot: one on election interference, another asking about amending the state constitution to impose a 3% tax on income over $1 million and a third on requiring insurance companies to cover fertility treatments.
These questions were placed on the ballot by Senate Bill 2412, the same bill that attempted to reduce election competition in the middle of the election cycle by barring candidates who did not participate in a primary election from appearing on the 2024 ballot. That provision of the bill as applied to the 2024 election was struck down by a state appellate court in June. The Illinois Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal, so those provisions will not apply until after Nov. 5. The advisory ballot questions remained.
The statewide questions are not the only advisory questions some Illinoisans will see on their ballots. Citizens and governing bodies of municipalities, townships and counties may also place advisory questions on the ballot. For example, Barrington Township will ask voters if they support reforming public pensions by amending the state constitution.
Here are three common questions about nonbinding referenda, and what you should know before heading to the polls.
What is a nonbinding advisory question?
Illinois law allows voters or lawmakers to place questions of public policy on the ballot to be voted for or against at a statewide general election. There is no limitation to the subject matter of advisory questions. Questions can range from local to national to international issues covering public safety, the environment, foreign policy and everything in between.
The results of these ballot questions have no legal impact.
How are non-binding referendum placed on the ballot?
There are two general methods to place an advisory question on the ballot: through petition signature collections or by a resolution passed by elected leaders.
- Voters can place an advisory question on the ballot statewide by collecting the number of signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast for governor in the case of a statewide advisory question. Voters can also place an advisory question on a local ballot by collecting the number of signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast for governor in that political subdivision whether it is a municipality, township, county or school district.
- The local governing body of a municipality, township, county, or school district can place an advisory question on the ballot by passing a resolution. The Illinois General Assembly can place an advisory question on the statewide ballot by passing a law that gets signed by the governor.
Why put a non-binding advisory question on the ballot?
The main reason to place an advisory question on the ballot is to gauge public support for a particular policy proposition in a specific area – municipalities, townships, counties, school districts or statewide. It’s similar to an official poll, but the advantage of nonbinding referenda as compared to polls is the sample size is often larger, and the results measure the views of actual voters who went to the trouble to show up at the polls or to fill out and mail in their ballots. The results signal to lawmakers in a particular jurisdiction the strength of their constituents’ support or opposition to the question.
Advisory questions in Illinois are generally limited to three propositions per political subdivision. If more than three questions would qualify for ballot placement, the first three questions to be validly submitted will be placed on the ballot.
That is another reason lawmakers might place questions on the ballot: to preempt questions they’d rather not see asked. That appears to be what happened this year. A statewide advisory question proposed by the Parents Matter Coalition would have asked voters if they support requiring parental consent for the provision of non-emergency medical treatment or gender counseling of minor children. But by filling up the statewide ballot with three advisory questions before enough signatures could be gathered and submitted, Illinois lawmakers prevented it. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed SB 2412 into law three days before the deadline to file petitions for a statewide advisory question.
In addition, research on non-binding ballot initiatives in California indicate lawmakers pay attention to these results, particularly when the issue area falls under the authority of the jurisdiction where the advisory question is on the ballot. If the question is on an issue that is controversial or that the electorate is passionate about, it can also increase turnout to the polls and increase discussions of the policy proposed, making it more likely that lawmakers address the issue substantively.
As a result, while these questions may not have any legal effect, voters should take them seriously. State and local lawmakers pay attention to the results, and what is only a nonbinding question today may become public policy tomorrow. Voters should educate themselves on the consequences of these hypothetical proposals before they pull the lever for or against, lest they discover that lawmakers take them at their word and put those policies into law.
Is housing discrimination illegal even if the action wasn’t intended?
According to the Fair Housing Act, yes.
Should the federal government go after errant housing providers in those scenarios? Well, that depends on the president.
In 2013, Barack Obama codified what’s known as the “disparate impact” rule, in other words, recognizing discriminatory practices not motivated by discriminatory intent. The Biden administration reinstated the rule. Now President Donald Trump seeks to roll it back by preventing agencies from investigating housing discrimination complaints.
Still, the disparate impact remains legal — federally and locally. And Illinois ensured extra protections by codifying disparate impact into state law. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has reduced the workforce in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and is antagonistic toward fair housing.
Let’s go back to the legal origins. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. spent time in the city for the Chicago Freedom Movement, which protested housing segregation and slums. Part of that campaign sent Black people to real estate offices, and agents told them they had no listings. Soon after, the campaign sent white people to the same offices, and agents gave them listings. After King’s assassination in 1968, Congress quickly passed the Fair Housing Act. The civil rights law prohibited discrimination against people trying to rent or buy a home. Race, sex and national origin are among the protected classes.
Today that King campaign is called “testing,” and fair housing organizations continue the practice. They send two people — one pair Black and one pair white — with otherwise similar profiles to visit the same housing provider. The volunteers are trained to see how they are treated and report back if discrimination occurs. State and local fair housing centers do a variety of education and fight discrimination — to the chagrin of the Trump administration, which has also sought to gut their funding. To advance fair housing, HUD is a primary source of financing. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, along with other states, filed a lawsuit to challenge the attacks. Some contracts have been reinstated, but not every center received back money.
“A lot of our worst fears have kind of already happened. We know that it’s going to take at least a decade to rebuild the federal infrastructure to what it was before with the number of federal workers,” said Emily Coffey of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. “What we had a couple of years ago was never enough. We are still one of the most segregated cities in the country. What worries me the most is that we won’t be able to sustain what we have, and rebuilding that is so much more challenging than just weathering a storm.”
To counter the political climate, fair housing groups have formed the Illinois Housing Equity Collective, which seeks $5 million from the state for fair housing enforcement. So far philanthropy has contributed to the collective.
Michael Chavarria leads HOPE Fair Housing Center, which serves DuPage and Kane counties and parts of Northern Illinois. The mixed messaging from the federal government has prevented growth and also caused rearranging their budget while waiting on reimbursements. He doesn’t want to tap into reserves to cover a bill when the federal government promised that money.
“Just last year we held over 40 events that were targeted at training individuals, be it housing seekers, housing providers, local government. We reached about 3,500 people through our online educational campaigns. We reached almost 750,000 people across Illinois. So we really aim to prevent discrimination by making sure everyone knows their rights and responsibilities. We do not want to have to sue people,” Chavarria said.
Illinois finds itself once again on the front lines of protecting residents — see reproductive, immigration or First Amendment rights. And now must add fair housing, which Trump pushed against just last week by refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill.
The reason? He first wants Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America Act — legislation designed to create more inequity and burn democracy to the ground.
Natalie Y. Moore is a senior lecturer at Northwestern University.
A major overhaul to the Illinois justice system could be officially underway.
House Bill 3363 lays the foundation for a brand new agency, the state public defender office.
The goal is to bring more consistent legal representation for Illinois residents who can’t afford an attorney.
Joining us now to discuss the rolled-out timeline is the bill’s sponsor, State representative Dave Vella, who actually started his legal career as a public defender, before heading to Springfield.
Illinois
Illinois Democrats face backlash after blaming Trump in Chicago cross-burning case | Fox News Video
‘Outnumbered’ reacts to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson blaming President Donald Trump for a cross-burning incident in Grant Park.
Illinois Democratic leaders Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are slammed for weaponizing a Chicago cross burning incident by blaming former President Trump. Despite the suspect, Murlin Lue, admitting his motive was to protest Trump, not racism, Pritzker and Johnson doubled down. Critics, including Illinois GOP State Rep. Chris Miller, accuse them of playing politics and fostering division rather than seeking truth.
-
Cleveland, OH2 minutes agoCleveland boy, 13, dead following ATV crash in Erie County
-
Austin, TX9 minutes agoCedar Park greenlights Texas Materials HQ move with $14M incentive deal
-
Alabama12 minutes agoThe legend of Alabama’s black panthers: Why the sightings never stop
-
Alaska17 minutes agoDelmonico’s Love Letter To America: A Red, White, And Blue Baked Alaska
-
Arizona24 minutes agoWith water cuts looming in Arizona in US, locals fight data centres
-
Arkansas27 minutes agoGubernatorial challengers talk ideas as Sanders skips debate – Arkansas Times
-
California27 minutes agoCalifornia GOP delegates on LGBT issues, LA decline, Medicaid fraud | Fox News Video
-
Colorado39 minutes agoWhat’s really killing a lot of cattle in Colorado? Hint: wolves aren’t the culprit (Opinion)
