Pension amendment fails
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* For a constitutional amendment to succeed in Illinois, it has to get at least 60 percent of the votes or support from 50 percent of all the people who vote. About 5 million people voted in Illinois, so the proposed pension reform amendment failed on both fronts…
Yes 2,213,269 votes 55.9%
No 1,748,601 votes 44.1%
92% of precincts reporting
The amendment would’ve required a three-fifths super-majority in both chambers of the General Assembly before a pension increase could be approved.
* More…
Some voters seemed confused by the wording of the ballot measure Tuesday, uncertain whether a “yes” vote represented support for public employees or support for fiscal restraint.
But other voters said they felt well informed on the issue.
In Springfield, Lynn McClanahan, 42, a retail grocery manager, said she voted yes because she doesn’t believe public workers should be entitled to more benefits than other workers.
“We all work hard and we should all share the burden together,” McClanahan said.
But 67-year-old John Taylor of Chicago voted against the amendment because his wife is a retired teacher. He said he doesn’t understand why a “supermajority” should be needed to increase benefits.
* This story is from October 30th. I didn’t see any of these ads. Did you?…
State and national labor unions are cranking up the fundraising in an attempt to kill a proposed change to the Illinois Constitution.
Members of the We Are One coalition, originally formed to stop legislative efforts to overhaul the state’s massively underfunded employee retirement systems, created a special campaign committee last week and raised more than $500,000 in just a matter of days.
The money is fueling an advertising campaign aimed at convincing Illinoisans to vote “no” on the constitutional amendment question that leads off the Nov. 6 ballot.
- the old professor - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 11:42 am:
I saw a lot of web advertising, especially on political websites. Much emphasis was put on opposition from both the Tribune and the Sun-Times.
- dirt diver - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 11:45 am:
had this been drafted properly it would have passed. due to the language and specificity of the proposed amendment it had no place in the Constitution. it was drafted poorly even by pension code standards let alone in Illinois Constitution standards.
- dirt diver - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 11:49 am:
now this gives the unions more ammunition to put pressure on legislators to vote against pension reform. perhaps that was the plan all along, to provide coverer to the Democratic leaders for their failure to pass reform before the election. if I am the unions I use this to my advantage.
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 11:51 am:
No one said passing pension reform would be easy . After all, those expecting public pensions and those getting now can and do vote. Is there an easy answer? Probably not.
- G. Willickers - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 11:52 am:
You didn’t see any ads?
They were all over the e-editions of every major paper in the state + all over Facebook. The Trib had the banner ads all over the place.
Big ol’ “VOTE NO!” I also saw a few Vote No signs around the northwest burbs. Very few, but they were out there.
- dirt diver - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:07 pm:
the answer is easy make the required contribution every year. otherwise you will need to you generate additional revenues. should it come from the local employers? I don’t know. that would hold them accountable for granting pay increases moving forward. should the state restructure is finances and budget? Probably so. step 1 is to refiance certain debt service and/or rates the state is currently paying.
- State worker - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:10 pm:
Round one of the Governors grassroots efforts goes to AFSCME. Maybe he will take the vote to facebook and press “like” to vote on pension reform.
- Jechislo - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:11 pm:
I saw several ‘banners’ saying Vote NO on some of the online political websites I visit. Also, the SJR came out with an editorial the day before the election saying to Vote NO on the amendment.
The word was passed around by State employees & retirees to their friends and families to Vote NO.
It was purposefully ambiguously written. There was a hidden agenda in there somewhere; I just didn’t trust the legislature who threw this thing together. Why wasn’t there more publicized on the purpose of the Amendment and asking for the support of it? The silence regarding support for the amendment was deafening.
I voted NO. I’m glad it failed. This was a red herring. Somewhere in Madigan’s mind was an agenda and this was being used to promote that agenda. Again, the real reason for the amendment was very well hidden.
- Billy - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
Now that the election is over, let’s see if Madigan and the democrats have the guts, to take on the unions, over pension reform! I doubt it!
- Ed Observer - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:32 pm:
I voted no because we shouldn’t be the one deciding any of this. The people who need to fix it are the ones who screwed it up in the first place, which is the Illinois state legislature!
- RNUG - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 12:55 pm:
I received one of the press releases urging a no vote. Seemed they were targeting media outlets (I’m publisher / editor of a small newsletter).
- MarkO - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 1:19 pm:
Yes, there was a hidden agenda in this amendment, which is why is was so wordy and confusing. It would have opened the door for the Governor to make changes to the pensions of teachers and state workers, which is currently protected by the Illinois Constitution.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 1:21 pm:
My home email, my home mailbox in the yard and my phone were all inundated with ads on this subject.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 1:40 pm:
Aside from the door it might have opened, I always figured the “hidden” agenda was to make the public think something got done about the pension issue.
- John on the spot - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
Rich-SUAA had such an ad on your site.
- Ready To Get Out - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 2:13 pm:
I agree with you RNUG. Was thinking the same thing.
- Billy - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 3:08 pm:
As a retired teacher, but no longer a member of the Illinois Federation of Teachers Union, I was sent Emails, news letters, and received phone calls pushing that I vote no on this amendment!
- wert - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 3:54 pm:
“Vote No” was widely circulated on facebook particularly by teachers and government employees.
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 4:03 pm:
55% should wake up even the thickesd politican.
I’m sure MJM bgets the message.
- geronimo - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 4:20 pm:
Such an ambiguously worded piece of legislation that no matter which side of the issue you’re on, no one seemed to know what they’d be getting by voting yes. Slimy stuff just like everything that’s gone on for decades with the legislature and funding the pension systems.
- Melita - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 4:27 pm:
As MarkO said…it would open the doors, but not just the State employee pensions, but all Local and County Government pensions who have put away their own funds. The State just wants to have access to those funds to pay for debt they built.
- western illinois - Wednesday, Nov 7, 12 @ 5:29 pm:
There was a lot of radio the final weekend on Chicago and Peoria stations.
I agree with RNUG but it backfired. Like the GOP brand problem there just is no desire to punish public employees
- Dirty Red - Thursday, Nov 8, 12 @ 10:35 am:
It would appear as if there is a three-fifths majority available.