It is clear that we will need bipartisan support in order to take floor votes on gun safety and marriage equality this week. We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future.
The executive committee has been delayed, but we still intend to hold a hearing on marriage equality shortly.
* 12:44 pm - Subscribers knew about this sad development early this morning. From IR…
Condolences to State Senator Suzie Schmidt (R-Lake Villa), as her Springfield staff is reporting that Ms. Schmidt’s mother passed away this morning.
Senator Schmidt will not be in Springfield for today’s or tomorrow’s lame duck session. Her absence could affect the outcome of the same sex marriage bill expected to come before the Senate Thursday or Friday.
Schmidt was a “Yes” vote on gay marriage.
* 12:54 pm - I asked the SDem spokesperson if “near future” meant next week at the earliest. Her e-mailed response…
Correct
The Senate is not scheduled to return until Tuesday at the earliest. That’s the last full day of the lame duck session.
* 12:59 pm - From what I’m hearing, you can forget about both issues for the rest of the lame duck session. What a mess.
State Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston) is in Israel. State Sen. Suzi Schmidt (R-Lake Villa) is missing because of her mother’s death, and Senate Majority Leader James Clayborne (D-Belleville) had a health issue arise involving a family member, Steans said.
Those absences, coupled with heavy lobbying against the bill from the Archdiocese of Chicago, leave her short of the necessary 30 votes she would need to get her bill out of the Senate before the chamber adjourns for the weekend. […]
Robert Gilligan, director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said Catholic leaders had discussed the possibility of Cardinal Francis George making direct appeals to legislators with personal phone calls, but Gilligan said it wasn’t clear whether that had happened Thursday. […]
Gun-rights supporters estimated that the legislation banning military-styled guns and the ammunition that feeds them is perhaps three or four votes shy of the necessary 30-vote threshold to pass either one, despite a heavy lobbying push from Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Pat Quinn.
But state Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge), chief Senate sponsor of the ammunition bill, told the Chicago Sun-Times that Schoenberg’s absence, as well as the absence of state Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago), left him short of the support he needed to pass the ammunition bill on the Senate floor.
Schoenberg was never expected to be in town and Steans knew it. The decision to move forward was ill advised from the get-go if she was counting on that vote.
* Sometimes, people have a hard time finding our live session coverage post. I’m not sure why. It’s linked at the very top of the page and you can find it in the box in the upper right corner of the blog. But, hey, not everybody is Interwebtubes savvy, I suppose.
Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
HB 5440 calls for a new tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV. A recent statewide poll conducted by We Ask America confirms there is universal opposition to the cable industry’s push to place this NEW 5% tax on satellite TV service. The poll was conducted on November 14, 2012 yielding 1,288 responses with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Key findings:
* 84% of all respondents oppose a new satellite tax
* 81% of cable subscribers even oppose this concept
* Opposition is strong among both Democrats & Republicans – 83% (D) and 87% (R)
* Regional Opposition
o Chicago 81%
o Suburban Cook 77%
o Collar Counties 84%
o Downstate 89%
Cable pays rent in the form of franchise fees. Satellite companies don’t pay franchise fees for one simple reason: our technology orbits the earth. Why should satellite customers pay for a service they do not utilize?
* Illinois Review has a post about some conservative backlash to GOP Chairman Pat Brady’s efforts on behalf of the gay marriage bill…
More conservative leaders within the Illinois Republican Party are voicing their dismay with party Chairman Pat Brady’s phone calls to Republican senators urging them to vote in support of legalizing same sex marriage.
“You can put me on the record that I want Pat Brady to step down due to his actions of supporting Gay Marriage, which is against the Illinois Republican Party Platform,” McLean County GOP Chairman John Parrot told IR. “How can he be a leader when he doesn’t any longer believe in what our Party stands for? I also question his position with his Church, which is outspoken against gay marriage. He has failed his belief of his Church’s teaching and he has failed his Party.” […]
Karen Hayes, another platform committee member representing the 1st Congressional District in Worth Township, spoke out in defense of the 2012 platform:
“Pat Brady has discredited himself as the head of the Illinois Republican Party and should step down now that it is clear he does not embrace a core principle of his own party’s platform–traditional marriage. If Chairman Brady wishes to redefine marriage for his own personal reasons, he surely must understand that his desire simply cannot coexist with freedom and good public policy as ratified and affirmed by the Illinois Republican Party,” Hayes said.
As we’ve discussed before, gay marriage goes against the state party’s platform.
* The Question: Should Pat Brady resign as Illinois Republican Party Chairman? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
…Adding… Let’s confine the voting to Brady’s gay marriage stance, please. Thanks.
* A recent Public Policy Polling survey of 500 Illinois voters shows overwhelming support for the concept of requiring publicly traded corporations to disclose their state income tax payments. According to the poll, 79 percent think it’s a good idea, including 75 percent of Republicans. Also, 68 percent say corporations don’t pay enough state income taxes. Click here to see the full poll, with crosstabs.
I wasn’t hugely surprised by the results. But check out this question…
Do you think that most Illinois politicians better represent the interests of the people in their district, or more the interests of large corporations and their lobbyists?
People in their district………………………………. 13%
Large corporations/their lobbyists…………….. 70%
Represent both equally…………………………….. 5%
Not sure…………………………………………………. 12%
I probably shouldn’t be surprised by that result either, but, whoa, baby.
“These military-style weapons have no use in our cities,” said Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said he believes the assault weapons bill goes too far.
“This will ban every semi-automatic handgun that accepts a magazine,” he said.
Jay Keller, executive director of the Illinois Firearms Manufacturer’s Association, said some weapons banned by the bill “are pistols or shotguns purchased by the average homeowner or the average hunter.” He also said the ban would cause some of the nearly 60 gun manufacturers located in Illinois to move to other states.
The bill was approved, but with no support from Republicans on the committee.
Earlier, Vandermyde ridiculed how Democrats were aiming to restrict responsible gunowners from protecting themselves in the same manner as police officers or the state’s top elected officials, like Gov. Pat Quinn or Mayor Rahm Emanuel, are through their security details.
“I don’t understand why certainly the only ones who think their lives and their families, like the mayor and governor, are worthy of armed guard protection 24-7, yet now they want to dictate the terms and conditions I or my family use to protect ourselves when I have gang members living down the block in the suburbs,” Vandermyde told the panel.
In the wake of the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech, the Senate approved legislation banning ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
At the time, it garnered the support of a handful of Republicans, including state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale, who ran for governor in 2010, and Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, who ran for lieutenant governor.
Late Wednesday, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told the Chicago Sun-Times that he expects both measures to get full Senate votes on Thursday. Senate Democratic sources predicted ultimate narrow passage of the contentious legislation, but Cullerton was not prepared to publicly handicap things that way.
I don’t know yet. We didn’t do any roll calls yet,” Cullerton said when asked to assess the measures’ likelihood of passing the full Senate. “We just got them out of committee. People are working them.”
[Sen. Kwame Raoul] said he doesn’t know whether there will be enough votes in the Senate to pass the assault weapons ban. “It’s one of those lame-duck roll calls where you don’t know what is going to happen,” he said.
The assault weapons ban is a perennial issue in Springfield, pushed repeatedly by former Mayor Richard M. Daley and now by Emanuel, who plans to hold a Thursday afternoon photo opportunity at St. Sabina Church to drum up public support for the bill. It has been a tough sell in a state divided by regional politics and ideologies, where the gun-control tendencies of Chicago-area lawmakers are generally canceled out by the gun-rights stances of downstate hunters.
This time out, the question is whether the Newtown massacre, with innocent children gunned down by a shooter who killed himself, is enough to garner a few more votes from those who typically would oppose an assault weapons ban.
The Senate could vote on the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition bans on Thursday or Friday before senators are scheduled to leave town for the weekend. Should it get out of the Senate, the measure also would have to pass the House, which is scheduled to come back Sunday.
* As always, keep a close eye on our live session coverage for updates on this and other breaking stories.
An alleged arsonist accused of setting a fire that killed his girlfriend and daughter on the West Side last week threatened almost exactly the same deed just three months ago.
Nathaniel Beller filled his bathtub with gasoline and threatened to torch his 4-year-old daughter Neriyah and 9-year-old son Naciere during a tense standoff with Cicero Police on Sept. 9, but neither police nor the Cook County State’s Attorney charged him.
Quickly freed after a psychiatric evaluation, the career criminal allegedly made good on his chilling threat at his mom’s house Saturday. Chicago Police say the mentally ill 29-year-old poured an accelerant on both children and their mother, Taniya Johnson, then started a fire that claimed the lives of Neriyah and Johnson as well as his own.
The troubling new details about how authorities handled Beller’s case emerged Wednesday as his orphaned son continued to fight for his life at Stroger Hospital with burns covering 35 percent of his body.
According to a Cicero Police report, Johnson — who had been beaten by Beller — dialed 911 from her workplace on the afternoon of Sept. 9, telling police that a suicidal Beller was threatening to kill their kids.
Officers arriving at Johnson’s apartment in the 4900 block of West 14th Street heard screaming children, smelled gas and found a distraught Beller barricaded inside, claiming that his girlfriend had cheated on him.
Though Beller released the children unharmed to police during a fraught negotiation — and later claimed he had never planned to hurt them — police found a cigarette lighter and his bathtub filled with gas when they forced their way in and arrested him.
Worse still, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times that Naciere’s socks were soaked with gasoline — a sign that he had likely been placed in the tub filled with fuel.
So, let me get this straight. A 60-something stewardess and a 60-something state legislator get caught accidentally bringing guns through O’Hare security and they’re charged with felonies and a grand jury is empaneled in one case. But a guy who fills a bathtub with gasoline and threatens to torch his kids walks free without being charged by the state’s attorney?
* One of the blunders made by gay marriage proponents yesterday was choosing a Senate bill on 1st Reading as their vehicle. That meant the bill had a six-day committee posting requirement (rules required the bill to be posted for a hearing for six days before it could actually be voted on in committee). So, the Senate had to vote to set aside its own rule after the Republicans demanded a floor vote. And that led to the second blunder, a failure to count the votes…
A proposal that would allow same-sex couples to say “I do” hit a slight delay Wednesday in the Illinois Senate.
An attempt by Democrats to fast-track the Religious Freedom and Marriage Protection Act fell two votes short of the 30 needed Wednesday to send the bill to the Senate Executive Committee. Some supporting lawmakers were not present to vote Wednesday but are expected to be present today.
The measure would make Illinois the 10th state to allow same-sex marriage.
The bill’s sponsor, State Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, said she plans to bring the bill to the Senate Executive Committee at 11 a.m. today and then to the Senate floor later in the day.
“Some of the folks who would vote for (the immediate hearing) will be there tomorrow morning,” Steans said. “So we’ll do the vote (then).”
Steans said two senators who would vote in favor of the gay marriage bill were absent Wednesday. She declined to name them, but said both will be present Thursday.
Subscribers know who those two are and where the roll call stands at the moment.
While the Democrats have majorities in both Illinois chambers, their caucus members include those that represent downstate conservative districts, whose seats are needed to maintain Democrat majorities. So in both the Senate and the House, bill sponsors of controversial social issues must work to get simple majorities without Downstate Democrats. Sometimes that includes appealing to a more socially-liberal Republican or two to 1.) pass the legislation without the Downstate Dems, and 2.) make the legislation appear as having “bi-partisan support,” something that soothes moderate voters.
The civil union bill SB 1716 fit that pattern. In the Senate, downstate Democrats Gary Forby (Benton), Bill Haine (East Alton), John Sullivan (Quincy) and Chicago area social conservative Democrats Viverito and Meeks all voted “no”,” leaving 27 Democrats supporting the measure. That number alone would have been enough to pass the legislation. However, one Republican State Senator - Dan Rutherford – added the “bipartisan” vote to the Democrats’ victory.
If these four Democrats were opposed in 2010 to the more moderate-sounding “civil unions,” it’s likely they will vote “no” on same sex marriage, but their opinions may have changed over the last two years, as well.
Several 2010 Senate Democrats that voted “yes” on civil unions - Bond, Demuzio, Hendon, Emil Jones II, and Wilhelmi - and Viverito, who voted “no,” are no longer in the Senate. Democrats Emil Jones III, Pat McQuire, Steven Landek and Annazette Collins now fill their seats, along with Republicans Sam McCann and Suzie Schmidt. While all the new Democrats are likely to be “yes” votes on gay marriage, McCann will likely be a “no” vote, and reports are that Schmidt is leaning to vote “yes.” That leaves the count of the newbies similar to the 2010 civil union vote.
* But here’s a new wrinkle. The proponents have found a new vehicle bill, and it’s a House bill which is already on Second Reading. It’ll be heard in Executive Committee today at 11 o’clock. Passage, however, is not yet 100 percent assured. Subscribers know more.
A key issue to be resolved is whether Illinois should allow religious groups the option of declining to perform same-sex marriages.
That is totally, absolutely false. Never, ever have proponents wanted to force clerics to hold a religious service for gay people. In fact, any such law would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
(a-5) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any religious denomination or Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, or any minister, clergy, or officiant acting as a representative of a religious denomination or Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, to solemnize any marriage. […]
No refusal by a religious denomination or Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, or any minister, clergy, or officiant acting as a representative of a religious denomination or Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group to solemnize any marriage under this Act shall create or be the basis for any civil, administrative, or criminal penalty, claim, or cause of action
* Related…
* Gay-marriage bill suffers procedural setback; not ‘fatal blow,’ Cullerton aide says
* We’ll get into what happened with gay marriage yesterday in a little bit. But first, let’s backtrack. We talked yesterday about the “natural law” argument made by Chicago’s Cardinal George against gay marriage…
The State has no power to create something that nature itself tells us is impossible.
The Catholic church, after all, bars remarriage by divorcees, but Illinois grants marriage licenses to them. Allowing same-sex marriage does not limit the freedom of religious believers to reject it; it merely allows those who differ to practice what they believe.
* But a group of Catholic, Muslim and other religious leaders sent out a press release yesterday arguing against gay marriage, claiming that it poses a “serious danger” to society…
Marriage is the lifelong, faithful union of one man and one woman, and the natural basis of the family.
Marriage is an institution fundamental to the well-being of society because a stable, loving marriage is the ideal environment for raising children. Through marriage, children grow up knowing that they were created through an act of intimate love. Marriage is also beneficial for adults as the ideal structure for men and women to live interdependently, recognizing the equal dignity, beauty and value of one another while also relying on each other’s care and love. This is the natural order embracing the complementary physical, emotional and spiritual design of men and women.
As such, marriage in its true definition has long been respected and publicly supported in our society. As religious leaders in Illinois, we find the continued affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman essential. The ongoing attempts to alter the definition of marriage in civil law are full of serious danger, primarily by degrading the cultural understanding of marriage to an emotional bond between any two adults and by giving rise to a profound interference with the exercise of religious freedom for those persons and religious institutions whose faith and doctrine recognize the spiritual foundation of marriage as an authorized union between a man and a woman.
Some claim that as long as religious ministers are not forced to preside over same-sex “marriages” the principle of religious freedom, as secured in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment is protected. However, the notion that the exercise of religious freedom is confined to the interior of churches, synagogues, temples or mosques or what one does on Holy Days is wrong and dangerous. The freedom of religion also extends to the ministries of religious organizations and to the individual conscience. Thus, the real peril: if marriage is redefined in civil law, individuals and religious organizations – regardless of deeply held beliefs – will be compelled to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage in their lives, ministries and operations. Compulsion of this nature is a violation of personal conscience and of religious liberty.
We implore all people of good will to protect marriage and religious freedom. The far-reaching consequences of redefining marriage in civil law extend throughout society and will directly impact religious freedom. Marriage and religious freedom are ideals integral to Illinois, and our elected leaders should do all they can to maintain these important principles.
* The Tribune points out that a state law passed several years ago to prevent payroll “spiking” by school districts has meant that the districts are simply handing out the biggest end of career raises they can.
The law mandated that the pension impact of any school district pay raises above 6 percent a year for the last four years of service would have to be paid for by the local districts. So, many districts simply give out the maximum 6 percent raises, which, with compounding, equals 26 percent over four years…
Lake Forest High School District 115’s new contract with teachers, reached after a five-day walkout in September. The Tribune reported that “at least 20 teachers will receive 6 percent raises this year because they are scheduled to retire … Typically, teachers and administrators may announce their intention to retire up to four years in advance and receive an annual 6 percent salary bump, which is factored into their pension under state law …” Why four years? Because a teacher’s pension is calculated on the average of his or her four highest consecutive years of salary over the last decade of service.
That’s one of the strongest arguments in favor of shifting future pension obligations to local schools. They will be much more careful about personnel costs when they must pay those costs.
As we discuss in another editorial on this page, Illinois lawmakers have been in no rush to fix the state’s vastly underfunded pension system. One sticking point: Many Republicans oppose a Democratic proposal to shift pension costs to suburban and downstate public schools. (The Chicago public school system already has that obligation.)
Republicans say that would force schools to raise property taxes to pay for the new obligation. That assumes the only way to meet a government financial cost is to raises taxes. Come on.
This can be done by gradually phasing in the obligation, by reducing future pension obligations and by requiring employees to pay more into their own pensions. This does not require a tax increase.
Local school boards would be less likely to hand out big end-of-career pay raises if they had to pay for years and years of higher pension costs attached to those raises. The cost of government should fall on the government that incurs the cost. If Lake Forest or any other district wants to reward a teacher at the end of a career, fine. Just don’t stick somebody else with the bill.
Here’s some food for thought. Remember that payroll tax cut that Congress granted everyone two years ago and now is expiring?
If you don’t remember the bonus, that’s because here in Illinois workers never saw the money. Governor Quinn and his fellow Democrats immediately took it away from taxpayers by raising state income taxes by an equal amount.
Now, as part of the “Fiscal Cliff” compromise, payroll taxes will return to the previous rates. But, will Quinn give back the tax hike? Not likely, since the state continues to spend more than it takes in, even after the 67% state income tax hike.
Set aside for a moment the debate over whether the tax hike will be allowed to expire.
In the near term, the SGOPs are right that the two percentage point payroll tax holiday meant that Illinoisans didn’t really feel the two-point state income tax hike. But now they will.
