Illinois Amendment 1 PASSES, which enshrines the right to collective bargaining in the Illinois Constitution. While the amendment did not get 60% of the amendment question vote, it met the other legal requirement to get more than 50% of total ballots cast in the election. #twillpic.twitter.com/nJ0GGuhF4g
Amendments need to meet either threshold to pass. If amendment 1 had gotten 60% + 1 yes votes it would have passed. It is looking like it will get passed based on the 50% + 1 of all votes cast though.
“A proposed amendment shall become effective as the amendment provides if approved by either (i) three-fifths of those voting on the question *OR* (ii) a majority of those voting in the election.” (emphasis and numerals added)
There’s some nuance here, but I think the simplest way to view it (in my view) is that not casting a vote on the amendment is equivalent to voting “No” on the amendment by default.
Isn’t it funny that those opposed to the amendment simultaneously said that the amendment wouldn’t grant unions any powers they don’t already have while also falsely claiming it will cost us $2,100+ a year in property taxes?
==Illinoisans hold on to your ever shrinking wallets.==
Someone lied to you and is laughing at you. All this does is guarantee every worker- including you- the right to collectively bargain. You could even use that right to ensure yourself a raise. But it’s going to have no effect on your taxes, because public sector workers *Already have* a right to collectively bargain.
Why are they not counting the 300,000 ballots cast where the vote on the amendment was left blank? Those are still ballots cast, even if they don’t include a vote on this initiative. It should be take up against 1.8 million, not 1.5 million.
==Why are they not counting the 300,000 ballots cast where the vote on the amendment was left blank?
They are. There were 3,9895,089 total votes cast, including 1.8 million no/not cast. It received 2.17 million yes votes which is 54.5%, as shown in the lower left of the graphic above.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:29 am:
Read that the remaining ballots to count (mail-in) are overwhelmingly from pro-union areas like Chicago. According to one article, it’s not being called yet because of the nearly-impossible chance that the mail-in’s will mostly/all be blank or no on the question votes.
Kind of amazing that lack of drop-off in votes cast compared to most other amendments in the past.
I think this is the first time that an amendment has surpassed the 50% of ballots cast without also getting the 60% threshold on votes on the question.
This amendment passing is another stunning failure for the far right. If not for the extreme blitz of ads and emails from IPI and the like, this probably would have failed. I know many people who voted in favor only because IPI was so strongly against it.
This is such a great thing. I am so so happy for my Afscme siblings who work for counties and municipalities. Now they can’t have their right to collectively bargain taken away by any unit of government. This almost happened in Madison County last year.
I just love my state. Illinois for life.
I suppose it never occurred to you that allowing employees to negotiate with employers can be a win-win. It appears as if you believe employers have no obligations to their employees, even though employees produce profits.
===Getting 2 chances to pass a thing like this seems shady===
It’s been in the constitution since the constitution was drafted. Some of us argued strongly for a constitutional convention. Only a tiny fraction agreed with that viewpoint. So, the whole thing easily survived a popular referendum.
So many news outlets were so focused on the 60% passing requirement, and completely failed or downplayed the other way to pass an amendment. And for all those crying shady/foul play… these methods of passing amendments has been in the state constitution since it was drafted. There’s two ways to pass an amendment because the number of people voting vs. the number of people who vote on the specific question is never the same. You are not required to fill out your entire ballot or vote on every position. And many people don’t. Which is where “50% of ALL BALLOTS CAST” comes into play.
*edit to comment above* “failed to mention or downplayed the other way to pass an amendment”
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:29 am:
It’s not about unions, it’s about workers’ rights. /s
The messaging was excellent in the ads. There were zero TV ads against this CA but plenty of favorable ads (shown many times). The “no” campaign was lousy from that perspective, the opposite of the anti-Fair Tax campaign.
Juice,
I wonder if the machines made the drop off less likely? I voted early (so by machine) and the amendment was offered early in the voting process (either just before or just after the statewides). So less likely to be skipped due to voting fatigue.
This isn’t the end of the this subject. Given the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution : is this fully consistent with the language in the Wagner Act, Taft-Hartley, and the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution? Given the new spirit of the recent U.S. Supreme Court?
= Do we think this will have any effect on the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office =
Good question. The reason that assistant state’s attorneys were not permitted to form a union is that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that they were managerial employees as defined by the Illinois Pubic Labor Relations Act, and therefore were not subject to the collective-bargaining provisions of the Act. (There are a slew of exclusions under the Act.)
The WRA simply uses the word “employees”, so I expect the issue of whether ASAs are “employees” or “management” is likely to crop again.
(I would note that this argument has also prevented assistant appellate defenders and assistant public defenders in counties other than Cook from unionizing. (”other than Cook” because at the time of the ruling they had a union already and nobody was about to move to de-certify it.)
=== Maybe we can get fireworks enshrined next time. ===
IPI’s response to this latest irresponsible requirement. Such an amendment would raise property taxes on the beleaguered taxpayers. How you say? By forcing local government to hire more firefighters to put out fires caused by the increased use of fireworks. More police would be required to respond to the deluge of noise complaints. IPI say vote no on fireworks, the property tax raiser.
Kayak, I don’t think life in Berwyn would change whether they were illegal or not. The peace officers don’t bother to enforce unless there is a specific noise complaint and then they show up with lights and sirens blaring to give fair warning to the miscreants to skedaddle. Fortunately the community seems to have some handle on how to use them so there haven’t been (to my knowledge) any fires yet. I think the plan of shoot fireworks first, then drink, is working.
- Hot Taeks - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:05 am:
I’m confused, when do amendments have to get only 50%+1 v. 60% +1 in order to pass?
- Trap - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:09 am:
Illinoisans hold on to your ever shrinking wallets.
- Aaron B - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:11 am:
@Hot Taeks
Amendments need to meet either threshold to pass. If amendment 1 had gotten 60% + 1 yes votes it would have passed. It is looking like it will get passed based on the 50% + 1 of all votes cast though.
- GC - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:13 am:
“A proposed amendment shall become effective as the amendment provides if approved by either (i) three-fifths of those voting on the question *OR* (ii) a majority of those voting in the election.” (emphasis and numerals added)
There’s some nuance here, but I think the simplest way to view it (in my view) is that not casting a vote on the amendment is equivalent to voting “No” on the amendment by default.
- Techie - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:14 am:
@Trap
Isn’t it funny that those opposed to the amendment simultaneously said that the amendment wouldn’t grant unions any powers they don’t already have while also falsely claiming it will cost us $2,100+ a year in property taxes?
Scare tactics are a thing.
- Arsenal - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:15 am:
==Illinoisans hold on to your ever shrinking wallets.==
Someone lied to you and is laughing at you. All this does is guarantee every worker- including you- the right to collectively bargain. You could even use that right to ensure yourself a raise. But it’s going to have no effect on your taxes, because public sector workers *Already have* a right to collectively bargain.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:16 am:
- Trap -
LOL, it won.
Get over it. The argument lost, so voters decided they wanted it.
“Get over it”… as was said after the Fair Tax failed…
Either voting matters, or it “doesn’t”
Voters spoke.
- JustAThought - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:20 am:
Why are they not counting the 300,000 ballots cast where the vote on the amendment was left blank? Those are still ballots cast, even if they don’t include a vote on this initiative. It should be take up against 1.8 million, not 1.5 million.
- Cool Papa Bell - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:21 am:
I voted no.
Time to move on but not to move out.
- Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:21 am:
JustAThought:
They did. Look for carefully at the numbers included on the tweet.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:22 am:
===Why are they not counting the 300,000 ballots cast where the vote on the amendment was left blank?===
He did. Try reading.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:22 am:
=== It should be take up against 1.8 million, not 1.5 million.===
Explain the parameters to passage first.
Thanks.
- Anonymusings - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:26 am:
==Why are they not counting the 300,000 ballots cast where the vote on the amendment was left blank?
They are. There were 3,9895,089 total votes cast, including 1.8 million no/not cast. It received 2.17 million yes votes which is 54.5%, as shown in the lower left of the graphic above.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:29 am:
Read that the remaining ballots to count (mail-in) are overwhelmingly from pro-union areas like Chicago. According to one article, it’s not being called yet because of the nearly-impossible chance that the mail-in’s will mostly/all be blank or no on the question votes.
WGN called it. Ironic.
https://wgntv.com/news/workers-wages-on-the-ballot-heres-what-happened/amp/
- CT Guy - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:30 am:
While voting I ran into a few people who had trouble looking for this item to Vote in favor of it.
Even though it was specifically shaded differently to highlight it, it made them think it was just part of the instructions and they looked past it.
- Norseman - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:35 am:
It looks like IPI’s property tax bogeyman campaign failed. [Crying crocodile tears.]
Now to see what the next issue is that they will contort to become a “property tax” raiser.
- Juice - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:41 am:
Kind of amazing that lack of drop-off in votes cast compared to most other amendments in the past.
I think this is the first time that an amendment has surpassed the 50% of ballots cast without also getting the 60% threshold on votes on the question.
Kudos to the organizers.
- Vader - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:41 am:
This amendment passing is another stunning failure for the far right. If not for the extreme blitz of ads and emails from IPI and the like, this probably would have failed. I know many people who voted in favor only because IPI was so strongly against it.
- AlfondoGonz - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 10:56 am:
Do we think this will have any effect on the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, which was infamously barred from unionizing some 30 years ago?
- Honeybear - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:01 am:
This is such a great thing. I am so so happy for my Afscme siblings who work for counties and municipalities. Now they can’t have their right to collectively bargain taken away by any unit of government. This almost happened in Madison County last year.
I just love my state. Illinois for life.
- Etown - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:10 am:
Getting 2 chances to pass a thing like this seems shady especially since it fell well short of 60% threshold
- Demoralized - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:17 am:
Heads must be exploding at the IPI.
- H-W - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:19 am:
@Trap
I suppose it never occurred to you that allowing employees to negotiate with employers can be a win-win. It appears as if you believe employers have no obligations to their employees, even though employees produce profits.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:21 am:
===Getting 2 chances to pass a thing like this seems shady===
It’s been in the constitution since the constitution was drafted. Some of us argued strongly for a constitutional convention. Only a tiny fraction agreed with that viewpoint. So, the whole thing easily survived a popular referendum.
- CH - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:28 am:
So many news outlets were so focused on the 60% passing requirement, and completely failed or downplayed the other way to pass an amendment. And for all those crying shady/foul play… these methods of passing amendments has been in the state constitution since it was drafted. There’s two ways to pass an amendment because the number of people voting vs. the number of people who vote on the specific question is never the same. You are not required to fill out your entire ballot or vote on every position. And many people don’t. Which is where “50% of ALL BALLOTS CAST” comes into play.
- CH - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:29 am:
*edit to comment above* “failed to mention or downplayed the other way to pass an amendment”
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:29 am:
It’s not about unions, it’s about workers’ rights. /s
The messaging was excellent in the ads. There were zero TV ads against this CA but plenty of favorable ads (shown many times). The “no” campaign was lousy from that perspective, the opposite of the anti-Fair Tax campaign.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:33 am:
Juice,
I wonder if the machines made the drop off less likely? I voted early (so by machine) and the amendment was offered early in the voting process (either just before or just after the statewides). So less likely to be skipped due to voting fatigue.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 11:43 am:
GOP Sangamon County voted for Amendment 1. Hmmm … possibly they worked for a Right to Work apostle?
- Steve - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 12:03 pm:
This isn’t the end of the this subject. Given the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution : is this fully consistent with the language in the Wagner Act, Taft-Hartley, and the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution? Given the new spirit of the recent U.S. Supreme Court?
- Cornfield Cowboy - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 12:22 pm:
Isn’t con-con always on the ballot every 10 years, was just on 20’s ballot???
- JoanP - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 12:38 pm:
= Do we think this will have any effect on the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office =
Good question. The reason that assistant state’s attorneys were not permitted to form a union is that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that they were managerial employees as defined by the Illinois Pubic Labor Relations Act, and therefore were not subject to the collective-bargaining provisions of the Act. (There are a slew of exclusions under the Act.)
The WRA simply uses the word “employees”, so I expect the issue of whether ASAs are “employees” or “management” is likely to crop again.
(I would note that this argument has also prevented assistant appellate defenders and assistant public defenders in counties other than Cook from unionizing. (”other than Cook” because at the time of the ruling they had a union already and nobody was about to move to de-certify it.)
- Kayak - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 12:53 pm:
I voted yes and I am happy that it passed. Maybe we can get fireworks enshrined next time.
- Norseman - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 1:07 pm:
=== Maybe we can get fireworks enshrined next time. ===
IPI’s response to this latest irresponsible requirement. Such an amendment would raise property taxes on the beleaguered taxpayers. How you say? By forcing local government to hire more firefighters to put out fires caused by the increased use of fireworks. More police would be required to respond to the deluge of noise complaints. IPI say vote no on fireworks, the property tax raiser.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 1:13 pm:
=== Maybe we can get fireworks enshrined next time.===
Fireworks are illegal in Illinois.
You get those petitions signed, lemme know how that works out for you.
Meanwhile, meanwhile the question about a Con-Con …and even IPI folks should have wanted one
- cermak_rd - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 2:10 pm:
Kayak, I don’t think life in Berwyn would change whether they were illegal or not. The peace officers don’t bother to enforce unless there is a specific noise complaint and then they show up with lights and sirens blaring to give fair warning to the miscreants to skedaddle. Fortunately the community seems to have some handle on how to use them so there haven’t been (to my knowledge) any fires yet. I think the plan of shoot fireworks first, then drink, is working.
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 4:26 pm:
I think it was a mistake for the GOP candiTes to be so closely aligned to the opposition to amendment one.
- Norseman - Monday, Nov 14, 22 @ 5:03 pm:
Elon, it was a joke.