Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Proponents of a gay marriage bill said Wednesday they want to see the legislation addressed during the General Assembly’s veto session that begins next week.

However, they would not discuss specifics of how many votes they believe there are for the bill in the Illinois House after a summer-long effort to build support.

“We don’t comment publicly on roll call,” John Kohlhelpp, campaign manager for Illinois Unites for Marriage, told The State Journal-Register editorial board. “We take that from our sponsor (Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago). He says we are within striking distance.” […]

[Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago] said it is imperative that Illinois legalize gay marriage “to address the harm that’s been done since we failed to pass in the spring and the world changed when the (federal) defense of marriage act was struck down.”

* The Question: Should the sponsors bring the gay marriage bill to the House floor for a 3rd Reading vote even if they’re not sure if they have enough votes to pass it? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

survey hosting

And if the poll gets freeped like the last one on this topic, I’ll just shut it down and we’ll rely solely on commenters.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:28 am

Comments

Voted yes, I think the pros would be well served by getting some folks on record…

Comment by OneMan Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:33 am
What is “freeped”?

Comment by Just Observing Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:36 am
I don’t think proponents want to lock in no votes. This is a tough bill to change positions on. If you are a no who becomes a yes, you lose both constituencies.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:40 am
Normally having a score card can be useful. Of course it goes both ways. Your opponents get a score card also.
But I voted no mainly because of the timing. Wait until after the primary unless you are 99% sure you have the votes.

Comment by Been There Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:40 am
Yes, lets get everyone on the record and be transparent.

Comment by Jim'e' Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:41 am
—
But I voted no mainly because of the timing. Wait until after the primary unless you are 99% sure you have the votes.
—

Its a politico reality, I know, that people want to wait until after the primary. Its also so blatantly politico and cheap. Either you are for something or against it. I mean waiting means you are trying to hide some of what you will do from voters right? Which I always hate.

bring it now.

Comment by RonOglesby Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:43 am
If a vote on Gay Marriage passes during the Veto session the law does not take effect until June 1, 2014. If the GA waits to take the vote during regular session say Jan 2, it can go into effect the next day. A vote on Gay Marriage now is only for primary election purposes.

Comment by Central IL Joe Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:45 am
While it made sense in the spring to hold off while they worked on getting the votes, at some point they need to get people on record.

Call it, while there is still time for people to circulate petitions against people who go the wrong way.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:45 am
@JustObserving - “Freeped” is a reference to spamming of political polls based on the website/message board community free republic, a conservative site that got a reputation for engaging in such spamming during the 2004 election. But now “freeping” a poll is part of the lexicon such that you could accuse a liberal group of freeping just like you could a conservative group.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:49 am
Come on, the Dems don’t want to take this off the table and spoil all the fun for the GOP primary. Only way to make the thing more of a snoozefest would be to get rid of the dodgeball.

Comment by too obvious Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:51 am
Thanks @hisgirlfriday!

Comment by Just Observing Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:51 am
Call it now. If it passes, you’ve won now vs. next year. If it fails, you really haven’t lost any ground because, if the bill isn’t called, you’ll probably have to start from scratch with a new bill in January, anyway.

Comment by Anon. Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:53 am
I voted yes, because I would like to see how close the vote actually is, and where to go from here if the bill fails. I respect the perserverance of Rep. Lang and others in the MMJ bill passage, after two or more previous failures. I say lay it on the line and see where it stands.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:53 am
Call it now. Let’s get people on the record.

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 10:55 am
The bill is going to get called. Harris is under extreme pressure. He has no choice. Regardless of the outcome, the activists will pick one or two “no’s” to target in a primary. For example, D’Amico.

Comment by Gern Blanston Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:02 am
===For example, D’Amico.===

That would be an enormous waste of resources.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:03 am
Wait till spring, after the elections to have the vote, voting on it now, leaves folks with a whole month to circulate petitions to go after whomever voted the way they didnt want them to vote. Forget about the stand up and all the other crap. You want some of these folks to stay for other major votes, one bad vote could cause some great elected official to loose their seat, stupid to call it now

Comment by austinman Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:10 am
Voters should know what they’re getting in their primary elections.
But I’d rather that they wait and make sure that SSM get passed. That’s the bigger priority. It’s dishonest politics, but if you can’t get the votes to pass the bill, then you may lock No votes in so they can win their primary and make it difficult for them to change positions later.

Comment by Timmeh Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:11 am
I voted yes that I want the bill called. I think MJM has been way more cautious on this bill than pure political necessity dictates and I want folks on the record. Its also pretty sad that an Illinois GOP chairman has shown more courage on this issue than the Illinois Dem chair.

And if some socially conservative Chicago Dems want to follow James Meeks over to the GOP side over this, so be it. Better we know where everybody stands.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:12 am
@austinman - what great official is going to lose their seat over this? We can’t even know because the Dems won’t reveal who is for/against.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:14 am
No.

All the same reasons. There are Dems who can be lobbied to vote for it who are keeping conspicuously ambiguouse (see D’Amico). Why push them over the fence into a “No” vote? They’ll be way harder to convert to “Yes” after they’ve been put on record.

I’ll say again, the human rights community is lucky to have Harris despite any lobbying mistakes last spring, at the end of the day; there’s some really bad tactical advice swelling up from the grassroots. It seems like some activists are looking for villains to blame and to target (ineffectively, I strongly suspect). I can see how that would be satisfying, I get it… But it’s the wrong strategy.

Comment by ZC Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:22 am
If they have the votes to have it take effect in January, I say yes. If they don’t, then wait until next year when it can take effect immediately.

At this point, every day that there is inequality there is a quantifiable harm being done to LGBT people. The goal should be to shorten that harm as much as possible. Why would you want to make people wait until June when they’ll be able to start getting married before then?

Regardless, when Rep. Harris calls it, it will pass.

Comment by Served Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:23 am
there’s no way pols who have a primary want this voted on before the primary…my prediction is the Speaker won’t allow this to be called in the House…hasn’t the Senate already approved it?

Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:24 am
I try to be pragmatic, but this culture of fear in Springfield really gets old.

No Illinois legislator lost a seat over civil unions.

Not to mention, there are 71 Democratic state representatives, and at least 1 Republican is committed to voting for the bill. I find it very hard to believe that a little arm twisting couldn’t produce the votes.

Call the bill, and put some back into it so it passes.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:26 am
Also, to the extent that the goal is to pressure fence sitters who haven’t committed to a vote … Well, can’t you do that -anyway-, without having to post a roll call? It’s not exactly a secret which Dems are on the fence, right?

If you want to pressure D’Amico, it’s petition season: start passing. Say you want a rep who is outright in favor of gay marriage, not hedging. See if that gets you anywhere! If he turns out to be in favor this November, you can always pull your candidacy.

I just don’t see what a roll call vote adds, except to slow down the time of victory.

Comment by ZC Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:29 am
Voted “No”.

Two fold.

One, having My Party be seen in a 3-63 “No” on this issue, and it passes, looks real bad. Having a 3-63 record of “No” on this Bill and it fails … and Jim Oberweis “90%” sure he is running for US Senate spells utter disaster for My Party.

No Vote is good for the ILGOP.

Second, I voted “No” for the supporters, because Greg Harris and Speaker Madigan know what it is going to take to get this bill through. Why jeopardize that with a “vote” for the vote’s sake, when it could damage the possiblility of cobbling 60 in the near term. It would also be out of character for Harris and Madigan to move on something without thinking it through 5 steps ahead of everyone.

If this “vote” is to put everyone, all 177 on the record, and in turn help the Dems, I am sure Speaker Madigan would have done it by now. The fact that the Speaker and Harris understand the political dynamics at play here, and are thinking like the tactitions they are, and not thinking with emotion, tells me that being cautious here, plays better than a “record”.

Remember, the “Madigan Rules”… are always in play, and in play first.

Thank goodness for that, for My Party.

“No”.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:40 am
Not until they have the votes. It’s never a good idea to force those on the fence to choose while there are still several weeks to circulate petitions and several months before a primary. Forcing the issue will result in hard feelings because it unnecessarily puts undecided members in a very difficult spot. That’s not a good way to increase votes.

If you can’t find 60 votes before calling this, do you think they are going to magically appear on the day of the vote? I don’t.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:44 am
No. Don’t call the question without knowing the answer.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:47 am
I didn’t vote on this poll – decided to leave that to those more politically astute than I am. I do wonder however how close we are in Illinois to having the courts decide this question, similar to what happened in NJ.

Comment by Waldi Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 11:52 am
John D’Amico is in a “no win” situation on this issue. The remap process resulted in some of his D’Amico’s former precincts being reassigned to Greg Harris. Although his district is relatively safe, D’Amico’s base consists of many more conservative Democrats (Catholic churches and some Jewish synagogues, including Orthodox Jews) who are not necessarily enthusiastic about SSM.
I doubt it would cost him reelection, but D’Amico would experience some definite pushback and criticism from his constituents if he reversed himself and supported SSM. It is an easy vote with no repercussions for other representatives, but not in D’Amico’s district.

Comment by Observer Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:01 pm
I voted “no”. The house Dems are accurate enough with their whip counts to know where they are. If they’re a couple votes away with 3 or 4 hard leaners, it might be worth it, but otherwise I’d wait. It’s too high of stakes to not be reasonably sure.

Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:03 pm
I could not vote, but if I could, Id vote no. Getting this passed will happen. But if sponsors are not sure they have the right number of votes, having it fail can send the wrong message to current sponsors, some of who could decide “since it didn’t pass and I voted yes once, I am off on the next vote”.

Gotta have a solid roll call. And gotta have two or three or four who will, when the inevitable problem occurs (I remember a legislator we needed being off the floor in the bathroom once), step up and instead of voting Present, vote yes. This bill will, I am almost certain, reveal a legislator everyone thought was a “yes” who gets cold feet and votes P, or is in the bathroom, or heck, votes no.

Comment by Mongo Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:04 pm
@Observer. D’Amico’s district supports the bill by 66%. (I know that from reading CapFax.) He says he wants to vote his district, yet it doesn’t sound like he’s going to do it. PS., Other polls show that Jews and Catholics overwhelmingly support SSM.

Comment by Gern Blanston Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:05 pm
Wait until it will pass. The goal is to get it passed, not to satisfy people who are passionate but not politically practical. Suddenly I’m hearing an Al Brooks line from “Broadcast News.”

Comment by Earnest Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Rita Mayfield also in an interesting situation. http://newssun.suntimes.com/opinions/23197923-474/time-to-pass-illinois-marriage-equality.html

Comment by Reo Symes, M.D. Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:09 pm
I voted “no” since it is so embarrassing to call it and not get the votes.
It’s crazy that a city, like Chicago, cannot get this through in our state when it has passed in far more conservative states.

Comment by Belle Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:20 pm
===D’Amico’s district supports the bill by 66%.===

Yeah, but the rest of the poll showed that very few will make a voting decision one way or the other on this issue.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:31 pm
I didn’t vote either way - I think the GA is going to delay and let it go the lawsuit route.

Comment by PolPal56 Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 12:45 pm
I would not be surprised by such a poll, but D’Amico’s core constituency groups are in the opposed camp. These include some of his fellow parishioners and precinct captains. The remap added some of the precincts formerly represented by Joe Lyons to D’Amico’s new district.

This is not a diverse district like those represented by Cassidy or Harris. It is a bungalow belt type of neighborhood.

Comment by Observer Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 1:20 pm
I neglected to mention about the Lyons’ precincts that Lyons was strongly opposed to SSM and vocal about his opposition. Now, D’Amico has some of these areas.

Comment by Observer Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 1:22 pm
I second 47th Ward’s emotion:

=== Not until they have the votes. It’s never a good idea to force those on the fence to choose while there are still several weeks to circulate petitions and several months before a primary. Forcing the issue will result in hard feelings because it unnecessarily puts undecided members in a very difficult spot. That’s not a good way to increase votes.

If you can’t find 60 votes before calling this, do you think they are going to magically appear on the day of the vote? I don’t. ===

Comment by Linus Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Greg Harris is as good as anyone at counting votes. There are some other people leading this effort who are pretty good at what they do in Springfield, too. If they think they can’t pass it now but could in January, it should be their call. Yes, there are some people in the community who won’t like that but they haven’t been down there building support for this for years. Harris and a few others have, and I trust them to make the best decision. You want to fix a leak? You call a plumber. You want a fire put out? You call a fireman. You want to pass tough legislation? You call a person who knows how to pass legislation.

Comment by OldSmoky2 Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 1:30 pm
@Observer — all true, but doesn’t he also have some new suburban precincts he’s not that familiar with? I think he’ll find they’re more liberal on social issues than he expects. Also, Rahm is under pressure to deliver his vote.

Comment by Gern Blanston Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 1:43 pm
I voted yes, if only to give some of the hard-core SSM advocates exactly what they asked for. If the bill passes, good for them. If it fails, they can sit and stew for the next 14 months (till the January 2015 lame duck session) over their failure to heed Rep. Harris’ advice. Some lessons must be learned at the School of Hard Knocks.

Comment by cover Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:15 pm
I voted no. several reasons.

First and foremost, they don’t have 71 and never will, so passing with a simple majority now means a 7/1 effective vs. passing in January with an immediate effective. Why would any supporter want to delay implementation?

Second, it’s been said, but I think certain proponents are discounted just how hardened a member’s position will be if they vote No. They simply won’t flip, unless they become a lame duck. Don’t lock in No votes…that’s what a vote now does.

Third, political considerations. I don’t think they need to wait until after the primary, but I do think it’s prudent to wait until after petition filing.

Finally, Harris can count noses. Sure as heck their leader on the rail can count noses, that’s what he’s best at. And Lord knows MJM can count. They know where they’re at and they’re not calling it. Trust them fer chrissakes

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Call the bill for a vote.

Yes, it will create some difficult to move ‘nays’ and perhaps some will lose seats. But, with the way public opinion is changing on this issue and the current federal challenges–it will all be over in 2-5 years. Clear out those who are too timid to lead.

Comment by voter Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I voted no. It makes no tactical sense to force people on record when they can still attract primary opposition and when a supermajority is needed. I favor the bill, but I think it has almost no chance in the veto session, and the consequences of a defeat in the veto session could delay its ultimately coming into law.

Comment by jake Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:42 pm
I voted no. Resist the idiots in the community who never mastered the concept of delayed gratification. If there is a Dem who is unsure about how this will play in his district, it is probably a district where a primary challenge from the Left is not what he/she is worried about, it’s the general, where the Republican opponent will almost certainly be anti-marriage equality. The “community”’s desire to get that Dem rep “on the record” so they can go after him/her is as childish as it is likely to be ineffective. (There is a remarkable symmetry between the lack of understanding shown by the activists pushing Harris and candidate Rauner. Just because they’ve watched politics on TV doesn’t mean they know anything about how it really works.)

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:44 pm
From a partisan perspective, it helps Dems to have the issue alive during next fall’s election. If it were to pass now, it would be an old issue by Nov. ‘14, instead of an current issue that puts the Republican gubernatorial candidate on the spot.

Comment by reformer Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:47 pm
==From a partisan perspective, it helps Dems to have the issue alive during next fall’s election. If it were to pass now, it would be an old issue by Nov. ‘14, instead of an current issue that puts the Republican gubernatorial candidate on the spot.==

It doesn’t matter if it passes now or in ten years, the ILGOP will probably have a bigot or a coward heading up their ticket to get bludgeoned anyway. It’s simply a matter of “X opposes this” versus “X opposed this”

Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 2:52 pm
I voted no - if you are good at counting votes, you don’t need to a roll call vote on the bill. You already know who is a “yes” or “no”. Only those who don’t know want a roll call. Besides who wants to lock in “no” votes.

Comment by Gray Wolves Den Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 3:03 pm
D’Amico doesn’t have to worry about a Republican. The only possible threat would come in a primary. But he’s so tied in with the party establishment, it’s hard to see him losing the nomination on this single issue.

Comment by reformer Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 3:05 pm
They just need to slow down and chill. “Within striking distance” means still a few votes short. Defeat would be humiliating and a major setback. Besides, such groups will probably end up succeeding through the Il. Courts anyway, e.g. via some case like perhaps the active one which is winding its’ way through the Cook County Circuit Court System…lastly, I must add that their recent mailing trying to persuade voters to urge their local legislator to support the measure is quite weak–likening gay marriage support to backing All the members of our U.S. Military/Armed Service–the connection’s really feeble, a MAjor turn-off and even highly oFFENSive to some folks I’ve talked to…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 3:58 pm
If the votes are that uncertain at this point, months after the last attempt was aborted, there should be an announcement ASAP that the bill is not going to be called. Why fire up supporters again just to throw another wet blanket over them? Either set a new target of next year, or resign yourselves that the Illinois’ House is too conservative for this to pass and focus on the courts.

Comment by Outsider from MN Friday, Oct 18, 13 @ 4:40 pm