Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Kinzinger gets primary opposition, White to announce another bid
Next Post: Dillard pledges to cut spending on Chicago schools by $1 billion
Posted in:
* I’ve been saying all along that the fall veto session was probably not the time that a gay marriage bill would pass…
Asked if organizers have added numbers to their “yes” count, [Illinois Unites for Marriage Campaign Manager John Kohlhepp] said, “I believe that we can say that we have.”
But supporters face a tough fight. Those that have switched to the “yes” column have yet to make their stances public, leaving them room to back out. Additionally, the veto session falls before election filing deadlines, increasing chances that lawmakers fearful of primary challenges will balk at voting on controversial bills.
Rick Garcia, policy advisor for The Civil Rights Agenda, said that reality is making him cautious about forecasts for the fall.
“I’m making no predictions because after what happened in May, I’m gun shy about doing that,” Garcia said.
And Garcia suggests another challenge— organizers have yet to secure even 60 votes, he said.
Besides the petition problem, an immediate effective date would require 71 votes, and they don’t even have 60 yet.
* And the Windy City Times’ roll call is more than a little optimistic. For instance…
Dist. 20, Michael McAuliffe (R): McAuliffe voted against civil unions in 2010 and has indicated he would do the same if marriage equality were brought to a vote. “I will not support the legalization of gay marriage in Illinois,” he said in a Daily Herald candidate questionnaire. But sources indicate that McAuliffe may not be more open to a “yes” vote than others.
Dist. 41, Darlene Senger (R): Senger voted “no” on civil unions two years ago, but supporters hope that LGBT people and their allies will press her to vote yes, regardless.
Dist. 60, Rita Mayfield (D): Mayfield’s stance has frustrated LGBT organizers and sponsors of the bill, but she remains a target. She said she wants to vote “yes,” on the bill but will not. She says that her district does not support the measure and that she will vote “present” so as not to betray the will of her constituents. Mayfield’s best friend is reportedly gay.
Senger could help herself in the fall congressional campaign with a “Yes” vote, but she is facing two conservatives in the primary, so I figure a pre-primary floor vote would likely produce a “No.”
* And check out the House Democratic “targets”…
Dist. 21, Silvana Tabares (D): This journalist-turned-lawmaker is new to office. She was not endorsed by Equality Illinois last year, and sources suggest her vote has been hard to pin down.
Dist. 56, Michelle Mussman (D): Mussman stated on a Chicago Sun-Times questionnaire, “I would not support legislation permitting gay marriage. I would support legislation permitting civil unions.” But a Windy City Times reader and 56th Dist. resident said she believes Mussman supports the bill now. Mussman has not returned requests for comment.
Dist. 77, Kathleen Willis (D): Willis’ stance is not widely known, but Equality Illinois endorsed her Republican challenger Skip Saviano over her last year.
Dist. 79, Katherine Cloonen (D): The Daily Journal reported in October that Cloonen was against gay marriage.
Dist. 84, Stephanie A. Kifowit (D): Asked in Oswego Patch candidate questionnaire about same-sex marriage, Kifowit said she believes everyone should enjoy the same rights, but added, “I believe the intent behind Illinois’ recently enacted civil unions law has done just that.” She was not endorsed by Equality Illinois.
Dist. 85, Emily McAsey (D): McAsey stated in her Chicago Sun-Times candidate questionnaire that gay marriage did not appear to be a priority for voters and that her focus was on other things.
Dist. 96, Sue Scherer (D): According to the State Journal-Register, Scherer wants to give civil unions more time to “work through the system” before passing marriage.
Dist. 98, Natalie Manley (D): Manley’s views on same-sex marriage have not been widely publicized, and she dodged the question on a Patch.com candidate questionnaire. Equality Illinois did not endorse her in 2012.
Tabares is listed because the 13th Ward’s alderman will be leading her defense if she has to run in another primary. No decision had been made about what to do there the last time I checked.
On the others, it’s a district by district thing, but Madigan’s people don’t want to have to spend money that they don’t need to spend. An “OK” by the campaign shop on some of the less risky targets would go a very long way toward passing this bill.
* Related…
* Mark Brown: Legislators’ foot dragging on same-sex marriage has life and death consequences
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Kinzinger gets primary opposition, White to announce another bid
Next Post: Dillard pledges to cut spending on Chicago schools by $1 billion
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When Greg Harris and Mike Madigan tell us they have 71, or more importantly…60, then I will start listening.
This is getting worse than Heather “Vote Countula” Steans counting noses!
Do the work, use the $2 million to do what is needed, and work with Greg Harris and The Speaker…
The “noses” are harder to find when you have to call on them to vote, aren’t they?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:33 pm
I doubt it will happen until the next lame duck.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:36 pm
The Mark Brown article is very eloquent and sad. Now that gay marriage is recognized by the federal government, it puts an unnecessary burden on gay people who have to leave the state to get married just to get benefits.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:45 pm
I’m a Republican, and I find my Party’s recalcitrance on this issue to be troubling. Particularly when I encounter them along the trail and many of them tell me they are “privately” for it but just cannot support because of a primary. I get LOTS of that.
That being stated, I cannot understand the Speaker’s thinking on this. I know it’s not just up to him and I get that he doens’t often ram votes down his Members’ throats; however, looking at that list makes me want to pull my hair out. Madigan can’t give the Rita Mayfields of the world a little peace of mind? And who in Jesus’ sweet name is going to beat Sue Scherer? Solidly Dem district, and she has cover from Sen. Andy Manar really taking the tough vote. I know she had a tough primary, but she is as safe as anyone with this map. Most of the people on this list are like that, and the Speaker could get this done in a heartbeat and get this behind everybody once and for all. I just don’t get it.
While I am heaping blame, let me say that the new “organized” coalition for this cause is as dysfunctional as the last effort. Unfortunately, there are too many disparate interests more worried about who gets credit. They still do not have a plan (or I fear interest) in trying to assemble a coalition of GOP supporters. They are so used to being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrats that they either don’t know how or refuse to try and reach out to moderate GOP.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Veto ends before petitions are due, so nobody will have any assurance about being primaried until afterwards.
Comment by Elo Kiddies Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:22 pm
Rich ought to create a new category for end-of-session legislative awards: Profiles in Courage. Not many Profiles in Courage in the House. What do you call an official who knows the right thing to do but is too timid to do it?
Comment by cicero Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:26 pm
This one doesn’t really belong in the Veto Session. First, it wasn’t vetoed- which long ago used to be the standard for what was re-deliberated. Secondly, this could stand a thoughtful, public debate allowing both sides to sway one another and the public to their side. Have a first reading in January ‘14 and start the process. I realize there’s probably already been a first and second reading, so amend it a bit (or more if there’s some consensus to do so)and run it like a new bill. If a bill ever needed a “do over” it’s this one. I’ve been struggling with this issue for a while. I really do see validity on both sides of it. It’s an emotional bill. Keep the emotion, but allow cooler heads to manage this and see if a floor debate makes a difference. I guess I’m describing how any important bill should be treated.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:56 pm
===which long ago used to be the standard for what was re-deliberated===
“Long ago” is right. Way, way, way before my time. Maybe before anybody’s time. There are no rules about what should or should not be included in the so-called veto session. It’s not even in the Constitution.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 5:02 pm
@ A Guy: If All Kids can be introduced, passed, and signed in Veto Session, then equal marriage can be done in Veto Session. Sounds to me like you know you can’t win on policy, so you’re trying to win on procedure.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 5:13 pm
“She says that her district does not support the measure and that she will vote “present” so as not to betray the will of her constituents.’
Her district does support the measure, but Mayfield will vote “present” so as not to betray the will of certain black ministers.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 5:15 pm
Michelle Mussman - I wish you would grow up and stop playing the game. I really thought you were smarter than that. geez
Comment by collar observer Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 6:00 pm
…and you’re right. The Fall Session IS no time to approach this HEAVY issue for a vote–they’ll shoot it down in NO time…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 7:20 pm
I’m no fan of Darlene’s, but really there’s only Balkema running right now - that Ian dude hasn’t raised enough to require an FEC report - and Balkema has no appreciable base in the district.
That said, she is in a tough spot on this and many other issues; makes you wonder why she’s running rather than keeping her head down and seeking reelection.
Comment by DuPageExpat Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 8:16 pm
By all means, let’s honor the sanctity of the veto session that never existed.
Geez, where do you get this stuff?
I’m surprised that this measure is stalled. Lawmakers, for some reason, are way behind the public.
I thought Justice Kennedy provided ample cover when he laid down a very strong equal protection marker, not to mention his moving words as to the dignity of all families.
It pains me that Illinois is not leading the way to the day that is coming just as sure as the sun will rise in the east.
I’m more sad than angry about that, because I know the day will come.
I’m sad for the “holy men” who’ve disgraced themselves pursuing their prurient obsessions rather than spreading and living the Gospels.
And I’m sad for the lawmakers that I know want to vote for this but for some reason can’t summon the courage to do so.
Their feelings of fear today are nothing like the feelings of shame they’re going to have in the years to come.
How many times in your life do you have a chance to take a stand for freedom and dignity that has real-world meaning to your neighbors?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 8:53 pm
No worries - if the GA won’t take care if it, the courts will. The right lawsuit will come along soon enough. It’s inevitable - in all states.
Comment by Realist Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 10:41 pm
I’m a little disappointed to see Emily McAsey on that list. I didn’t know she was like that. Not gunna lie, I’m going to have a hard time looking at a few of these people the same way after the vote occurs and seeing that they don’t stand for equality.
Comment by Demz Friday, Sep 13, 13 @ 1:32 am